Wanted: New Church Home

Some of us at one point or another have to make a crucial decision in our lives that impacts our life and the lives of our families as well. Face it , we are in the Bible belt here in Texas and you can stumble on any street and fall into a "church", but is it a REAL house of Worship?, or does it just have the "label" so many are comfortable with?


Here is a list of things to consider when looking for a new church home.

Is This Church Right for Me?

What are the biblical criteria you need to be aware of when considering a new church? Let’s compare the search for a new church to that of a new home. When looking for a house, people typically ask, How much does it cost? Is it large enough to meet our family’s needs? How well is it built? What kind of neighborhood is it in? Does it have a warm and homey atmosphere? Is it conducive to hospitality? Similarly, before choosing a church home you need to consider its foundation, structure, function, and environment.

Before we consider those important components, please realize that no church is going to be perfect. Some local churches may be in seemingly excellent condition, while others are obvious fixer-uppers! Many fall somewhere in between. You must seek God’s will and be led by the Holy Spirit in selecting a church. Also you need to evaluate how you and your family can contribute to that ministry so it is not just another church, but truly a church home.

Investigating Its Foundation

Jesus said that the wise man builds his house upon rock and the foolish man builds his house upon sand (Matt. 7:24-27). When storms come, the stability of the foundation determines both the direction and durability of the structure. Whether you’re searching for a home to live in or a church to worship in, its foundation is crucial.

There are four main components that make up the foundation of a strong local church:

A Proper View of Scripture. When investigating a potential church home, pay particular attention to how it views the Bible. Does it hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures? Does it believe the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20- 21)?

An Emphasis on Bible Teaching and Preaching. Observe what kind of preaching is done. Is it primarily expository, topical, or evangelistic in nature? Is the main diet repetitive salvation messages each week, or are believers being fed from the Word (Acts 20:27; 1 Tim. 4:13-16; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)? There should be a strong commitment to high-quality Bible teaching.

Doctrinal Soundness. Just as you would inspect the soundness of a house’s foundation, so you should investigate the doctrinal stance of the churches you visit. Where do they stand on such crucial issues of the Christian faith as the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ; the depravity of mankind; the work of Christ on the cross; His death, burial, and bodily resurrection; salvation by grace through faith alone; the second coming of Christ; and the ordinances of baptism and Communion?

Doctrinal Practice. Observe whether the church practices the doctrines it claims to believe and teach. As James said to the church at large, “Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves” (James 1:22; cf. Luke 6:46; John 13:17).

Examining Its Structure

Once you are satisfied with the foundational aspects of the church, you need to look at its structural components. Recently I walked through a new house under construction. I noticed posts that weren’t plumb, seams that didn’t meet properly, and beams that were crooked and uneven. Those were glaring structural defects in a home advertised as being built by “the last of the true craftsmen”!

The structural components of a local church provide not only its strength, but also dictate the character and direction of its ministry. Those components include:

Church Government. Find out if the church’s leaders function according to New Testament principles (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:17-20; Titus 1:4-9; Heb. 13:7, 17). Do they understand the centrality of Christ as head of the church and His desire to rule His church through a plurality of godly men (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col.1:18; 1 Cor. 11:3)?

Evidence of Order. The church’s ministry, including its services, teaching, and administration, should have an obvious sense of order. Some church services exhibit as much lack of planning as do homes with poorly thought-out floor plans. Some churches handle the Lord’s resources and work in such a haphazard way that they bring shame to the name of Christ. As Paul said in speaking of the church, “Let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14:40).

Functional Goals and Objectives. As you investigate a new church, find out if the leadership has set any goals. Has the church planned for future progress and direction? Does it have in mind particular methods of reaching those goals? Like Paul, we as a church need “to run in such a way, as not without aim” (1 Cor. 9:26).

The Size. When purchasing a home, some people prefer the warmth and quaintness of a small home in a quiet rural setting. Others prefer living in a larger structure in an urban area. The same is true when considering the size of a church. Some Christians love being involved in a large urban ministry with hundreds or even thousands of people. Others feel lost in the vastness of such a ministry and fare much better in a smaller congregation. Again, finding your niche in the Body of Christ requires the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life.

Seeing How It Functions

When satisfied that the foundation and structure are what they should be, the wise home buyer will then look at how functional the house is. Does it fulfill the purpose for which it was designed? Does it meet the needs of the family?

As you observe how a church functions, look for an emphasis on worshipping God. See if the leadership stresses the importance of honoring and glorifying God in all things (1 Cor. 10:31; Col.3:17). Also observe the involvement of the individual members. Do they exercise their spiritual gifts among the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:3-8; Eph. 4:11-13; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), or do they seem to expect the pastor to do everything?

Does the church emphasize evangelism as one of its primary functions? Are home and foreign missions an important part of its ministry (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8)? What about discipleship? Do you see church members and leaders seeking to make disciples and reproduce themselves in the lives of others (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 2:3-7; Matt. 28:19-20)?

A strong local church is marked by love. Do the members seem to genuinely care for one another? Do they minister to each other’s needs? As you become acquainted with the church, do you sense that the members are loving one another as Christ commanded (John 13:34-35)? Notice if friendships form easily (cf. Heb. 10:24-25; Phil. 2:1-4; Eph. 4:1-3).

The leadership of the church you choose should be committed to teaching and supporting God’s design for the family (Eph. 5:22–6:4; Col. 3:18-21; Titus 2:1-8; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Does the church schedule contribute to or take away from the strength of the family?

Checking Its Environment

If you have ever gone house hunting, you know what it’s like to walk through and sense the atmosphere of the place. It can feel cold and gloomy or warm and inviting. It can have a homey feel or it can be impersonal–almost like a museum.

Doubtless you have had the same experience when attending various churches. Certain observable factors contribute to the overall atmosphere of a local church. Those environmental components are usually manifested in attitudes.

A High View of God. Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” It should be obvious that the people, from the leadership down, focus on the glory and majesty of God. Do they take God seriously and exalt Him in all they do? Their view of God will affect every aspect of their lives and ministry. Ask yourself if God is the focus of their worship or if they’re preoccupied with each other or themselves.

The Presence of a Sincere Faith. Is it obvious to you that the church lives and operates by faith? Are the people willing to trust God (Heb. 11:1, 6; Eph. 3:20; 2 Cor. 5:7; 1 Thess. 5:24)?

Spirit of Sacrifice. Can you see that the church members are willing to sacrifice themselves and their possessions to advance God’s kingdom (Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 8:3; Matt. 6:33)? Do you sense they would sacrifice themselves for one another (Phil. 2:3-4; John 15:13; Eph. 5:1-2)?

Proper Attitudes Toward the Pastor and Other Leaders. As you talk with the people, be sensitive to how they regard their leaders. Do they appreciate and esteem the pastor and other leaders “very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:13)? Are they fully behind them, giving their spiritual, emotional, and material support (1 Tim. 5:17-18; Heb. 13:7, 17)?

Spirit of Unity. This is often the most obvious attitude radiating from a local congregation. An outsider is usually able to sense very quickly whether a church is unified in its ministry. That has a great effect on its testimony to the community and reflects on the name of our Lord (John 13:34-35; 1 Cor. 1:10-17; 3:1-9; Eph. 4:1-6; Phil. 2:1-5; 4:1-5).

Am I Right For This Church?

We have looked at the foundational, structural, functional, and environmental components of a vital, healthy local church. Now look at yourself and ask, Are there opportunities here for me to serve and exercise my spiritual gifts? Does this local body have a need that by God’s enabling I can meet? Am I willing to get what the church can do for me, but also what I can do for the Lord as I serve Him in this church? Am I willing to give of my time, money, energy, and prayers to contribute to the success of this church (Mark 12:30; Rom. 12:1)?

A house is not a home until all the members of a family contribute to its success. The same is true of a church home. Only when each member in the family of God exercises his or her God-given gifts will God’s children feel at home in His church. The decision you make about what church to attend will greatly affect your spiritual life and the lives of your children. In fact, the decisions you make now will affect your descendants and the generations to come. That’s a sobering reality.

Remember that no church will ever perfectly fulfill all these criteria. There is no perfect church. Also, remember that every church is going to have its own special blend of the characteristics we have examined. The key is to find a church that has them in proper balance, not overemphasizing some or de-emphasizing others. A balanced ministry is a Spirit-controlled ministry. If you find a church that possesses most but not all of the characteristics we’ve mentioned, don’t immediately disregard it. Consider whether God wants to use you to help improve that local body as you exercise your own particular spiritual gifts.

Choosing a church home is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make–one that reaches into eternity. May each of us spend at least as much time and effort making that decision as we do deciding on our earthly dwelling.

~JM

Job 13:23

"How many are mine iniquities and sins?"—Job 13:23.

HAVE you ever really weighed and considered how great the sin of God's people is? Think how heinous is your own transgression, and you will find that not only does a sin here and there tower up like an alp, but that your iniquities are heaped upon each other, as in the old fable of the giants who piled Pelian upon Ossa, mountain upon mountain. What an aggregate of sin there is in the life of one of the most sanctified of God's children! Attempt to multiply this, the sin of one only, by the multitude of the redeemed, "a number which no man can number," and you will have some conception of the great mass of the guilt of the people for whom Jesus shed His blood. But we arrive at a more adequate idea of the magnitude of sin by the greatness of the remedy provided. It is the blood of Jesus Christ, God's only and well-beloved Son. God's Son! Angels cast their crowns before Him! All the choral symphonies of heaven surround His glorious throne. "God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." And yet He takes upon Himself the form of a servant, and is scourged and pierced, bruised and torn, and at last slain; since nothing but the blood of the incarnate Son of God could make atonement for our offences. No human mind can adequately estimate the infinite value of the divine sacrifice, for great as is the sin of God's people, the atonement which takes it away is immeasurably greater. Therefore, the believer, even when sin rolls like a black flood, and the remembrance of the past is bitter, can yet stand before the blazing throne of the great and holy God, and cry, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that hath risen again." While the recollection of his sin fills him with shame and sorrow, he at the same time makes it a foil to show the brightness of mercy—guilt is the dark night in which the fair star of divine love shines with serene splendour.

Home, Private, or Public School?

Many Christian families struggle in determining what’s best for their children’s education. Here are just a few thoughts, by way of introduction, to this important issue.

The greatest pitfalls of public education are the humanistic philosophies taught at the expense of biblical truth, ungodly teachers and classmates seeking to influence our children, and the absence of spiritual or moral considerations within the educational process. However, those problems aren’t isolated to the public-school setting (as evidenced by just a few minutes of television-watching).

Within most of our neighborhoods—and even in some Christian schools—there are influences that tear at our desired spiritual standards. Christian schools, for instance, can sometimes be hotbeds for hypocrisy (when everyone claims to be “Christian”) and legalism (when an overemphasis is put on external moral standards).

Also, some Christian schools lack the quality and depth of education that public schools can offer—and that can apply even to the basics. Of course, that’s not always the case, even when the neighboring public school looks bigger and more impressive than the local Christian school. Many times the students of Christian schools have significantly higher scores in nationally standardized tests than do their counterparts in public schools. To make an accurate evaluation you’ll need to make inquiries about the curricula, programs, teacher training, and comparative test results of each school.

Is it wrong to put your children in a public school? Not necessarily. Is it right to put your children only in Christian schools—or home-school them? Not necessarily. It is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, using biblical principles and prayerful wisdom to make a God-honoring choice. It involves knowing the Word, knowing the schools in your area, and knowing each of your children.

Remember that the ultimate responsibility for the proper education of your children rests upon you—the parents—not the school or the church (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Ephesians 6:4). Those two institutions are vital to a child’s overall development, but standards, convictions, and moral strength should be implemented at home. Not everything is necessarily good or high quality because it is called “Christian,” nor is everything bad just because it is under the umbrella of public education. Parents need to be especially wise and discerning in that important area.

If high-quality Christian education is available and affordable, that’s usually preferable. However, carefully evaluate all the factors and options of your situation. Seek God’s will earnestly (Ephesians 5:17) and couple that with strong, biblical parenting (Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:20-21).

For an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of public, private, and home-schooling please see the extended notes by Carey Hardy on this topic. (If you decide to comment, please read Carey’s notes first.) We also recommend the helpful series on home-schooling by Tim Challies (Part 1 and Part 2).

What Does It Mean "to Me"?

That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Early in my ministry, I made a conscious commitment to biblical preaching. My first priority has always been to answer the question, “What does this passage mean?” After I’ve explained as clearly and accurately as possible the meaning of God’s Word, then I exhort people to obey and apply it to their own lives.

The Bible speaks for itself to the human heart; it is not my role as a preacher to try to tailor the message. That’s why I preach my way through entire books of the Bible, dealing carefully with each verse and phrase–even though that occasionally means spending time in passages that don’t readily lend themselves to anecdotal or motivational messages.

I am grateful to the Lord for the way He has used this expository approach in our church and in the lives of our radio listeners.

But now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

Wait a minute. Is that wise counsel? No it is not.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

No discipline is more sorely needed in the contemporary church than expositional biblical teaching. Too many have bought the lie that doctrine is something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily life.

It is in vogue to substitute psychology and spoon-fed application for doctrinal substance, while demeaning theological and expositional ministry.

But the pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principles. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word.

There are only three options: We teach truth, error, or nothing at all.

Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.

Romans provides the clearest biblical example. Paul didn’t give any exhortation until he had given eleven chapters of theology.

He scaled incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

Then in chapter 12, he turned immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility to the truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2. There, building on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship–giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.

Paul followed the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message came first. Upon that foundation he built the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Rom. 12:1; Gal. 5:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 2:1) or then (Col. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:1).

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it.

Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory.

The nucleus of all that is truly practical is sown up in the teaching of Scripture. We don’t make the Bible relevant; it is inherently so, simply because it is God’s Word. And after all, how can anything God says be irrelevant?

(By John MacArthur)

Gimme That Showtime Religion

Can the church fight apathy and materialism by feeding people's appetite for entertainment? Evidently many in the church believe the answer is yes, as church after church jumps on the show-business bandwagon. It is a troubling trend that is luring many otherwise orthodox churches away from biblical priorities.

Church buildings are being constructed like theatres. Instead of a pulpit, the focus is a stage. Some feature massive platforms that revolve or raise and lower, with colored lights and huge sound boards. Shepherds are giving way to media specialists, programming consultants, stage directors, special effects experts, and choreographers.

The idea is to give the audience what they want. Tailor the church service to whatever will draw a crowd. As a result, pastors are more like politicians than shepherds, looking to appeal to the public rather than leading and building the flock God gave them. The congregation is served a slick, professional show, where drama, pop music, and maybe a soft-sell sermon constitute the worship service. But the emphasis isn't on worship, it's on entertainment.

Underlying this trend is the notion that the church must sell the gospel to unbelievers. Churches thus compete for the consumer on the same level as the latest TV reality show or a major motion picture. More and more churches are relying on marketing strategy to sell the church.

That philosophy is the result of bad theology. It assumes that if you package the gospel right, people will get saved. The whole approach is rooted in Arminian theology. It views conversion as fundamentally dependent on an act of the human will. Its goal is an instantaneous, superficial decision rather than a radical change of the heart.

Moreover, this whole Madison-Avenue corruption of Christianity presumes that church services are primarily for recruiting unbelievers. Many have abandoned worship as such. Others have relegated conventional preaching to some small-group setting on a weeknight. But that misses the point of Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together."

Acts 2:42 shows us the pattern the early church followed when they met: "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Note that the early church's priorities clearly were to worship God and to edify the brethren. The church came together for worship and edification; it scattered to evangelize the world.

Our Lord commissioned His disciples for evangelism in this way: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt. 28:19). Christ makes it clear that the church is not to wait for or invite the world to come to its meetings, but to GO to the world. That is a responsibility for every believer. I fear that an approach emphasizing a palatable gospel presentation within the walls of the church excuses the individual believer from his personal obligation to be a light in the world (Matt. 5:16).

We have a society filled with people who want what they want when they want it. They are into their own lifestyle, recreation, and entertainment. When churches appeal to those selfish desires, they only fuel that fire and hinder true godliness. Some of these churches are growing exponentially while others that don't entertain are struggling. Many church leaders want numerical growth in their churches, so they are buying into the entertainment-first philosophy.

Consider what this philosophy does to the gospel message itself. Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense. Why not have a real carnival? A tattooed knife thrower who juggles chain saws could do his thing while a barker shouts Bible verses. That would draw a crowd. It's a bizarre scenario, but one that illustrates how the medium can cheapen and corrupt the message.

And sadly, it's not terribly different from what is actually being done in some churches. Punk-rockers, ventriloquists' dummies, clowns, magicians, and show-business celebrities have taken the place of the preacher--and they are depreciating the gospel. I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey. It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message.

Don't be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech superchurches. And don't sneer at conventional worship and preaching. We don't need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Cor. 1:21). We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed. If we're faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.

~John MacArthur

Marriage as it was Meant to be

Our entertainment-saturated society helps feed all sorts of illusions about reality. The fantasy of the perfect romantic and sexual relationship, the perfect lifestyle, and the perfect body all prove unattainable because the reality never lives up to the expectation.

The worst fallout comes in the marriage relationship. When two people can't live up to each other's expectations, they'll look for their fantasized satisfaction in the next relationship, the next experience, the next excitement. But that path leads only to self-destruction and emptiness.

Marriage is the capstone of the family, the building block of human civilization. A society that does not honor and protect marriage undermines its very existence. Why? Because one of God's designs for marriage is to show the next generation how a husband and wife demonstrate reciprocal, sacrificial love toward each other.

But when husbands and wives forsake that love, their marriage fails to be what God intended. When marriage fails, the whole family falls apart; when the family fails, the whole society suffers. And stories of societal suffering fill the headlines every day.

Now, more than ever before, is the time for Christians to declare and put on display what the Bible declares: God's standard for marriage and the family is the only standard that can produce meaning, happiness, and fulfillment.

Divine Directives for Wives

One of the most explicit passages of Scripture that outlines God's standard for marriage is Ephesians 5:22-33. Wives often bear the brunt of that section, but the majority of the passage deals with the husband's attitude toward and responsibilities for his wife. Nonetheless, here's the wife's responsibility before the Lord:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (vv. 22-24).

Submission in no way implies a difference in essence or worth; it does refer, however, to a willing submission of oneself. Wives, submission is to be your voluntary response to God's will-it's a willingness to give up your rights to other believers in general and ordained authority in particular, in this case your own husband.

Husbands aren't to treat their wives like slaves, barking commands at them; they are to treat their wives as equals, assuming their God-given responsibility of caring, protecting, and providing for them.

Likewise wives fulfill their God-given responsibility when they submit willingly to their own husbands. That reflects not only the depth of intimacy and vitality in their relationship, but also the sense of ownership a wife has for her husband.

Keep in mind that the wife's submission requires intelligent participation: "Mere listless, thoughtless subjection is not desirable if ever possible. The quick wit, the clear moral discernment, the fine instincts of a wife make of her a counselor whose influence is invaluable and almost unbounded" (Charles R. Erdman,The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966], 103).

Elisabeth Elliot, writing on "The Essence of Femininity," offers a fitting summary of God's ideal for wives:

Unlike Eve, whose response to God was calculating and self-serving, the virgin Mary's answer holds no hesitation about risks or losses or the interruption of her own plans. It is an utter and unconditional self-giving: "I am the Lord's servant … May it be to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38). This is what I understand to be the essence of femininity. It means surrender.
Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage … The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it "of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found its epitome in Mary (John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991], 398, 532, emphasis added).

Divine Directives for Husbands After giving the divine guidelines for the wife's submission, Paul devotes the next nine verses of Ephesians 5 to explain the husband's duty to submit to his wife through his love for her: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" (v. 25). The Lord's pattern of love for His church is the husband's pattern of love for his wife, and it is manifest in four ways.

Sacrificial Love Christ loved the church by giving "Himself up for her." The husband who loves his wife as Christ loves His church will give up everything he has for his wife, including his life if necessary.

Most of you husbands would give verbal assent to that-literally dying for your wife is such a remote possibility for most of you. But I would speculate that it is much more difficult to make lesser, but actual sacrifices for her.

Husbands, when you put aside your own likes, desires, opinions, preferences, and welfare to please your wife and meet her needs, then you are truly dying to self to live for your wife. And that is what Christ's love demands.

Purifying Love Christ loved the church sacrificially with this goal in mind:

That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless (vv. 26-27).

Love wants only the best for the one it loves, and it cannot bear for a loved one to be corrupted or misled by anything evil or harmful. If you really love your wife, you'll do everything in your power to maintain her holiness, virtue, and purity every day you live.

That obviously means doing nothing to defile her. Don't expose her to or let her indulge in anything that would bring impurity into her life. Don't tempt her to sin by, say, inducing an argument out of her on a subject you know is sensitive to her. Love always seeks to purify.

Caring Love Another aspect of divine love is this:

Husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church (vv. 28-29).

The word translated "cherishes" literally means "to warm with body heat"-it is used to describe a bird sitting on her nest (e.g., Deut. 22:6). Husbands, you are to provide a secure, warm, safe haven for your wife.

When your wife needs strength, give her strength. When she needs encouragement, give it to her. Whatever she needs, you are obligated to supply as best you can. God chose you to provide for and protect her, to nourish and cherish her, and to do so "as Christ also does the church."

Unbreakable Love For a husband to love his wife as Christ loves His church he must love her with an unbreakable love. In this direct quotation from Genesis 2:24, Paul emphasizes the permanence as well as the unity of marriage: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh" (v. 31). And God's standard for marriage still hasn't changed.

Husbands, your union with your wife is permanent. When you got married, you had to leave, cleave, and become one with your wife-never go back on that. Let your wife rest in the security of knowing that you belong to her, for life.

Just as the body of Christ is indivisible, God's ideal for marriage is that it be indivisible. As Christ is one with His church, you husbands are one with your wives.

Paul goes on to say, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (v. 32). Why is submission as well as sacrificial, purifying, and caring love so strongly emphasized in Scripture? Because the sacredness of the church is wed to the sacredness of marriage.

Christian, your marriage is a testimony to the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. Your marriage will either tell the truth about that relationship, or it will tell a lie.

What is your marriage saying to the watching world? If you'll walk in the power of the Spirit, yield to His Word, and be mutually submissive, you can know that God will bless you abundantly and glorify His Son through your marriage.

~John MacArthur

Apocalypse Code Review

My Thoughts on Hank Hanegraaff’s Apocalypse Code By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. As one who teaches eschatology from a dispensational perspective at an evangelical seminary I like to read a variety of books on end times issues or what is often called “eschatology.” In fact, I probably read more books I disagree with than books that agree with my perspective. When looking at books that differ from my own views, I sometimes am able to glean a nugget of knowledge or perspective. Sometimes I am challenged to rethink a particular point. Normally I do not feel compelled to sit down and write a response to each book I read. But an exception has been made after my reading of Hank Hanegraaff’s 2007 book, The Apocalypse Code: Find out What the Bible Says about the End Times and Why it Matters Today. In sum, popular author and radio host Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, has offered a critique of Tim LaHaye and dispensational theology. In doing so he offers a perspective that is often known as Partial Preterism—a view that interprets most prophetic passages in the Bible as being fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. Going into this book I had a good amount of respect for Hank Hanegraaff. I have enjoyed listening to his radio show over the years although I had lost track of his program recently. I had heard that Hanegraaff had landed on a partial or modified preterist view. So when I picked up Apocalypse Code, I figured that I would not find much areas of agreement. I am a dispensationalist who affirms premillennialism and a future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel. After years of personal research I am settled on these issues. Yet I had often found Hank Hanegraaff to be a thoughtful man so I looked forward to reading his book. I have read several books and articles from a preterist perspective. I am familiar with their basic arguments and their often strong criticisms of Dispensationalism. In addition to strongly disagreeing with the major claims of Preterism, I have often been concerned by the tone of some of these works. I have found some of them to be condescending and sarcastic. From my perspective, it seems as if mocking Dispensationalism was as important as offering a reasoned defense of Preterism. Yet preterists bring up some important issues that should be discussed. Issues such as what Jesus means by “this generation”, the meaning of the timing texts in Revelation, and the dating of the Book of Revelation. Since I have enjoyed some of his other books, I was hoping that Hanegraaff would bring a passionate but cool reason to the table. I was wrong. As I read Hanegraaff’s book I was shocked by the tone and the irresponsible scholarship. Halfway through the Introduction I could no longer take Hanegraaff’s book seriously. When one violates basic principles of scholarship when dealing with a theological issue, his or her credibility on that topic has been lost. This happened over and over again in regard to Hanegraaff’s book. Thus, for me, there is a real need to respond to Hanegraaff’s book, but I will not proceed in the usual fashion of summarizing a book’s contents and then offering a critique of the arguments made therein. For me, there is a more foundational issue that needs to be addressed and that is the utter lack of perspective from someone who is a respected evangelical leader. I personally do not believe this book is helpful for anyone whether they are preterist, dispensationalist, premillennialist, postmillennialist, amillennialist, or any other eschatological view. For those looking for good reading on eschatology no matter what their eschatological perspective, I recommend looking elsewhere. As a seminary professor I talk to my students about the importance of integrity in their scholarship. Under the mandate of Scripture they are to teach the Word and refute those who contradict. We also talk about the importance of perspective and wisdom when dealing with positions and people with whom they disagree. When the Gospel or essential Christian doctrine is at stake, we are to remain firm and uncompromising. To the death we should defend the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, substitutionary atonement, and other essential doctrines. Yet we also discuss that within the spectrum of evangelical theology there are areas where we can disagree without believing that Christianity is at stake. All doctrine is important but when it comes to issues such as church government, spiritual gifts, eschatological views, and other areas, there is usually room for flexibility and showing tolerance toward those holding differing views. In other words, though all doctrine is important not every area of doctrine qualifies as a make or break issue for Christianity. There are issues that, even if wrongly believed, do not threaten the heart of Christianity. Within the broader evangelical community we should heed basic principles of respect and integrity. This especially applies when we offer critiques of views held by other believers. We may disagree with another Christian over the issues of cessation of the sign gifts, millennial views, rapture views, limited and unlimited atonement, etc., but there are certain things we should never be guilty of. This includes misrepresenting our opponent’s view with straw man arguments, using sarcastic and belittling language, and presenting our theological opponent in the worst light possible. This should be true even if our opponent does not always play by the rules. Responsible scholarship also entails putting theological issues into proper perspective. We need a ‘theological depth perception,’ a wisdom that allows us to discern issues that are at the core of Christianity and those issues that are important but are not salvation issues or threats to historic Christianity. Sometimes when we passionately believe something we adopt a passion that is out of balance. We may come to conclusions about others who disagree with us that are not appropriate. For example, I am a strong premillennialist and I strongly disagree with amillennialism and postmillennialism. But if I ever got to the point where I challenged the orthodoxy of those who held these views or said that those who held these views were dangerous people, then a line would have been crossed and I should be criticized. Unfortunately, as I look at Apocalypse Code, I believe Hank Hanegraaff has done more harm than good. On an issue that is sometimes difficult, he has made it more confusing. Many who look to him as an expert on the Bible will believe things that are not true. That is disappointing. In fact, he has become an example of what not to do when evaluating an opposing view. I will now address some of the issues that I believe detract from Apocalypse Code being a credible book. Lack of perspective Perhaps the number one thing that strikes me about Hanegraaff’s book is that it shows a gross lack of perspective. Apocalypse Code is a book about the end times, an issue in which evangelicals have usually agreed to disagree. In particular it is a book that is critical of the views of Tim LaHaye and dispensationalists who believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. It is also a presentation of a Partial Preterist view. Now there is nothing wrong with writing a book about the end times. And, there is nothing wrong with Hanegraaff writing a book defending his preterist perspective against those of others. What is in error, though, is the linkage he makes between the pre-trib rapture view of Dispensationalism and essential Christian doctrine: Make no mistake: this is not the stuff of ivory-tower debates. The stakes for Christianity and the culture in the controversy surrounding eschatology are enormous! Not only are great and glorious passages believed throughout church history to refer directly to the blessed hope of the resurrection arrogated for the dispensational pretribulational rapture theory first popularized in the nineteenth century by a priest named John Nelson Darby, but by logical extension the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection are undermined (xviii-xix). This statement, which comes in the Introduction, sets the tone for the book. The issue at hand is the dispensational pre-tribulational theory. According to Hanegraaff “the stakes for Christianity and the culture” regarding this view “are enormous!” At stake is “the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection” which is being “undermined.” To raise the stakes even more, he claims that the pre-trib view threatens the traditional Christian view on the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection. And not only that. For Hanegraaff, the dispensational view “erodes epistemic warrant” for “the deity of our Lord” (xix). This is serious stuff! What is important here is that Hanegraaff is claiming that the pre-trib rapture view is a threat to true historic Christianity. For him this doctrine undermines the resurrection and deity of Christ. The problem with this claim is that it is false. And not only that, it lacks what we referred to earlier as ‘theological depth perception.’ The issue of the timing of the rapture is important. It has also been controversial. But it does not threaten the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection and the deity of Christ. To claim that it does shows a complete lack of perspective. This charge does not find support in respected evangelical scholarship. In my years of intense study of Dispensationalism, I have never heard of this charge, even amongst some of the strongest critics of Dispensationalism. This simply is an unfounded accusation that should be rejected. According to Hanegraaff, since Tim LaHaye, who to Hanegraaff represents dispensationalists today, promotes a view in his fiction books that the Antichrist will be resurrected from the dead, this must mean that the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is somehow undermined and the deity of Christ is under attack. This is the old trick of “If you believe this, then you must believe that.” I also call this “gotcha logic.” But it is not a logical necessity to conclude that if there is a literal resurrection of the Antichrist from the dead, then the resurrection and deity of Christ is undermined. According to the futurist view, Jesus would soon smash the Antichrist with His coming so there is no doubt as to the superiority of the risen Jesus. LaHaye himself believes in the superiority of Jesus’ resurrection and the deity of Jesus, as do all dispensationalists. As I survey the landscape of Dispensationalism I see no trend away from Jesus’ resurrection or deity. The Left Behind series has been out for years now, and I see no movement away from these doctrines. Besides, belief in a resurrection of the Antichrist is not an essential belief of Dispensationalism. There are also dispensationalists who disagree on this issue and have different views on what actually happens to the Antichrist. I also think that Hanegraaff’s claim shows a lack of understanding of evangelical scholarship on this issue. The timing of the rapture has been a heavily debated issue for years. I think of the great theological debates between John Walvoord and members of Dallas Theological Seminary as they interacted with post-trib advocates like George Eldon Ladd. Those were great interactions. But even the strongest debaters of the pre-trib rapture view have usually put this issue in perspective. C. I. Scofield, who authored the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible, which promoted a pre-trib rapture view, had two consulting editors who took a post-trib rapture view. A great example of perspective is also found with the book, The Rapture: Pre,-Mid,-or Post-Tribulational? published by Zondervan. Three excellent scholars, Douglas Moo (post-trib), Paul Feinberg (pre-trib), and Gleason Archer (mid-trib) intelligently debated the issue of the timing of the rapture, yet it was done with integrity and graciousness. Paul Feinberg in his section made the wise statement that, “The time of the Rapture is neither the most important nor the most unimportant point of Christian theology.” He also stated, “When one considers the whole spectrum of Christian theology, eschatology is only a small part of it. Moreover, the Rapture question constitutes only a small segment of eschatology” (47). This is the kind of perspective that allows for intelligent and mature discussion of this issue. No scholar in this important work made any bombastic statements that any opposing rapture view had dire consequences for historic Christianity. Thus, within evangelical scholarship there is disagreement on the timing of the rapture but there is no debate as to whether the pre-trib rapture view threatens essential Christian doctrine. Inflammatory language Another disturbing feature of Hanegraaff’s book is his use of inflammatory language. In fact he often commits the ad hominem (“attack against the man”) fallacy in which a person uses name calling and personal attacks. Certainly, biblical writers used strong language when referring to false teachers and false doctrine, but the language Hanegraaff uses in an intramural Christian debate over eschatology is disturbing. In his introduction, he links Tim LaHaye and Dispensationalism with racism and the promotion of ethnic cleansing. He says, “Furthermore, there is the very real problem of racial discrimination. Biblical theology knows nothing of racism” (xx). Not only that, dispensationalists are guilty of justifying “ethnic cleansing based on the pretext of a promise made to Abraham” (xx). The charge of racism and ethnic cleansing is very serious. And in my opinion, it is outrageous, especially from a respected Christian leader. According to Hanegraaff, if one holds that Israel will be brought into their land in a state of unbelief or that Israel will undergo a severe period of persecution, then he is a racist and a promoter of ethnic cleansing. Again, of all the books that I have read on Dispensationalism, the charge of racism is not made by those who have offered serious critiques or explanations of Dispensationalism. And personally, I have never heard of this accusation. Dispensationalists believe in a restoration of Israel because they believe the Bible teaches it. They are not saying that Jews are saved merely because they are biological Jews. They are not saying that the Jews are superior to everyone else. They believe that God has a special role for Israel in a coming kingdom in which Israel will serve the nations. One may disagree with this view, but it is hardly a racist view. In the Old Testament God explicitly chose Israel from all the nations (see Deut. 7:6). One question for Hanegraaff is this—“Was God a racist in the Old Testament?” He chose to love ethnic Israel in a way that He did not with the other peoples of the earth. To support his view Hanegraaff places a lot of emphasis on Galatians 3:26-29 and its statements that there is neither “Jew nor Greek” and that we are “Abraham’s seed” and “heirs according to promise.” This supposedly shows that there cannot be a future role for the nation Israel. This is a tired argument that has been adequately answered. Equality in salvation and spiritual blessings does not nullify functional and historical distinctions between groups. Galatians 3:26-29 also states that there is neither “male nor female” but does this mean that there are no functional distinctions between men and women? How about believing parents and children? They, too, are one in Christ but does this rule out functional distinctions between parents and children? No it does not. The same could be said of elders and non-elders in a church. Even within the Trinity there is ontological equality with functional distinctions. My point is that spiritual equality does not erase all functional, gender, and historical distinctions. Even in the Eternal State there are nations (see Rev. 21:24; 22:2) so there are some nationalistic distinctions even in Eternity. In addition to the accusations of racism and ethnic cleansing, Hanegraaff has a host of other charges and associations for dispensationalists. He compares Dispensationalism to Darwinian evolution (38), Bill Clinton (70), Joseph Smith (44), and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (124). He favorably uses a quote in regard to premillennialism that describes premillennialists as “the socially disinherited, psychologically disturbed, and theologically naïve” (44). According to Hanegraaff, today’s dispensationalists threaten the entire human race. They are “bent on ensuring that the horrors of Armageddon become a self-fulfilling prophecy” (47). In fact, the only way to save the world according to Hanegraaff is to reject Dispensationalism: “If the evangelical death march toward the endgame of Armageddon is to be subverted, it will be because believers recommit themselves to faithful illumination” (48). Dispensationalists are also those who shout down their opponents as those who are “peddlers of godless heresy” (68). For those who encounter dispensationalists who believe that “this generation” in Matt. 24 refers to a future generation, one should have “baloney detectors” that “surely flash, ‘Warning! Grammatical gyrations ahead!!!’” (77). The three exclamation points at the end of this statement really emphasize the need to beware of the Scripture- twisting dispensationalists. These dispensationalists are those who “interpret Scripture Clintonian style” and “turn Scripture into a wax nose capable of being twisted any way the interpreter likes” (94). Dispensationalists are also those who “hyperventilate over tiny areas of land” (178). Note that they do not just believe this they “hyperventilate” over it. Likewise, the dispensationalist belief in a pre-trib rapture is not based on any reason, instead, it is “the ripened fruit of a fertile imagination” (64). Christians who have a concern for responsible scholarship should be disturbed by such emotional rhetoric and accusations. I am writing this review during an election year. Often on the news I hear that one political candidate is using a “kitchen sink strategy” to defeat her opponent. This means throwing every conceivable charge and innuendo hoping that something sticks and everyone will think her opponent is a bad guy. It is difficult not to think of Hanegraaff also using a kitchen sink strategy. But such a strategy should be rejected. Make no mistake, for Hanegraaff, dispensationalists are not good Christian people who are misguided on secondary theological issues related to eschatology. They are intentional Scripture-twisters, racists, ethnic cleansing proponents, and deceivers. They have much in common with Darwinian evolution and the cults—and even Bill Clinton. Poor logic Hanegraaff’s book is filled with logic fallacies. In addition to the ad hominem fallacy mentioned above, another logic fallacy he often commits is the false dilemma fallacy. With this a person presents an argument in which there are only two options given when in reality there may be three or more. Hanegraaff consistently manipulates the playing field to make sure those who disagree with him are viewed in the most negative light possible. For example, --If you believe that Israel will be saved and restored to her land or that Israel will undergo persectuion you are a racist who supports ethnic cleansing (xx–xxiii). --If you believe in a future Antichrist who will be raised from the dead you are diminishing the resurrection of Christ and His deity (xix). --If you believe that the “this generation” of Matt 24 is a future generation you are a Scripture-twister (77). These types of over-simplistic arguments occur usually when one has little understanding of his opponent’s view or simply wants to paint his opponent in the worst light possible. Often when one passionately believes that his or her view is correct against another view, there is a tendency to twist and mangle the opponent’s view into something it really is not. That is why when you want to learn what a person or group believes about an issue, you should read what proponents of that position say. Often opponents of a view are simply too biased to give a fair representation of the view they disagree with. This is clearly the case with Hanegraaff’s critique of Dispensationalism. His representation of Dispensationalism is not accurate nor do his conclusions correspond to reality. I do not believe that the following positions listed above lead to the conclusions that Hanegraaff says they do. There are other options. Perhaps dispensationalists believe in a future salvation and restoration of Israel because they believe the Old Testament teaches this and the New Testament reaffirms this belief (Matt. 19:28; Rom. 11:25-27; Acts 1:6). Perhaps some (not all) dispensationalists believe that the resurrection of the Antichrist is a unique one-time Satanic counterfeit that is soon crushed by the true King of Kings who leaves no doubt who is the superior Lord. Perhaps dispensationalists believe that the “this generation” of Matt 24 is future because the context of Matt 24 is on future events. You may disagree with these views but they are a far cry from leading to racism, heresy, and Scripture twisting. Another logic fallacy found in the book is the straw man argument. This is when one misrepresents his opponent’s view and then knocks down the misrepresentation and declares victory. In the midst of the bombastic, highly inflammatory language used of Dispensationalism it is hard to view Hanegraaff as remotely being able to represent Dispensationalism accurately. Frankly, the Dispensationalism he promotes is not my Dispensationalism and to be honest, I do not think it is the Dispensationalism of Tim LaHaye either. Hanegraaff clearly believes it is necessary to demonize his theological opponent and present him in the worst light possible. This ties into my next point. Lack of understanding of Dispensationalism Hanegraaff has a woeful understanding of Dispensationalism and this is evident throughout his book. Early on he makes clear that Tim LaHaye is the main target of his criticism, but clearly Hanegraaff has a lot to say about Dispensationalism as a whole. He makes no statement that Tim LaHaye believes this and that but other dispensationalists believe different things on certain issues. There are no qualifications that show careful thinking or an awareness of current scholarship on this issue. Instead, the criticism of LaHaye quickly bleeds over into all of Dispensationalism. In fact, I believe his shrill criticism of LaHaye is really a declaration of war on all of Dispensationalism. But instead of bringing in the vast amount of scholarly literature from Dispensationalism as a whole with leading dispensationalists like Robert Saucy, John Feinberg, Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, John MacArthur and the seminary faculties at dispensational schools, his main target is Tim LaHaye and his fictional series—Left Behind. To be objective, the Left Behind books are a fair target since they are so influential and they are in the public domain. But in my view, he hand picks a few popular dispensationalists and John Hagee, with whom many dispensationalists have serious problems, and makes it look like they represent all of Dispensationalism. The reader also should understand that Hanegraaff makes no attempt to define Dispensationalism as dispensationalists define it. Dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie, John Feinberg, Darrell Bock, and Craig Blaising have offered formal descriptions of what is at the essence of Dispensationalism, but these find no place in Apocalypse Code. What goes in print about Dispensationalism in his book goes through his interpretation of what he thinks (or wants to think) about Dispensationalism. It appears that Hanegraaff’s view of Dispensationalism is that of others who are critical of Dispensationalism. As I survey his bibliography I see many anti-dispensational books mentioned but very little recognition of more current scholarly dispensational works. If I assigned my students to research an eschatological view, and they returned with a few popular theologians and showed no recognition of current scholarship their paper would be considered unacceptable. That is not good scholarship. This is what Hanegraaff has done. To further show his lack of understanding of the issues, Hanegraaff states that the pre-trib rapture is the “cardinal doctrine” of Dispensationalism. To be sure, belief in a pre-trib rapture is an important facet of Dispensationalism, but most dispensationalists do not list this as an essential belief of Dispensationalism. If one looks at the descriptions of Dispensationalism by Ryrie, Feinberg, and Blaising and Bock, one will see that the pre-trib rapture is not listed as a core essential belief of Dispensationalism. Belief in a literal fulfillment of eternal and unconditional promises to Israel is an essential belief. So too is belief that the church and Israel are somehow distinct. Also essential is the belief that Old Testament promises and prophecies about Israel must be fulfilled according to the authorial intent of the Old Testament authors. But I would not say the pre-trib rapture is the doctrine upon which Dispensationalism stands or falls. I personally believe it and I think it is important, but it is not the cardinal doctrine of Dispensationalism. Paul Benware, a dispensationalist, mentions in his book, Understanding End Times Prophecy, that there is such a thing as “Dispensational Posttribulationism (241-42).” Also, there are dispensationalists today who criticize other dispensationalists for ignoring the pre-trib rapture and not emphasizing it enough. Hanegraaff is also not interested in discussing that dispensationalists are not a monolith on every issue. There are variations within Dispensationalism. Not every dispensationalist believes there will be a literal resurrection of the Antichrist. Some see it as a Satanic counterfeit but not a true resurrection. Plus, there is a scale within Dispensationalism on how much continuity and discontinuity there is between Israel and the church. Also, when Hanegraaff begins to discuss Dispensationalism’s views on Israel and the land, he so quickly brings in issues of racism and ethnic cleansing that there is no way that the true dispensational views on these issues can be understood. Perhaps a reader of this review may conclude that I am simply unhappy because I am a dispensationalist and Hank Hanegraaff is being critical of my theological view. To address this let me say that I enjoy and appreciate good spirited debates over theology. Excellent scholars such as Vern Poythress, O. Palmer Robertson, Willem VanGemeren, and Anthony Hoekema have offered serious critiques of Dispensationalism that were done with a proper balance of scholarship, perspective, and graciousness. I disagree with most of their conclusions but all of them have made me think through the issues even more and I respect them for that. If one wants to examine Dispensationalism he or she should read the works of these men along with the works of leading dispensationalists. If one desires to read a book promoting Partial Preterism he should consider R.C. Sproul’s, The Last Days According to Jesus. This work explains the partial preterist view without the inflammatory rhetoric that Hanegraaff offers. I disagree with the conclusions of this book, but it is a rational work. Sadly, contrary to the scholarship of the men mentioned above there are people who with their straw man arguments and inflammatory language add fuel to the theological fire and offer way more heat than light. In closing, I assume that some who already have a disdain for Dispensationalism will enjoy this book. That is to be expected. I am also confident that dispensationalists who are reasonably aware of what Dispensationalism is will know that this is not a fair treatment of their views. I am concerned, though, for the many who are searching for truth in the area of eschatology and will not have the background to see through this book. Hank Hanegraaff is such a respected figure that many will naturally trust him. I pray that those people would not stop at Hanegraaff’s book and instead read books that deal more fairly with the theological issues. Personally, I will be using this book with my seminary students, mostly as an example of what not to do. As I mentioned earlier, this review is not really a refutation of Hanegraaff’s specific views. In fact, it is not really about Preterism vs. Futurism or Dispensationalism vs. Non-dispensationalism. Those are topics for another paper. It is more about a call to responsible scholarship and a call to elevate the discussion concerning eschatology and reject the works of those who offer more heat than light no matter what their perspective is. As I survey the literature regarding eschatology over the last two decades I think the old adage, “two steps forward, one step back” fits the current situation well. Dispensational and Non-dispensational scholars have welcomed a more irenic and gracious spirit in their theological debates. Definitely two steps forward. But unfortunately, every now and then there is a book like Apocalypse Code that takes us one step backward. Personally, I am looking forward to the books that again take us forward when it comes to understanding eschatology.

The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing

April 24, 2008
By John Piper

The first consequence of Adam’s and Eve’s sin mentioned in Genesis 3:7 is that “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.”

Suddenly they are self-conscious about their bodies. Before their rebellion against God, there was no shame. “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). Now there is shame. Why?

There is no reason to think that it’s because they suddenly became ugly. Their beauty wasn’t the focus in Genesis 2:25, and their ugliness is not the focus here in Genesis 3:7. Why then the shame? Because the foundation of covenant-keeping love collapsed. And with it the sweet, all-trusting security of marriage disappeared forever.

The foundation of covenant-keeping love between a man and a woman is the unbroken covenant between them and God—God governing them for their good and they enjoying him in that security and relying on him. When they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that covenant was broken and the foundation of their own covenant-keeping collapsed.

They experienced this immediately in the corruption of their own covenant love for each other. It happened in two ways. Both relate to the experience of shame. In the first case, the one viewing my nakedness is no longer trustworthy, so I am afraid I will be shamed. In the second, I myself am no longer at peace with God, but I feel guilty and defiled and unworthy—I deserve to be shamed.

In the first case, I am self-conscious of my body, and I feel vulnerable to shame because I know Eve has chosen to be independent from God. She has made herself central in the place of God. She is essentially now a selfish person. From this day forward, she will put herself first. She is no longer a servant. So she is not safe. And I feel vulnerable around her, because she is very likely to put me down for her own sake. So suddenly my nakedness is precarious. I don’t trust her any more to love me with pure covenant-keeping love. That’s one source of my shame.

The other source is that Adam himself, not just his spouse, has broken covenant with God. If she is rebellious and selfish, and therefore unsafe, so am I. But the way I experience it in myself is that I feel defiled and guilty and unworthy. That’s, in fact, what I am. Before the Fall, what was and what ought to have been were the same. But now, what is and what ought to be are not the same.

I ought to be humbly and gladly submissive to God. But I am not. This huge gap between what I am and what I ought to be colors everything about me—including how I feel about my body. So my wife might be the safest person in the world, but now my own sense of guilt and unworthiness makes me feel vulnerable. The simple, open nakedness of innocence now feels inconsistent with the guilty person that I am. I feel ashamed.

So the shame of nakedness arises from two sources, and both of them are owing to the collapse of the foundation of covenant love in our relationship with God. One is that Eve is no longer reliable to cherish me; she has become selfish and I feel vulnerable that she will put me down for her own selfish ends. The other is that I already know that I am guilty myself, and the nakedness of innocence contradicts my unworthiness—I am ashamed of it.

Genesis 3:7 says that they tried to cope with this new situation by making clothing: “They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Adam’s and Eve’s effort to clothe themselves was a sinful effort to conceal what had really happened. They tried to hide from God (Genesis 3:8). Their nakedness felt too revealing and too vulnerable. So they tried to close the gap between what they were and what they ought to be by covering what is, and presenting themselves in a new way.

So what does it mean that God clothed them with animal skins? Was he confirming their hypocrisy? Was he aiding and abetting their pretense? If they were naked and shame-free before the Fall, and if they put on clothes to minimize their shame after the Fall, then what is God doing by clothing them even better than they can clothe themselves? I think the answer is that he giving a negative message and a positive message.

Negatively, he is saying, You are not what you were and you are not what you ought to be. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is huge. Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—not to conceal it, but to confess it. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be.

One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality. God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost, and it is added rebellion to throw them off.

And for those who rebel in the other direction and make clothes themselves a means of power and prestige and attention getting, God’s answer is not a return to nudity but a return to simplicity (1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:4-5). Clothes are not meant to make people think about what is under them. Clothes are meant to direct attention to what is not under them: merciful hands that serve others in the name of Christ, beautiful feet that carry the gospel where it is needed, and the brightness of a face that has beheld the glory of Jesus.

Now we have already crossed over to the more positive meaning of clothing that God had in his mind when he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. This was not only a witness to the glory we lost and a confession that we are not what we should be, but it is also a testimony that God himself would one day make us what we should be. God rejected their own self-clothing. Then he did it himself. He showed mercy with superior clothing.

Together with the other hopeful signs in the context (like the defeat of the serpent in Genesis 3:15), God’s mercy points to the day when he will solve the problem of our shame decisively and permanently. He will do it with the blood of his own Son (as there apparently was blood shed in the killing of the animals of the skins). And he will do it with the clothing of righteousness and the radiance of his glory (Galatians 3:27; Philippians 3:21).

Which means that our clothes are a witness both to our past and present failure and to our future glory. They testify to the chasm between what we are and what we should be. And they testify to God’s merciful intention to bridge that chasm through Jesus Christ and his death for our sins.

How to Botch an Alter Call

(A few keys for those who don't want people saved in their altar calls)

1. Present an unbalanced message. Only let them see the heart-warming part of God's character. Preach God's love but leave out His holiness and justice. That way they'll think He'll let them into heaven no matter what.
2. Don't mention repentance until they're repeating a "sinner's prayer." Just get them to say, "I repent of all my sins" while they're echoing you. They won't know what they're saying and they won't count the cost.
   
3. Above all else, be dignified. Don't get heart to heart with the people. They would get something out of what you said.
   
4. Skim over the gospel and push the prayer. Pretend the lost naturally understand what Christ has done for them.
   
5. Preach Jesus as a life enhancer not a life rescuer. Tell them how Jesus can improve their life but don't show them Jesus as the only One who can save them from Hell. People will think if they reject Him they're only losing out on a spiritual high.
   
6. Try to please the people instead of convert them. Tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
   
7. Compromise the message to speed up the process. The Christians who have heard it a hundred times before will be pleased with that. The quicker they get out the quicker they can get to the restaurant.
   
8. Give them the impression that God is so good He won't send anyone to hell. Don't present the whole counsel of God or they might realize He is so good that He'll see to it that justice is served and that all unrepentant sinners will be punished in the fire that is not quenched.
   
9. Speak to sinners as though they were saints. They'll think they're God's children instead of the enemies of God they've made themselves into because of their sin. You'll give them false assurance and mislead them.
   
10. Don't mention sin or man's guilt. Resist the urge to explain what Christ came to deliver us from. Don't show them their need for the Savior. Otherwise it may all make sense.
    
11. Don't look to the Bible for the substance of your altar call. Only mimic other preachers with large congregations.
    
12. Tell the lost not to feel bad about their sins. That way you will work against the Holy Spirit who's convicting them
    
13. Whatever you do, never mention Judgment Day. Your audience might take spiritual matters seriously.
    
14. Tell them Jesus is the only way to heaven but don't explain why.
    They may think it's nothing more than fear tactics and leave offended instead of enlightened.
15. Confuse the call. This is a great way to botch up an altar call. Don't let people know you're asking them to commit their life to Christ. Be vague and general in what you're saying. Neglect to mention following Christ in your evangelistic altar calls and say things like, "If you don't feel you're as close to God as possible raise your hand," "If you feel lonely come to the front for prayer," "If you want more of God this is your time," and, "If you have struggles and need the answer come down." Just get them to raise a hand. That way no one will be able to count the cost and you'll even get saints to respond to salvation altar calls, making the results look more successful.
    
16. Only give them half the story. Tell them Jesus died to forgive everyone but overlook the fact that they must personally receive Him to partake of that forgiveness.
    
17. Present the truth as though it isn't. Be so funny when you share Christ that you belittle the seriousness of the matter.
    
18. Preach forgiveness without repentance. That way no one will know how to be forgiven.
    
19. Be unbiblical. Present repentance and faith as an offer instead of how God does as a command (Acts 17:30).
    
20. Let them think next Sunday is the day of salvation. Don't make them feel it's urgent to respond today.
    
21. Never warn of hell. Dangle heaven in front of their nose but rarely mention hell, certainly not as much as Jesus did.
    
22. Only do altar calls inside the church. Never take the gospel where sinners congregate. The lost might get saved.
    
23. Use churchy terms. Use words like, "saved," "repent," and "born again," without any explanation. That way your hearers won't comprehend what you're saying. If they can't understand it, it's probable they won't be changed by it.
    
24. Give false assurance of salvation to unsaved Christians. Assure church folk that they are saved even if they bear no fruit. So that you don't offend the unsaved pew warmers never quote 2 Corinthians 13:5: "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith." You could lose some financial supporters and have to depend on God.
    
25. Never mention the wrath of God. If you mention it, people might be awakened to flee to Jesus who "saves us from the wrath to come." ( 1 Thess. 1:10)
    
26. Study how the apostles preached and witnessed and do the opposite. Don't explain Jesus' suffering death on the cross. Otherwise they may think of running to Him for forgiveness. Don't speak of His burial or resurrection or they might realize He is God. Refrain from commenting about the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. That way they can go on thinking He's a fairy tale. Overlook talk of the messianic prophecies Jesus fulfilled or they might realize that the Bible is true. If they see it's the truth they may see that following Christ is the logical decision. And whatever you do, avoid what the apostles did when it came time to call people to obey the gospel. Don't tell them to trust Christ and live for Him. That is too accurate. If they know how to get saved your altar call will be a success.
    
27. Put more emphasis on the "sinner's prayer" then on repentance and faith. Satan will smile over your departure from Biblical instruction. We are never taught to use a 'sinner's prayer' throughout the entire Bible. If you decide to use it and put more emphasis on the technique than on what we're commanded to preach: faith and repentance you'll certainly botch things up. A 'sinner's prayer' doesn't equal salvation, only faith in Christ and repentance toward God do.
    
28. Let Christians think you're the only one who can do it right. Always leave the impression that they should only invite friends to church and never actually witness themselves. It will keep you in business and the lost unsaved.
    
29. Don't let the lost know they are. Disregard subjects like Judgment Day, God's holiness, man's sinfulness and justice. That way the lost can continue to think they're "good enough" to get into heaven.
    
30. Rely upon psychological techniques to manipulate people into responding to the altar call. Don't rely upon the Holy Spirit or they may actually get saved.
    
31. Make sure you're the main attraction. Remember the goal in botching up an altar call is for people to leave and say, "What a wonderful preacher," instead of, "What a wonderful Savior." Draw all possible attention to how great a speaker and person you are. Otherwise people might see Christ in your preaching and get saved.
    
32. Don't focus upon Jesus. Finally, the best way to botch up an altar call is not to preach the gospel. Just get people to lift up a hand and pray a prayer with you. Resist the urge to speak of the only One who could save them.

Sometimes the best way to get a point across is to put it in a different light. You now know a few ways to botch up an altar call. Please do not employ them. Do the opposite. You may already do some of them. Don't let pride keep you from changing and doing things in a Biblical fashion. The bottom line is how true we are to Christ and His word. Effectively reaching the lost is our purpose. Let nothing hold you back from that agenda. May God bless you as you seek to win people to Christ in Bible clubs, churches, conferences, on the street witnessing encounters, at your school, and at your workplace.