I’ve posted my thoughts and outrage with the prosperity gospel several times. Whether in person, through social media, or even this very blog before. Usually my well meaning “can’t we all just get along” brothers and sister find issue with my issues against this vile cancer that has attached itself to the church. In some regards, I understand the sentiment. “Why focus so much on what divides us?” Which is true when the issue at hand is simple or harmless enough. However this is not the case with the prosperity gospel. It is false, it is contrary to scripture, and it takes advantage of those whom our Savior says we should be looking after. In my mind, this is the most important thing the church needs to do more of. We need to distinguish ourselves against the televangelist prosperity teacher, and we need to do as Paul instruct Timothy and guard our lives and our doctrine, and call out the wolves when we see them. I have stoked these fires before and I will continue to do so, but maybe a different voice would be useful. Please watch and share the video below from Last Week Tonight
As fantastic and as true as this video is, it exposes exactly what needs to me removed from the body of Christ, it also represents a sad day when a television comedian is doing the work that the church should be doing, and should have been doing all along. How can our churches be a refuge of the truth if they are not properly guarded from evil lies? Brothers and sisters this much change. I hear many a preacher say that we need to be bold in the face of the changing culture, and not collapse or shrink back, we should proclaim the message of the cross even louder! Friends, the culture will never here our message if we can’t even keep the filth out of our sermons and out of our pulpits.
So here’s the deal. I’ve been on this personal journey for a bit. Essentially, as the small church plant my wife and I attend grows, so does the need and opportunity for leaders. At The Village we take leadership seriously. For a long time I’ve felt a leaning in this direction, specifically in the area of preaching and teaching. In just under two months, (actually now that I think about it, I probably wont post these until after the event) we will be hosting a preaching lab. Just under twenty men will gather, five will be selected to present 12 min mini sermons, that will then be critiqued by a panel of four pastors, Two within the Village, two outside the Village. Its incredibly exciting, and I am one of the five “lab preachers.” Assigned to me is Matthew 8:18-22
Because I love you, my notes are going to be posted here. If they seem brief or incomplete its due to the 12 min time limit. What’s difficult is boiling down the sermon to only its necessary points. No extra examples, very little practical application, just the idea, and the challenge, and the gospel, all while trying to still be engaging.
Mat 8:18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side.
Mat 8:19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
Mat 8:20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Mat 8:21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Mat 8:22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
THE CONTEXT
Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, he’s not there just yet, and at this point he hasn’t really ruffled too many feathers. His fame and popularity are growing as he passes through these smaller towns serving, teaching, and performing various miracles. During his trip we see this meeting with two would-be followers, who apparently miss something that is critical to what it means to follow Jesus, and we are going to see Jesus push back on them a bit, and as Jesus pushes back on them, he also pushes back on us.
What I want to do first today, is explain what the text plainly says. That is, what, on a surface level is it saying? Then I want explore with you what the text means as it applies to us today. To look for the meaning underneath the surface if you will, to see what the text might reveal about our hearts today.
TWO DUDES
The first dude is pretty excited about the notion of following Jesus, he says “I will follow you wherever you will go.” Jesus pushes back a little and tells the man that he has “no idea what hes asking for.”(paraphrase, I’m going to paraphrase a lot for the sake of time) “The foxes and the birds do their thing and get to go home, I do my thing and I don’t get that sort of luxury”. Plainly Jesus is saying that following Jesus is not all rainbows and sunshine, its not a “have your cake and eat it to” type of scenario, it is at times, in fact difficult.
Dude number two, at the notion of being a follower of Jesus, essentially tells Jesus that now is not a good time for him. And guess what, I know its a funeral he’s talking about, but without getting into all the speculation and nuance as to why this isn’t a big deal. Can we just skip ahead and quickly agree that no matter what you got going on, if Jesus calls you to follow him, that whatever Jesus ask is probably more important? Jesus is expressing to the second man, that he apparently, by passing up the offer, even if only temporarily, that he doesn’t know what he’s missing out on.
That is you plain meaning. This is pretty much what the text is saying on a surface level. Following Jesus is difficult, but at the same time worth it. However, we still need to get to the heart of the text and find out what Jesus is trying to reveal to us today.
DIGGING DEEPER
These two men make different assumptions about following Jesus. In Jesus’s view, they apparently miss what following Him is all about. Something crucial is missing in their understanding, and some faulty desires are lurking behind their hearts. That being said, the bible says a lot about following Jesus, and you should take some time on your own, and read those verses, but for our purposes today, we only need to look no further that just a few more chapters in Matthew.
Twice in the gospel of Matthew, in ch 10:38, and ch 16:24, Jesus will lay two foundational elements for what it means to be a follower. He says this, paraphrased “if you’re going to follow me you need to first deny yourself, and then, take up your cross” to paraphrase the paraphrase, “you need to not be about your business, but be about my business, your desires should bow to my desires.” Jesus makes this point twice on two separate occasions, which means we should listen closely, and in his encounter with these two men we see it play itself out in two different ways.
SELF DENIAL VS SELF FULFILLMENT
Jesus informs us that a central ethic or posture of being a follower of Christ, to being a part of his kingdom, is self-denial. This immediately confronts the mainline thinking of our culture which is self-fulfillment. Everything about us, the air we breath is all about making yourself happy; finding your own path to self-fulfillment. It normally sounds like this. “Do whatever makes you happy!” Which sounds great, but some very clever people quickly found out that some people make themselves happy by hurting other people. So we amended the phrase, now it reads “Do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.”
Unfortunately it still doesn’t work. You can’t remove all restraint, and then try to put the restraints back on when it all starts to go off the rails. It is like letting a wild bull loose in a crowd of people, then trying to subdue the same bull without anyone getting hurt. It simply can’t be both ways.
SAME SIN, TWO SCENARIOS
So, if following Christ includes both self denial and trading your desires for Jesus’ desires/cross, then the opposite is also true. When we are not following Jesus we are fulfilling ourselves and pursuing our own desires. What is revealed about these two men is that their desire is not to follow Jesus, but to look out for their favorite master, themselves. Their sin is the same, its classic self-idolatry, they value themselves and their desires first and foremost, and it plays itself out in two different ways. Lets look at these two guys with this new perspective brought into the conversation.
Guy one sees Jesus as a means to his self-fulfillment, Jesus is a step in the right direction to meet his goals and desires. Guy two, sees Jesus as an obstacle to his self-fulfillment, getting in the way of his desires, and so instead of delaying his own gratification, he delays following Christ instead.
Guy one thinks that following Jesus will gain him certain advantages. As a scribe, if he hooks up with a teacher as exciting as Jesus then this will be fuel for his career. For him Jesus is a means to getting what he wants, this is why Jesus tells him that this life is not all its cracked up to be. He’s not simply warning, or trying to scare the man away, he’s testing him a bit, in fact he testing both men a bit. What if it doesn’t work out the way you think? What if you don’t get everything you want? What if you do get everything you want but it still doesn’t satisfy? Am I enough for you? Am I you’re treasure? If so, then the potential difficulties won’t be an issue for you, nothing will be more important to you than being with me.
This particular way that self-idolatry sells itself to us is rampant even in our churches. In order to make our churches seem relevant we sell Jesus along side what we think people want. Do you want help with your finances, your marriage, your addictions, your lust, your family, your business, your anger, your happiness? Whatever you need just trust in Jesus and he will give it to you! Have “You’re Best Life Now”, “Be the Best You…” etc. Its completely antithetical to the gospel. And it breeds this idea of self-fulfillment in our hearts.
Now lets think about this particular type is self love. We want something so bad that we are willing to use Jesus to get it. Whatever it is, we love it more than Jesus, we trust it for fulfillment over Jesus, and then we go to Jesus, and expect him to help us get his replacement. It is insane, and it’s not going to happen.
Guy two reminds me of the dude who has been engaged for seven years and still hasn’t set a date. He keeps making excuses to keep delaying the commitment he knows he should make. Similarly this guy keeps pushing commitment to Christ down the road. “Once I do this thing then I’ll follow.” Notice that we normally try to mask our excuse, and act like we are being responsible. “I just need to learn some more, I need to be a little more mature before I give my life completely to Christ.” Whatever that thing is, he falsely believes that it is a more worthwhile pursuit, that it will ultimately satisfy him, more than Jesus.
My wife and I have five children, which leads to some pretty interesting conversations. Every now and then a newly wed couple will say something to us that usually goes like this. “We’re going to wait until its a good time for us, you know, until we are ready to have kids.” We always try to truthfully respond and tell them “If you’re waiting for the right time, or until you’re ready to have kids, then you’re never going to have kids, because there’s never a “good time” to have kids, and you are never going to be “ready” for them.” This is the attitude this man has with Jesus. By seeing Jesus as an obstacle, and choosing to seek what he thinks will satisfy him more, he simply delays the great joy he could have being with Jesus.
BRINGING IT HOME
There’s much to be discussed, and explored, and explained here, but given my time limit I must be brief. How do I know that self denial is key to being a part of this life, to being a part of this thing called Christianity? Because its exactly what our king did.
Philippians 2:3-11 ESV
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
We are not better than our King that we deserve to seek our own desires when he sought after nothing for himself.
EXAMINE YOUR HEART
I want to ask the question that I think will challenge us, and dive the point home.
What ways are you only using Jesus to get what you want?
What ways are you avoiding Jesus so that he doesn’t get in the way of what you want?
What are those things you want, and how do you believe they will satisfy you more than Jesus will?
Jesus sums up the entirety of the law by stating two things. Love God, and love your neighbor. Not yourself. The first step to crucifying your flesh, to putting down your desires, to taking up his cross and receiving his desires is denying yourself. Bowing down to King Jesus. So today, wherever you may be, may we all kneel today to King Jesus and begin destroy the pride and love of ourselves.
Grace & Peace
So there you go, that was my lab sermon. I got lots of good feedback and would appreciate yours as well!
I’m a religous mutt of sorts, a mixed breed if you will. I first grew up in two Pentecostal traditions, the Assemblies of God, and then later the Church of God. Now, oddly enough, I consider myself reformed. The church I go to is a similar mixed bag. Different views and religous backgrounds, but together as brothers and sisters around the central issue of the Gospel. I can’t tell you how many rich and fruitful conversations have happend. Knowing the difference between first importance issues, and second importantance issues is what makes these conversions worthwhile.
In our little church plant, running close to two hundred attendees now, I’m not the only one who has ever crossed over from the Pentecostal to the Reformed tribe. For those in this camp, and of a similar breed, we typically have good discussion about our previous denominations, while lamenting some of the assumed and faulty beliefs in our former congregations. We don’t see it as all bad nessecarially, but there are some similar points of frustration, and doctrine, that once you start reading the bible, they cannot be satisfied by standard denominationl pad answers.
What happens is unnecessary division.
After a recent debate with some friends from my traditions of yore, I decided to get to the nitty gritty. Much of my concerns, maybe we will talk about those later, were not with the denom itself, or their foundational beliefs, but certain unbiblical practices that have slipped in and our now held as primary.
I’ve noticed that the lines of division are not always over first or second hand issues of doctrine, but over assumed pseudo-theology that have slipped in the back door and become part of a particular church’s common language.
However, if you go to that denoms statements of faith and core beliefs you find that these ideas are not mentioned anywhere. They are at best implied beliefs, and are far from first hand issues that shouldn’t be moved from. They are assumed issues that we place too much value in. These ideas are implied in that church, but are rarely ever made explicit. Some implied beliefs are cause for strong stances, and division, other’s are not.
Lets have an honest moment. A lot of people, not just Christians, but maybe especially Christians, simply hear something from what seems to be a reputable source, and assimilate it into their worldview. This is how implied theology ceeps in.
Two easy examples to show my point are “cleanliness is next to godliness”, and “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Now both of these have some truth in them, but not to the level of God’s truth. Neither one of these statements is in the bible either directly or indirecrly. Yet I’ve heard people quote them as if they were, and even heard them through sermons from the pulpit. The first is a quote by Benjamin Franklin, and the second by Ghandi. The later of which denied the deity of Christ and wasn’t even a Christian, so there’s that.
Are these statements without value? No, not entirley, but when they are said and implied along side of scripture long enough they begin to be treated as authoritative when they are not.
This is difficult when you realize that much of what you’ve been taught may of been implied through popular thought, or denominational preferance. When in reality those beliefs are not explicit to the actuall content of the bible.
When you realize this you have one of two options. 1. You start to take the bible for what it says and start to undo the implied theology that you have assumed is true. Or 2. you ignore the clear meaning of the text and put your implied theology over top to try and make it fit. The reason the second option is so preferred is easy. Let’s say all of your life you’ve been told that the color blue is actually called green, and vice versa. You turn 25 and someone points out the error. Is your first thought acceptance or denial? The same happens with these churchy non-biblical ideas.
This normally leads to nitpicking particular verses out of context to try and make your point. This is dangerous, if it becomes common practice it, absolutely ruins a church or a movement over time. If you try hard enough you can find a scripture, and missuse it in such a way, that all of the sudden anything your heart desires, becomes acceptable by God. The problem is that if you use the second approach it will eventually catch up with you and cause you to have to compromise scripture in order to preseve implied theologies. This can also eventually lead whole Christian movements into apostasy.
When you look at my heritages and compare the foundational principles you see that, atleast in creed form, they agree on most things. Triune God, Repentance of sin, salvation by grace through faith, the authority of the bible etc. So it should be possible for us to live happily enough together. Sometimes our implied theologies have such a strong mental hold that they effectively blind us from the essentials of our faith, which are profitable and life giving.
Here is a popular line of division between Pentecostal and Reformded traditions. Predestination. You thought I was going to say the gifts, didn’t you? Ill leave that to John MacArthur.
Growing up in a Pentecostal movent I can tell you that what is disavowed is a characterture of Predestination, not what the reformed crowd actually teaches. When asked about the scriptures that mention predestination in them, it is usually ignored or explained a way by excuses so weak I can’t even recall any arguments worth sharing. However, when you look at the issue of salvation from both of each side’s different decrees, you’ll see they actually only differ in one way.
Both see salvation as nessecary. They both believe repentance is nessecary. They both believe its a gift of grace and love. They both believe its through Christ alone and by faith. Some of the language varies, but on all the main points of salvation we agree. The only difference is that the Reformed camp makes an explicit claim on how it happens.
The Reformed say that God chooses us, that he is the primary agent in a persons salvation, and that God is sovereigh over the whole deal. Ill admit that this is an over simplification, but most Pentecostals can agree with this on some level. Again the main disagreement is over the “how do we receive salvation” part. When the issue is..are people going to hell? Yes. Is Jesus still saving people? Yes. Then we need to faithfully proclaim the gospel that they may hear it and repent and believe.
Honestly I don’t care whether people think that God chose them, or they chose God, but that they are in fact saved. Is predestination an important issue? Sure, is it a dividing issue? Nope. And I’m Reformed, I love the doctrine of election and predestination.
What’s funny is that the Assemblies and the Church of God never really specifically makes a distinction one way or the other. In their foundational statements they don’t say, we hold an Armenian view of salvation, and since its not a primary issue, then in theory, Calvinist could happily be in either denomination as long as there were no other points of disagreement. Their armenianism is implied not explicit. I’m not saying that either tribe would be completely comfortable in each others pews, but predestination is an unnecessary line of division.
The question then follows, “are there any necessary reasons for division between these two tribes?” The answer is yes, but the main point of disagreement is still implied through the denomination’s teaching and then assumed by it’s people, not an explicit decree or doctrine. Most of the main points of division are over implied theologies, there are hardly any that divide over a central tenant or issue.
The issue that is, in my view, the most primary is that of the prosperity gospel, also know as the health and wellness gospel. Again the theology here is implied, not explicit, but now it is also so assumed, that to drop prosperity teaching would require a lot of painful work. It would almost be easier to convince someone the true color of the sky. It was this issue that was the main course of discussion in my recent online debate.
The issue is that this theology is not explicit in any foundational doctrines of the Church of God or Assemblies of God Pentecostal movements. Its implied. Therefore we should be willing to set it against the highest authority of the bible, and if found to be in contradiction, we should begin the hard work to remove it.
I was criticized recently for holding that this doctrine was false and damaging to the integrity of the church, and the message of the gospel. I was told at great lengths that I shouldnt judge or talk bad about a man of God. There is some validity to those points, but not when it comes to this specific set of circumstances. What happened was essentially this…
Me: I think this is wrong biblically
Anonymous: Why?
Me: Here are my points and why they contradict the bible.
Anonymous: Well not everyone is perfect so you shouldn’t judge.
Me: But if I’m right then there is a serious problem, and you didn’t address any of my concerns.
Anonymous: but the bible says to “touch not my annointed”
Me: Okay but what about my points?
Anonymous: If people get saved why does it matter?
Me: Yes it does, what about my specific points.
And around around we go.
The issue is so ingrained at this point that careful biblical examination doesn’t happen. The issues are side stepped, red herring issues are brought up, then scripture used out of context to support the red herrings.
Much of the tension could be relieved between these two camps if prosperity teaching and philosophy was eliminated. Most of the other issues of division would be minimal, if the gospel preached by my former affiliations was more near to the gospel made explicit in the bible. Now, since this theology is implied and not explicit to core beliefs, there should be no problem addressing it and then walking away from it. You don’t have to hold to it in order to be a good Pentecostal.
In fairness, prosperity theology isn’t only found in charismatic camps, nor do all charamastic circles teach it. However this is where it is most prominent. Now before I make a false assumption of my own let me briefly explain the “prosperity gospel”.
Essentially it amounts to a poor bait and switch. The presentation is as follows.
“What do you need?”
“Oh you need ________, come to Jesus, give your heart to him and he will give it to you.”
On the surface is easy to think “well what’s wrong with that?” Well nothing is wrong if you fill in the blank with “salvation”, anything else and you’re wrong. I need a “healing”, or “God to fix my marriage” etc. It has been said before like this…
Now let me be clear. Jesus does heal, he does fix marriages, he does help people find better jobs or whatever. He’s done some of these things for me. The difference is my hope is not in these things, but in Jesus. Whereas the prosperity gospel flips this. The truth is even if you’re saved, Jesus may not do these things. So when someone says to you that it WILL happen if you “get saved”, then they are either being intentionally or sometimes unintentionally dishonest.
It makes Jesus out to seem like a politician or a snake oil salesmen, when he is in fact king. “Oh, your arm is stiff, just rub some Jesus on it.!” The truth is more like this. One day everything will be made right again, but in your life I don’t know what God has planned for all that troubles you. He may or he may not take it away, but either way you will have Jesus and he is better than everything.
I’m not saying that we don’t pray or ask God for those secondary things, we do, but they are just that, secondary. If we want God for those things than we don’t really want God, just his stuff. Let’s say you got a best friend, you guys are always hanging out playing your brand new PlayStation 4, six months later and he gets his own and suddenly you don’t hang out as much. Well that’s how the prosperity gospel treats Jesus. Go to Jesus for your needs, but go to Jesus ONLY for your needs and we’ve for a problem.
Now if you lead someone to salvation through a prayer based on that premise, then we have a whole host of problems. The prosperity gospel does a lot of damage. A false gospel makes false converts, false converts make false churches that spread a false message.
I feel a rant on the prosperity gospel coming on, but I want to stay on track. Here is my proposal. This prosperity theology is an implied theology. It is not explicit to and foundational beliefs in any of the tribes mentioned. Therefore you should not simply assume it as fact. You should, as with all implied theologies, test it. Please do just that. Don’t look just inside of your own team either. If it were me, i’d start here…
Examine, evaluate, trust the bible and lay down all the implied theologies that you have assumed based on their biblical merit.
Theist the Bearded 