"...MUST worship him in spirit and in truth."

In John 4:24 we now come to a third instance of the word "must". The entire verse reads,

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

As in John 3:7 and 3:30, it is the same Greek word meaning, "It is necessary."

There are many opinions today regarding the proper means and modes of worshiping God. The greater context of this passage, however, teaches us one thing clearly: Our worship must be in the manner which God has ordained. No man can dictate what our worship must be, apart from what God Himself has demanded. We must always remember: Worship is not about us; worship is about God.

Furthermore, God has given us guidelines for proper worship. This verse provides two of them: Worship must be "in spirit." The word "spirit" occurs twice in the verse, and is the same Greek word both times. The first instance clearly makes reference to God's existence as the third member of the Trinity. Then, we are told that true worship takes place "in spirit," almost certainly a reference to that same Holy Spirit. Only Christians can truly worship God, for only Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Furthermore, true worship must conform to the character of God the Holy Spirit. And this is related to....

Worship must be "in truth." The Greek word for "truth" is used over a hundred times in the N.T. and has a consistent meaning very much like the English word. In combination with the facts that worship must be "in Spirit," and that true worshipers must be Christians, we are told here that our worship must be in keeping with God's true character and God's true Word. Any worship-so-called which does not conform to God's character, or does not accurately reflect His Word, is not worship in God's eyes.

Since it is necessary for us to worship in spirit and in truth, let us examine ourselves, to see that we are!

Thinking Like a Christian, Week 5: Ethics

What is right?

Logic demands no other conclusion than this: If we are to have a moral order and real values, there must be absolutes. To deny absolutes is, essentially, to deny moral values; or it merely makes values equivalent to individual opinion.

What is the basis of Christian ethics? In short, it is God and His Word. God's moral nature is absolute and unchanging. He always hates evil and loves good; He never makes up new values according to some providential whim. Christian ethics is grounded in the character of the triune God. Some things conform to God's character; others do not. It is our responsibility to determine what does and what does not conform! Consequently, the Christian moral order is eternal and permanent, because it reflects God's unchanging character, and flows from the nature of the Creator to the nature of His creation.

God's Word is His revelation to us. The Bible teaches us what is good and what is evil. Sin is always a violation of God's moral order. General revelation (creation) points out that a moral order exists; special revelation (the Bible) reveals its specifics. This moral order exists outside of man. It is not a creation of his mind, nor could it be.

God and His Word fully explain the Christian moral order.

What are secular ethics? It is interesting to observe that mankind has a "common moral heritage." Some sins, like murder, child abuse, and torture, are almost universally condemned, while some abstract values, like love, justice, or courage, are nearly always admired. Why? Naturalism certainly can't explain this. Could it be that God has made us capable of learning to discern right from wrong?

Secular ethical systems have two major, insurmountable problems. First, in secular ethical systems, all morals are relative. There are no absolute standards to judge right from wrong; one's own impulses and opinions become the basis for ethics. "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction" (Matt. 7:13) is the verse that comes to mind. The second major problem is that secular ethical systems are always based on man's thinking. Whether based on naturalistic, economic, or some other philosophy, human ideas are inadequate to form an ethical or moral code. Determining right from wrong becomes nothing more than a baseless exercise of debate.

How should the Christian respond? First, we must recognize that the mind of man cannot create, invent, or discover any "new morals" or "new moral order." It simply can't be done. Christians also need to avoid thinking that there are any less-than-absolute moral values. There is no such thing. Furthermore, Christians need to recognize "new moralities" for what they are: Man's way of attempting to justify doing what he wants to do. This is a fallacy, and deviates from God's code. Morality is to be a lifestyle for glorifying God. Use your life to demonstrate what is right!

What do Christian ethics contain? Obviously, then contain moral absolutes. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are classic examples; reading them provides a wealth of information about right and wrong. Much of the Old Testament, in fact, describes God's moral order, and how He expects His creation to operate. Jesus Christ, of course, is the living example of moral, ethical living. He was and is the perfect role model. The call to follow Christ is perhaps the simplest way to sum up Christian ethics. As He said to Peter at both the beginning (Mark 1:17) and end (John 21:22) of His earthly ministry, "Follow me."

The Christian also has responsibilities. Matthew 22:35-40 gives us what Christ called the two greatest commandments: To love God, and to love one's neighbor as one's self. This kind of love is not merely a form of compassion, but also requires us to be servantlike, meeting both the social and physical needs of others. Our love of God demands that we serve God (John 14:15), working to achieve His will for this world.

We must also realize and remember the implications of sin. To sin is to come short of God's moral order. All have sinned, and sin demands judgment (Romans 3:23, 6:23). Those of us who have accepted Christ as Savior have had our judgment paid, and should serve God lovingly and humbly for the rest of our days. Sin also brings guilt, because God has made us to realize that we "fall short" of the perfection that His holiness demands. Indeed, we are taught that the law was given, to convince us that we fail to keep it (see the book of Galatians)!

Once a person becomes a Christian, the proper response is to have a zealous desire to keep God's moral code—to do what is morally right. It is not for us only to espouse it; we must live it!

"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in." C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, pp. 86-87.

"The Christian ethical system is both like and unlike any other system ever postulated. Every ethical system contains some grain of the truth found in the Christian code, but no other system can claim to be the whole truth, handed down as an absolute from God to man." David Noebel, Thinking Like a Christian, p. 88.

Reminder: This series of "Thinking Like a Christian" entries mirrors what I am teaching in my Sunday School class this summer at Faith Baptist Church in Mattawan, Michigan. The book Thinking Like a Christian is written by David Noebel and makes an excellent resource for the study of worldviews and how Christians ought to live in this present day.

How Many Problems Can You Spot in This News Story?

If you would like to read the original story from foxnews.com, click here; but I have copied the text to the blog. There are several problems with the people involved—how many can you spot? And do we continue to wonder why medical costs skyrocket these days?

OLYMPIA, Wash. — An oral surgeon who temporarily implanted fake boar tusks in his assistant's mouth as a practical joke and got sued for it has gotten the state's high court to back up his gag.

Dr. Robert Woo of Auburn had put in the phony tusks while the woman was under anesthesia for a different procedure. He took them out before she awoke, but he first shot photos that eventually made it around the office.

The employee, Tina Alberts, felt so humiliated when she saw the pictures that she quit and sued her boss.

Woo's insurance company, Fireman's Fund, refused to cover the claim, saying the practical joke was intentional and not a normal business activity his insurance policy covered, so Woo settled out of court. He agreed to pay Alberts $250,000, then he sued his insurers.

A King County Superior Court jury sided with Woo, ordering Fireman's Fund to pay him $750,000, plus the out-of-court settlement. The insurance company won the next round, with the state Court of Appeals saying the prank had nothing to do with Woo's practice of dentistry. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court restored Woo's award.

In a sprightly 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Woo's practical joke was an integral, if odd, part of the assistant's dental surgery and "conceivably" should trigger the professional liability coverage of his policy.

Dissenting Justice James Johnson said the prank wasn't a dental procedure at all and only "rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely."

The back story, the court wrote, is that Alberts' family raises potbellied pigs and that she frequently talked about them at the office where she worked for five years.

Woo said his jests about the pigs were part of "a friendly working environment" that he tried to foster.

The oral surgery on Alberts was intended to replace two of her teeth with implants, which Woo did. First, though, he installed temporary bridges that he had shaped to look like boar tusks, and while Alberts was still under anesthesia, he took photos, some with her eyes propped open. Before she woke up, he removed the "tusks" and put in the proper replacement teeth.

Woo says he didn't personally show her the pictures but staffers gave her copies at a birthday party.

Woo's lawyer, Richard Kilpatrick, described the surgeon as a kindhearted, fun-loving man who was chagrined that an office prank turned out so badly. He was delighted with the high court's decision, Kilpatrick said.

Attorneys for the insurance company did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

"He Must Increase"....and a small math lesson

Continuing in John 3, in verse 30 we see the words "He must increase, but I must decrease." Once again, the word "must" is the same Greek word meaning "It is necessary." John the Baptist was saying that it was necessary for Jesus Christ to increase, and for himself to decrease.

Today's society and philosophies recoil at such an idea, for they teach that I am to increase and get whatever I want or strive for. This is contrary to biblical truth.

In mathematics, we have a concept commonly called inverse variation: The idea that as one variable quantity increases, another variable quantity decreases. The most common example deals with travel: As the rate of speed increases (or decreases), the travel time decreases (or increases) proportionally.

The Christian life works this way. As I exalt Christ and lift Him up, I humble myself. As I bring glory to God, I deflect glory away from myself. The opposite is also true: If I fill myself with pride, and exalt and glorify myself, I steal Christ's glory, and He is reduced in the eyes of men.

Who am I exalting and glorifying today? Who is increasing?

"Ye Must Be Born Again"

After taking a class in Greek at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College in 2003-04, one of my goals was to read the entire N.T. in the original language. One of the books I have remaining, and which I am reading now, is the gospel of John; today, I read the first 21 verses of Chapter 3. This is where Nicodemus comes to Jesus "by night" and is told in verse 7, "Ye must be born again."

Two particular words in this passage, in the Greek, were very interesting. The first is the word "must" in verse 7. It is a word whose common meaning is "It is necessary." Becoming born again is not to be thought of in the sense of "You must try this restaurant," or "You must meet my friend Bob"—these are only non-literal meanings of the word. Instead, it should be thought of as a "necessary" thing—something we have an obligation to do. It is necessary for each of us to be born again.

The second word I found very interesting, was in that most famous of verses, 3:16. In the phrase, "that whosoever believeth in him..." the word "whosoever" is actually the common word for "all" (e.g., the "every one" in vs. 20 is this exact same Greek word). When we think of salvation, we should remember that it is offered to all—every man, woman, and child of every people, country, or language. It is not offered only to some, nor are there other conditions which must be met; all who believe will have eternal life in heaven.

Conclusion: It is necessary for all to be born again. Are you?

Good News From Our Home

Yesterday, July 22, our third daughter, Rebecca, was baptized. She is now 6 years old and had been asking to get baptized for a few months. It was a joyous occasion, and a number of relatives (and most of our church) were on hand for it.

The reason Rebecca wanted to get baptized was simple: She had accepted Christ as her Savior about two years ago, and she wanted people to know that she was saved and loved her Lord. She is a beautiful demonstration of child-like faith in God.

We who are Baptists believe that baptism is by immersion, that it does not change your eternal destination, and that its purpose is to show to others that you are a saved person—a child of God. In many cultures it is perceived as a more significant event; many Christians through time have been rejected by their families, not because they claimed to be saved, but because they took the public step of believers' baptism. Regardless of consequences (and in Rebecca's case, they were uniformly positive), Christians are commanded to show their faith in God publicly by being baptized.

Are you a child of God? Have you been willing to publicly demonstrate and share your faith?

Book Review: "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" by Dr. Donald Chittick

Last April, when I went to the still-under-construction Creation Museum in Kentucky, I met one Wayne Canfield, who was reading and raving about this book. He had good reason. The topic of this book is a summary of the evidence that Ancient Man, both antediluvian and postdiluvian (pre-flood and post-flood), was in fact technologically advanced in ways we cannot fathom and have not yet fully discovered.

This is a fascinating book. It includes evidence and examples of the technological prowess of a variety of ancient cultures, from the familiar pyramids of Egypt to less-known feats of building, engineering, and intellectual accomplishment from various parts of the world. His thesis is that ancient man was, in fact, anything but primitive; ancient man was perhaps in many ways more capable than even we are today.

There is also a great deal of Bible teaching in the book, which summarizes a variety of Genesis passages and others which deal with man's creation, the Fall, the Flood, etc. Furthermore, Appendix A contains most of the most concise and clear summaries of bias, science, and religion, and how these interact today.

I would gladly recommend this book for your reading pleasure and edification.

An Outrage in Congress

Today I received my daily update from Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party. I would encourage those of you reading this who live in Michigan to sign up for his daily e-mail, or if you prefer, go to www.migop.org regularly to read his blog entries. Today's e-mail contained this outrageous example of Congressional waste [Note: I have edited a couple typos from the original]:

Charlie Rangel…an example of the arrogance of power and Bart Stupak voted with him…taxpayers, are you paying attention?

OpinionJournal reports: New York's Charlie Rangel provoked smirks this week when news emerged that the Harlem Congressman was humbly seeking a $2 million earmark to create a "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at the City College of New York.

Titters turned to dropped jaws yesterday when a 20-page glossy brochure popped up, describing the yet-to-be-created center. That flyer, which asks for donations, explains that organizers need a mere $4.7 million to restore a "magnificent Harlem limestone townhouse" that will house the center, plus another $2.3 million endowment for its operating costs.

What, overtaxed taxpayers might ask, would all this money buy? One dollop would go to provide "a well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel" and another dollop would fund "the Rangel Library," which will be "designed to hold the product of 50 years of public service by the major African-American statesman of the 20th and early 21st centuries."

According to the brochure, the library not only would tell "the story of one great man....The Rangel archivist/librarian will organize, index, and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs, and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's career."

Oh yes, and the center would also offer students a master's program in public service.

Most Americans might find this taxpayer-funded monument to one member's ego a poor use of public money, but not many of Mr. Rangel's logrolling House colleagues do. Yesterday, Republican Study Committee Member John Campbell brought an amendment to the House floor that would have stripped Mr. Rangel's homage to himself. He was defeated 316-108. Only one Democrat voted to kill the earmark.

On another pork barrel project…in a classic demonstration of members protecting each other when it comes to local pork, Mr. Flake's amendment to strike the possibly non-existent center's grant failed. He won support from only 98 members, while 326 members whooped the expenditure through.

At this rate, Mr. Flake has a good case that the entire earmark process is a bipartisan hive of corruption. The difference between his efforts against earmarks last year and this year, sadly, is that now with Democrats in charge, his anti-pork crusade has a much harder time getting media attention.

Outrageous!

Thinking Like a Christian, Week 4: Psychology

What is the basic nature of man?

Is psychology a proper area of study for a Christian? Does it have an appropriate place in a Christian worldview? Psychology is the study of the soul and the mind. Although a massive topic (you can get a college major in it), it is appropriate for a Christian to study; indeed, only Christianity is suitable to study it! No other worldview can answer questions related to the soul and mind as well as Christianity can.

Biblical Christianity contains a psychology, and it is worthy of our study. Since man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), our worldview must recognize the significance of both the spiritual and the physical dimensions of man.

Psychology does have an appropriate place as a scientific discipline, where scientific observation is employed to study and learn about the mind. Much good work has come from such study. Unfortunately, much of "modern psychology" is filled with the biases of secular worldviews, and is consequently filled with error. This does not mean that Christians should entirely abandon psychology; instead, they should bring God's truth to its study.

Our minds are not merely physical objects; we have a "non-physical" part to our being. Our bodies may change and decay, but our minds remain continuous. Furthermore, man has a free will, which is an important element to consider in psychology.

Six areas of psychology are of importance in this lesson:

What is human nature? Man has a sin nature, which is a result of the fall (Genesis 3). This nature is inherently evil. When sin entered the world, man's relationship to God and his fellow man changed from what God intended it to be. Man has a natural tendency to rebel against God and His laws. Man's sinful nature is the cause of all psychological problems.

The doctrine of sin reminds us that each of us is responsible for his own behavior and choices. Mankind, because of sin, needs a Savior to give him a new nature.

What is guilt? Because man has rebelled against God, he has real guilt feelings about his rebellion; his conscience tells him that he has done wrong. Secular psychologists must devise ways to "explain away" guilt and its source. Christians recognize that guilt exists, and that it is a real consequence of sin, not a mental problem foisted upon us by our society or our environment.

What is mental illness? I will allow Jay Adams to speak on this subject:

"Organic malfunctions affecting the brain that are caused by brain damage, tumors, gene inheritance, glandular or chemical disorders, validly may be termed mental illnesses. But at the same time a vast number of other human problems have been classified as mental illnesses for which there is no evidence that they have been engendered by disease or illness at all....The fundamental bent of fallen human nature is away from God....Apart from organically generated difficulties, the 'mentally ill' are really people with unsolved personal problems." (Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, pp. 28-29)

How should a Christian approach sin and guilt? Counseling must first recognize that man has a conscience, man is rebellious, and man therefore experiences real guilt. People must be pointed toward Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection, and they must realize their need to ask forgiveness for sin (both to God and men). Counseling must also stress personal moral responsibility for sin. Failure to recognize one's own responsibility allows a person to deny his own real guilt and avoid the main problem—alienation from a holy God.

Confession, forgiveness of sin through Christ (1 John 1:9), reconciliation with God (2 Cor. 5:17-21), and sanctification are requirements for a "healthy" walk in Christ.

How should a Christian view suffering? Secular psychology cannot alleviate all suffering in a person's life; indeed; it tries to avoid suffering at nearly any cost. Christian psychology believes that suffering can be used of God to bring about positive change in a person's life, whether it is disciplinary, to teach us valuable lessons, or even to teach us to "joyously endure" it. Suffering is inevitable due to sin, but it is not always negative.

The Christian and Society: Marxists and humanists believe that society is the source/cause of all "evil" in this world, but Christians believe that individuals are responsible for the evil in society. Consequently, no man can blame his sin on society, his environment, or anyone else.

"The choice between Christian psychology and all other psychological schools is clear-cut. As Kilpatrick says, 'Our choice...is really the same choice offered to Adam and Eve: either we trust God or we take the serpent's word that we can make ourselves into gods.'" (From Thinking Like a Christian, p. 77; the quote is from William Kilpatrick's book Psychological Seduction, p. 233)