I am currently reading the story of a man whose father was one of the cofounders of Hamas. He claims his experience was much like something out of the seventh century with violence, manipulation, fighting, and the quest and desire for power. That is exactly what came to mind as I read II Samuel about the beginning of the kingdom of David. It is no wonder that Marxists and Communists view history as conflicts for gain of power. Whether you believe there to be a right or wrong, you just want power. There is a finite pie, so if you have power, I don’t, and if I have power, you can’t have it. When you look at the story of almost any nation, state, people group, or kingdom, you can see why some people think that way.

In II Samuel you read the story of the beginning of David’s kingdom. You see a lot of players who seem to be like hamsters on a wheel, knocking themselves out to gain power and place. They would be deceitful, commit murder, or take a wife in order to gain power. Such people have an exhausting life because once you become the old hamster, the wheel just takes over and your world goes topsy-turvy like you are stuck in a washing machine.

In II Samuel 3 David made a backroom deal with Abner, Saul’s former lieutenant. He said, “If we are going to make some kind of deal, first you bring back Saul’s daughter to me.” Saul had taken his daughter, David’s wife, away from David. Now, there are a number of things going on here. I’m not trying to second guess David. I don’t know his heart, but it is true that to have Saul’s daughter as his wife once again would be helpful to him as he took the kingdom of Israel. Abner himself was a man who made a play to take one of Saul’s concubines. That was seen, rightly I think, as a play for power. If you had Saul’s daughter or concubine, that was a kind of claim to the throne.

Verse 30 says, “So Joab [David’s lieutenant] and Abishai his brother slew Abner.” Verse 36 says David mourned for his former enemy Abner, and “all the people took notice of it, and it please them.” Verse 37 says, “It was not of the king to slay Abner.” II Samuel 3 is full of all these snapshots of people who in their own way, by marriage, murder, and even mourning, are trying to take control and power. Now, I don’t know anyone’s heart. I think David did the right thing here, but it also helped him gain more influence over those who weren’t sure about his leadership.

In II Samuel 4 it says that when Ishbosheth, whom Abner had originally backed as the king since he was Saul’s son, heard that Abner was dead “his hands were feeble, and the Israelites were troubled.” The reason was because his power was even more in question. Things got worse. There were two men who went and in deceit murdered Ishbosheth in his own bed. They then came to David for some kind of reward.

If you are not careful, even if you don’t have a sword in your hand, your entire life is just burning itself out trying to get ahead, to be in charge, to have power until you are too old, then someone else does the same thing to you. There is a better way to live. There is a contrast here of force and faith. You can either force your way on life or faith your way through life by trusting God. Which most characterizes your life, force or faith?

If you ask whether a man like Abner was good or bad, well, even though I don’t like him, there was some good in him. Did he live by force or faith? It seems apparent that he lived largely by force. The two men who murdered Ishbosheth were obviously bad characters, but I have been told that even terrorists sometimes have compassion for their own family. Perhaps the better question is, “What about David?” David was a good man and clearly lived by faith, but at times he had lapses where he was living by force. That is probably more like you and I. We want to do the right thing, but the question at any given moment is, “Am I living by force or am I living by faith?”

The power you need today rests in the omnipotence of God. Omnipotence means God’s all-power. Who is more powerful, you or God? God is. So, where do you get more power? Is it by exerting yourself or by trusting God? The answer is that power rests in the omnipotence of God. I think David understood this, though he did not always live up to it. You see this in two high points in chapters 3 and 4.

The end of II Samuel 3:39 says, “The LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.” David is talking about those who had murdered Abner when he said, “The LORD shall reward.” That is important to remember. God is in control. The beginning of verse 39 says, “And I am this day weak…” So, David is on top, the king, yet there is weakness. But God shows His power in our weakness when we acknowledge our need and His power.

David goes on to say, “These men be too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.” Are you always living in an endless cycle of trying to get even, to be right, or to exact revenge? Will you yield that to the God who is the Judge of the universe and who will do what is right by those who do what is wrong. David came to a point where he realized that God would reward and repay.

Again, in II Samuel 4:9 when two opportunists thought they could gain favor by murdering his apparent foe, David says, “As the LORD liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity.” He goes on to say, “Look, I don’t need your help in murdering a righteous man.” So, God will repay evil and rescue what is right. David came to a point, though he faltered at times, where he lived by faith and not by force.

What about you? Is your first instinct when you are in trouble, have competition, or are trying to gain a foothold to harm others and exert yourself, or is your instinct to look to the God who has all knowledge and power? I’m not suggesting we sit on our hands. I’m suggesting we access power that is far greater than our own by putting our faith and trust in God by doing the right thing in the right way at the right time. Why? Because the power you need rests on the omnipotence of God.

The post The Power You Need first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Genesis is a book of firsts. When you get to Genesis 4, you find all kinds of progress. You find agriculture. Both Cain and Abel were in agriculture, one in herds and one in crops. You find the beginning of music as mankind used it. In verse 21 the Bible speaks of a man named Jubal, “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.” So, God is the creator of music, but mankind finds out about music at the very beginning.  You find technology. Verse 22 talks about a man, Tubal-cain, who instructed “every artificer in brass and iron.” Technology, weapons, and equipment were totally and radically changed because of brass, iron, and such things. Verse 17 says that Enoch “builded a city.” You find all kinds of agricultural, technological, and social advancement.

Now, what kind of progress did man make in Genesis 4? Progress must be defined. Sometimes we talk about a person who is “progressive.” You can argue there is a historical date where the Progressives were a party, but it is more than a party. It is a claim. It is not a claim to a political ideology. It is a claim as to virtue, that we are making progress. It would be like if I started a group and called it Virtue, and everyone has to stand up against us who does not agree with us by disclaiming virtue.

So, we use the terms progressive and progressivism, but what do they mean? If I am against the position of a person who calls himself progressive, does that mean I am regressive? If you don’t consider yourself regressive, I would never call anyone progressive because progress is indicating that you are moving in the right direction toward a stated goal. Now, that may be what those who call themselves progressive think they are doing, but I would contest that. I do not think they are going in the right direction. I don’t mean to digress. I simply mean that if I am going ninety miles an hour, but I am going south when I need to be heading north, then that is not progress.

So, in Genesis there is agriculture, music, technology, cities, and more. Is that progress? Well, you also find the first murderer in Genesis. Cain murdered his brother Abel. In verse 23 you find murder again. You find the first polygamy. Lamech took two wives. That was against the design of God. You perhaps find religion as it is first conceived. Cain offers to God a sacrifice, but he does it in his own efforts and not by faith in God.

What is the upshot of all this? The upshot is that there is no true progress for a believer without faith. I am not merely progressing because of agriculture, music, technology, or a city being built. What about where I am with God? In Hebrews 11:4 the Bible speaks of Abel and says, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” So, whatever else was happening when Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices, we know that Abel was a man who did what he did because he was living by faith.

You see, God is the giver. He is the giver of life. You find this in the way Eve named her sons. She named Cain and said, “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Again, when she named Seth she said, “For God…hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel.” She realized that life was from God. Produce is from God. The ground that was cursed because of man’s sin was blessed by the creation of God. Without God we are just living in a dystopia. We are living in 1984 or some other dismal view of the future.

There is another book called Pilgrim’s Progress. The book is called “Pilgrim” because this world is not our home, and “Progress” because Pilgrim had a destination. He was going in the right direction. He was following God. He had a vector. We misunderstand progress when we forget our destination. Whatever progress you make socially, academically, financially, or in some other area, does not matter if you are not progressing in your relationship with God. All of those things are powers that can be detrimental if they are not given to God. What good is my knowledge if I simply use it to devise things that can destroy human kind.

The bottom line is that it is not progress if we are not living lives of faith in our Creator, in the God Who made us for a purpose. So, if you are a believer, you have trusted Christ with eternity. If that is true, don’t you think you can trust God with today, tomorrow, and right now? There is no true progress for a Christian without faith and it is this faith that pleases God and gives victory in life.

The post True Progress first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

What does a winner look like? We Americans are really big on winners and winning. We don’t exactly admire losers or losing. We want to be a winner! So, what does it mean to be a winner? What does a winner look like? Most usually we think of someone who has succeeded in some endeavor of life, financially, academically, or popularly. Those are easy measures of success in our society, yet there are a lot of people who seem to be winning at public things but losing in the things that matter more foundationally.

Here is a guy who is a superstar in sports or here is a woman who is an amazing musician or academic, yet they are failing in the most basic areas of their lives. I am not beating such a person over the head, but that is not the type of success I want. Many times, we see some entertainer receive an award on a nationally televised broadcast. They give a little speech in which they talk about world peace. That is fine and good, but often they don’t even have peace in their own twenty-thousand square foot home. If they don’t even have peace in their own house with the people they know in their world, how can they tell us that we need to have world peace? There has got to be something bigger that defines winning or conquering.

In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus is addressing seven churches. While there are many good, individual messages, a couple messages emerge that are consistent to all the churches that Jesus addresses. First, He says, “I know your works, good and bad.” Two, He says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches.” Three, He says, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Fourth, He talks about overcoming or conquering, “To him that overcometh.” So, these four elements are found in all of the addresses to the churches. One, the fact that Jesus knows us. Two, the fact that we need to hear Jesus. Three, the fact we need to repent. Fourth, the fact that we can win or conquer.

What is the point of all of this? The point is that you will never conquer until you adapt what you think to what God knows. What does God know? He knows everything, the good and the bad. For instance, to the church at Thyatira the Lord says, “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.” He says a lot of good things, but it continues, “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee.”

Most people in our lives either see all the good or all the bad. Your mother most likely sees all the good. My mother thinks that what I do is great, and of course I love her even more for being biased toward me. On the other hand, maybe you have some antagonists in your life and it doesn’t matter what you do, they will never be pleased. You cannot please people when they just don’t like you.

Jesus is not that way. The Father in Heaven and Jesus the Son know our works, good and bad. So, in many of these addresses Jesus says, “I know your works. I know some good things, but I know some things that need to change.” Since that is the case, we need to hear. “He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the spirit saith.” Jesus often said the same thing in His earthly ministry, “You’ve got ears. Use them. Don’t just let the audio come in through your ears. Hear it with your mind.”

“Repent” means “a change of mind.” To one of the churches, Jesus said, “Remember,” then He said, “Repent.” Remember is to bring to mind to the truth. Repent is to change the mind to the truth. The upshot of my willingness to change what I think to what God knows is that I can overcome. There is so much in life that is above my head and beyond my power, but the Bible says that greater is He that is in me than he that is in world. The Bible says, “We are more than conquerors through him.”

Today, I don’t know what the obstacles in your life may be, but I know that you will never conquer until you adapt what you think to what God knows. He knows everything; you know Him. He is worthy of your trust and your obedience.

The post More Than Conquerors first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Recently my wife and I had breakfast with my dad, my mom, a pastor friend, and his wife. Upon completing our meal, my dad handed the waitress a tract. She responded by saying, “Oh, I go to such and such a church.” Then the pastor friend flatly asked her, “So, are you saved?” She said, “You know, whenever someone asks me that question, I don’t quite know how to respond.” She was from a religious background and the pastor mentioned, “Religion is about going through a certain church to get to God, but this tract will tell you how you can go directly to God through His Son Jesus.” That has always been the issue, and a lot of times people are stuck in a church where there is peer pressure, family and people they know, who are more authoritative than what the Bible actually says. It has always been so.

In Galatians 2 Paul is addressing people who were being led astray by those who were adding other things to the gospel apart from the facts that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. The gospel he presents in Galatians is clearly a gospel whose authority is based upon God Himself and not upon consensus. We are living in a day where everyone wants to know what everyone else thinks. There is a proliferation of polls and surveys to see where people are and what they think. While such things may be useful if you are going to be a politician or start a business, the truth of the matter is that the truth is defined by God and not by consensus.

In Galatians 2:2 Paul is giving his history in the gospel and he says, “And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” What he is saying is that the same gospel he was communicating to people, he went to present before other leaders by revelation. It was not his idea. It was God’s idea. In verse 6 he says, “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.” So, there were people conferring one with another and indeed Paul was talking to these people. But what he is saying is that even though these were good men of some authority, people like Peter and John, these men were not the men who defined the gospel. God is the One Who defined the gospel by what He did to provide for the sins of mankind.

Again, in verse 8 Paul says, “(For he [God] that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles).” So, the same God that commissioned Peter to preach the gospel to one group of people, the Jews, commissioned Paul to preach the gospel to another group, the Gentiles. Verse 9 says, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

Paul is referring to people who would have been largely and widely regarded as authoritative. They were people like Peter, John, and James, men that spoke with some gravity. But in speaking of these people and his conference with such people, Paul makes it very clear that his gospel was not of these people. They could neither make my gospel the gospel of God nor could they deny the gospel, which they did not try to do. This gospel comes from Jesus Christ.

So, the server we met at the restaurant was very open to the gospel. She was in a church and was largely informed by where she had always been, the people she knew believed this and her family believed this. We can all understand that, but the authority is the Word of God. That is why the pastor said, “This tract will tell you that Heaven comes through Jesus and not through a church,” Despite this, we have a tendency to want people to agree with us.

The truth and the authority that come from the truth come from revelation and not from consensus. I want to win people to the truth, but the truth is not defined by people. It is not defined by what this church has always said or what this group thinks. It is defined by what God has said, and God has made it very clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. It is not by any of man’s works that we can add. It is by the work of God.  So, the gospel, the path to God, is defined by the authoritative revelation from God in the Word of God and not simply by what a majority of people think.

The post Revelation, Not Consensus first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Not long ago, I went to a car show with my dad, a friend, and one of my sons. It was an amazing car show! We saw lots of antique cars and exotic cars, the Ferrari being my favorite. We saw a 2019 McLaren that listed for $1,299,995 plus tax, title, license, and fees. The tag said that this was a “no haggle” price. I’m not exaggerating or joking, it was over a million dollars. Now, I don’t know that I would even enjoy driving that car. That is not a car; it is an investment. To make a vehicle an investment when it depreciates almost immediately in most cases, is not the thing I would want to do. However, if you have a Ferrari or a McLaren, that is great! The Bible tells us in Ecclesiastes 3:13, “It is the gift of God,” and indeed it is.
But, there are a couple of things that we learn from the book of Ecclesiastes that we should consider. Ecclesiastes 4:6 says, “Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.” By the way, this topic, the relative merit of money, is one you find throughout the Proverbs.
Notice some things we can learn about money from this verse in Ecclesiastes. Money and quietness are neither the same nor mutually exclusive. The Bible says, “Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.” So, it does not say that to have money you must have travail, although I think that is often the case. Many people think, “If I have money, I have happiness.” No, money and quietness or peace are neither the same or mutually exclusive. You have to ask yourself which is more likely. Is it more likely to have money and quietness or money and travail?
Proverbs 30:8-9 says, “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.” There are pitfalls both to being poor and to being wealthy. But money and quietness are not the same thing.
Second, one is a means and one is the end. Money is a means and quietness or travail is the end. Money can be a means either to some form of quietness, maybe financial security, or travail, maybe people arguing over money. One is the means to an end and one is the end itself. The bottom line is blessed are those who can tell the means from the end. Blessed are those who have the smarts to know what is a means to an end and what is the end itself.
Most people think, “I want to have money.” They don’t really want to have money; they want happiness, peace, and joy. They assume that having money means having peace, joy, and quietness, those things for which their soul longs. The irony is that so many times they finally get financial security and instead of leading to peace, it leads to turmoil.
It would be good for all of us to ask the question, “Why am I laboring?” Ecclesiastes 4:8 says, “For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is also a sore travail.” It is vanity to go through life knocking yourself out to make money and not really know the reason for which you are making the money. Am I making money for myself alone? Is it for me and some other person? The Bible tells us that God has given us richly all things to enjoy. We should take as a gift from God every good and pleasant thing in life, but it is vitally important, as we will see in the book of Ecclesiastes, to be able to draw the distinction between the means and the end and to tell the difference between money and the quietness our soul really seeks.

The post The Means and the End first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

I’ve notice that one of the amazing things about the life of Jesus is not that He could do things that no one else could do, but that He did things that everyone else should do. For instance, I don’t marvel that He could raise the sick because He is God. What does make me marvel is that God the Son would pray, that He would be led by the Holy Spirit, and that He would be baptized because there is a sense in which we would not think He would need to do any of these things. He is God in flesh. Yet, He did do these things.
In a like manner you find the idea of Jesus using or not using faith or trust in other people. We often talk about trusting Jesus, and the question this morning is, “Does Jesus trust you?” In verse 23 it says, “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.” Now, this sounds good. They believed in Him. But, the Bible goes on to indicate a question about whether they were saved. So, what is going on?
Verse 24 gives us the light when it says, “Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” The words “believe” and “commit” are the exact same word. They believed in His name because of what they saw. They saw Him do miracles. They were believing that He could do these miracles because they had seen Him do them. On the other hand, He did not entrust Himself to them because He didn’t need a witness, as John was for Him, for Him to understand men. He knew them to their very core. John 3 is an example of that when it comes to Nicodemus.
So, what informs our understanding of what it meant for them to believe in Jesus but Jesus not to commit Himself to them? First, the book of John is about believing. John 1:7 says, “All men through him might believe.” That is why John is written. John 3:18 says, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed.” So, John is all about believing.
Second, only believing in Jesus saves. The one question between you and eternity is “What will you do with Jesus Christ?”
This leads to a question. They believed in Jesus, but the question is, “What and about whom did they believe?” In Mark 6, when Jesus was speaking to His own countrymen, they saw His mighty works, they heard His mighty words, and they marveled saying, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” They believed what He could do because they had seen it, but they rejected Who He is, God the Son.
What we see here is that Jesus responds in kind. Nicodemus says, “We know that you are a teacher sent from God.” That is great, but it is not enough. Jesus is God the Son, and only through Him might you be saved. Jesus did not commit or entrust Himself to them because they did not trust Him for Who He is. They saw what He did, but they didn’t believe Who He was. That was the most important thing.
Jesus responds in kind. He gives grace to the humble. Think of Jesus’ harsh treatment of Pharisees, His merciful treatment of publicans, His gracious treatment of Nicodemus, and the woman at the well. You find that Jesus deals with us as individuals and He responds in kind. He gives more to those who are good stewards. When I have eyes to see, ears to hear, and accept the truth I have, I receive more. When I reject what I have, I lose what I have. He gives mercy to sinners. He commits Himself to those who trust Him. I don’t know what you need today, but I know that Jesus is the answer. Jesus will respond to you in kind today.

The post Jesus Responds in Kind first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Your little nephew, niece, child, or grandchild probably can’t do much of anything better than you can. You are probably faster, stronger, and smarter in every way. But, there is something that children can do better than you can do; kids are good at asking. The older we get the less inclined we are to ask and the more inclined we are to act, to do what we can on our own. Now, you may not be a kid, but you are still a child, not in the sense of age, but as a child of God by faith in the Lord Jesus.
In Matthew 7:7 Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” So, you can do more than pray after you pray, but you can’t do more than pray until you pray. The bottom line is you won’t know until you ask. There are so many things that you need and that you need to know that you won’t have and you won’t know until you ask. You may not know if it is God’s will to be praying for a certain thing, but pray until you do know. Be willing and obedient once you get an answer, but before you get an answer, pray.

There are some things we don’t need to pray about. For example, I know that I should be faithful to my wife and that I should be honest with people. There are basic areas of responsibility that I don’t need to ask the Lord about because I already know. But you won’t know what you haven’t been told unless you ask.
Remember, God knows. In Matthew 6:8 He says, “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. “ Again, in Matthew 6:32 it says, “For your heavenly father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.” So, God knows. I don’t know, and that is why I am asking Him.
Also, God cares. Jesus says, “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, he will give him a serpent?” If my son asked for a piece of toast, I am not going to give him a rock. If he asks for at tuna fish sandwich, I am not going to give him a snake. That would be absurd. I am not God; I am just a human. But, “if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” So, God cares.
Finally, it makes a difference whether I ask or not. Notice the first word of this passage is “ask,” and the last thought is “how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give…” I ask because I am a child. God gives because He is the Father. Ask and give; that is prayer. It is God’s prerogative to say yes or no, but it is my duty, privilege, and joy to ask. How long do I seek? I seek until I find. How long do I knock? I knock until the door is opened. How long do I ask? I ask until I am given an answer. God can answer any way He wants, yes or no, but I need to be asking.
Charles Spurgeon essentially said, “How do we even know that we have a will to surrender until we first bring it to God in prayer?” I should surrender my will, but I should make that will known as I surrender it to God in prayer every day.

The post You Won’t Know Until You Ask first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

How big does a problem need to be before you can pray about it? We can get caught on either side of this question. Sometimes we think that things are too small to pray about. Other times we think that things are too big to pray about. If nothing could be too big for God, then what could possibly be too small for God? You see, God wants to hear from us. God wants our dependence to be on Him every day.
Now, when it comes to big things, think about Hezekiah. He was a big man with a big job. He was the king of God’s people. There came a time when Isaiah the prophet came to him and said, “Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.” This was pretty blunt and very clear. God said, “You are going to die, and what I mean by that is you are not going to live.”
“Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD.” What a wonderful thing! Sometimes, we only pray when we have no other option, and because there is no other option, we think that there is no hope. It is almost as if God will not answer our prayers unless we can see the means by which He could do so.
Nothing could be further from the truth. God does use means. In fact, He used means in the healing of Hezekiah in the story to follow, but God is not required to do so. God is not limited by the world that He created. God is sometimes limited by the people He created in the sense that they don’t ask Him or seek Him.
Hezekiah didn’t have a choice. He prayed and God told Isaiah, “Go, and say to Hezekiah… I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.” Here is a case where something was going to happen, someone prayed, and the outcome changed. Now I don’t know how all that works, but I know that it works. I don’t know completely how prayer works. It is somewhat of a mystery to me, but I know we are commanded to do it.
What I love is that when Hezekiah reflects on all this later he says, “The LORD was ready to save me.” Hezekiah is essentially saying that God was not just grudgingly willing to answer his request; He was ready! It was almost as if God was waiting to save Hezekiah.
The enormity of your problem does not necessarily reflect an unwillingness on God’s part to answer your prayer. Don’t refrain from prayer because you think something is too small, and don’t refrain from praying because you think something is too big. Remember that God is sovereign. We ask Him, and He is the One Who answers because He is the One Who is God.

The post Just Pray! first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

A Usurper

Before light this morning I was brushing my teeth when, all of a sudden, I felt a pair of eyes looking up at me. I looked down, and there was my little dog, Bromley. She just looked at me with those big, adoring eyes. I bent down, patted her, and said, “Hey, Bromley. Good to see you.” And that was good enough for her. She turned around and went on to the next person. That’s what she does every morning. She wants to be with us, and though she does not know English very well, she picks up on attitudes very quickly.

Everyone, including you, is an influencer either for good or for bad, and most of us are leaders of some sort. People may not know your ideology, philosophy of life, or theology, but anyone and everyone, even a dog, picks up on attitudes. So it is mighty important that each of us lead with the right attitude and understanding.

It is a cliché to say that you are not leading if you are not serving, but I think it is true. Having said that, any leader among God’s people who neither receives guidance from God nor points followers to God is a usurper. He is cutting people off from the God Who can guide and provide.

That is exactly what had happened in Zechariah’s day. God had commanded His people to look to Him for guidance and provision. Zechariah 10:1 says, “Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain; so the LORD shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field.” In verse 6 He says, “For I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.” While God wanted to guide and provide for His people, they had been cut off from Him by those who were their “shepherds,” the people who were their leaders.

These leaders among God’s people were leading them astray instead of giving God’s Words to God’s people. They had “seen a lie” and “told false dreams.” These leaders were giving “comfort in vain” because they had not given God’s truth to God’s people. You can never genuinely comfort or help anyone if you are not doing so with the truth.

Zechariah continues, “Therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd.” Verse 3 says, “Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds.” God’s anger was kindled by these leaders who were leading His people astray.

God is the Good Shepherd. He said, “Because the LORD is with them… I will strengthen the house of Judah, and save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them: for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.” But, Israel had been cut off from God and His blessings because the shepherds had led them astray.

Are you receiving your guidance from God? Are the people who follow you wrapped up in you, or are they in love with the God Who gives you what you have and made you who you are? Any leader of God’s people who does not get his guidance from God and point his followers to God is a usurper. Our job as leaders is to connect people to the God Who can provide for them.

The post A Usurper first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

So it only seems fair to offer suggestions on how to vary public invitations. These are fresh ideas from an old source (F.D. Whitesell’s book), and I make no claim of originality on any of them. You might want to reread part three of this series in order to review some valid reasons why we would give a public invitation in the first place.

1. Ask the congregation to record their decision on a card provided in the back of the pews, and then to drop off the card at a designated location. This idea of recording the decision themselves and then depositing it for collection helps the person consider what they have decided, and provides an excellent follow-up plan for the pastor if it is deemed necessary. This obviously takes forethought, making sure that there are cards in the pews for those who need them. Consider having a closing instrumental piece as people fill out their decision cards.

2. Invite those who have indicated a need to stay for an after-service. The after-service can be handled in a variety of ways. It could be a time of testimony, a time of prayer, or a time of Q&A. It could be set up exclusively for those who have indicated a need for salvation, or it could be specifically for Christian members of the church. Though the after-service has historically been held after the service, it might even be a meeting held at a later time or another day.

3. Have counselors ready to deal with those who raise a hand. I saw this at a church once and was very impressed by it. I had preached a simple gospel message and invited those who had not yet trusted Christ for salvation to raise their hand. I noticed a group of church members congregating in the back of the auditorium. They were looking for raised hands. When the closing hymn began, these counselors moved forward, went to the various people who had raised their hands, and invited each one to join them in the counseling room located off of the main auditorium. Under this particular pastor’s ministry, the church had added a second morning service until a larger auditorium could be built.

4. Invite those making a decision to stand. This is another method I have seen and used. First, invite those who need to make a decision to raise their hands. Then, ask those who have raised a hand to look up at you (the preacher). Explain that you are going to ask them, and only them, to stand as you pray. Then tell them that once you have finished praying, they are to remain standing, to “do business with the Lord” where they stand, and when they have finished to be seated. After all have been seated, close the service in prayer. This is a solemn and moving way to invite for decisions: the whole church is aware that decisions are being made. If someone of the number indicated a need for salvation, he should be approached after the service and counseled about it.

5. Ask for testimonies about how God has worked through the message. Testimony services should be handled with care, and the preacher should make it clear that the point of a testimony is to glorify God, not the preacher’s message. Verbal testimonies about God’s working in the heart can encourage the congregation and the pastor, and it may stir others to decision as well.

6. Invite responders to meet someone at the front, to tell the person what they are deciding, and to pray with them about that decision. This could be the pastor, pastor’s wife, a deacon, or deacon’s wife that meets them. This can provide accountability and encouragement for the one responding. If the responder has questions, this could also be a good time to address those.

Keep in mind that a call for public response is not always warranted. Everyone points to D.L. Moody’s famous illustration of the Great Chicago Fire to justify a public invitation in every service. However, one man’s conviction against a method of inviting (asking the audience to take a night and think it over) and preference for another (calling for an immediate, definite decision) should probably not be applied to every local assembly. Moody was a man used of God, but he wasn’t divine.

The post About that Invitation… (Part 4) first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

By calling for response in that way, Dr. Rice was hitting on some crucial elements to the whys of giving a public invitation. Briefly, here are several reasons.

1. To Conclude. This does not mean that a public invitation is merely a way to end the service. Using it that way makes the invitation rote and somewhat pointless. Rather, a public invitation is the logical conclusion to a decision-driven sermon. F.D. Whitesell put it this way: “Evangelistic preaching naturally culminates in an invitation.” The decision is the decision; the invitation is a helpful method to wrap-up and remind people what that decision is. In that way, it concludes.

2. To Encourage. As we said previously, the invitation is not a barometer that gauges how the sermon was received. However, the response of others in the congregation to the preaching of the Bible is sure to encourage other members, visitors, lost people, and the pastor. I cannot get a scene from When Silence Speaks out of my head on this point. Gordy (the deaf man) is standing in a church service and sees Oliver (the bad man) go forward to speak with the preacher about getting “right with God.” The church is overjoyed! Gordy is shocked! (He can’t hear what’s going on, he only sees Oliver talking with the preacher.) But Oliver’s response (and subsequent change of life) opened Gordy’s eyes to his own need of Christ. What an encouragement! I believe a great deal of encouragement is lost by using the altar call exclusively. This is unfortunate since the bulk of preachers know very little about other kinds of invitations to give.

3. To Counsel. The primary, historical reason for calling congregants to respond publicly was so that they could receive encouragement and counsel about the decision they were making. Whether it was Finney’s “anxious seat,” or Moody’s “inquiry rooms,” the goal was to further explain to people the decision they were called upon to make. Counseling, then, continues the work that the sermon began, it doesn’t seek to discover personal needs. (The reason the person has responded was because the sermon exposed a need! Counselors don’t need to concoct ways to deduce what the need is.) And counseling doesn’t need to be drawn out or complicated. Something as simple as having congregants shake hands with the pastor, pastor’s wife, a deacon, or a deacon’s wife, state the decision they are making, and then pray with them about it could be enough. If there are further questions, they can be answered on the front pew, in a side room, or scheduled for a later time.

4. To Follow-up. At the Bill Rice Ranch, counsel and follow-up are the two main reasons we have an invitation. Counselors encourage campers about the decision they are making, and offer them support and help in carrying out that decision. Decision cards provide an opportunity for the home church to follow-up on those decisions throughout the year.

There may be other reasons to give an invitation, but one thing is for sure: beginning with the end in mind would go a long way in helping us execute the invitational method well.

The post About that Invitation… (Part 3) first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Most calls for a public response in our churches take the form of an “altar call.” I do not believe that the altar call is the only kind of public invitation we should extend, nor do I think it represents the ideal of a public invitation. However, before asking the what or how of any method, we need to answer why: why are we calling them to respond publicly? I’d like to begin by answering that question in the negative. Here are several reasons why we do not call for a public response.

1. We do not call for a public response so that there is time to make a decision. A prosecuting attorney doesn’t wait for his closing arguments to convince a jury. He wants the jury convinced as early as possible about the decision they should be making. The call for public response is not the time to explain the decision or give people time to make one: you should have been doing that for the previous forty-five minutes!

2. We do not call for a public response to gauge God’s working in the service. Some people speak of the altar call as if it is a barometer for how the sermon was received. It isn’t. Culture, personalities, and misunderstandings can also explain why an altar call is not met with overwhelming response. (We will address God’s working in a service with a future article.) It would be wise for us to remember that, if we have faithfully proclaimed God’s Word, He is probably doing more through the service than we will see in the service.

3. We do not call for a public response to prove the bravery or sincerity of those responding. Making proof of bravery or sincerity the basis of an invitation produces unnecessary guilt and introspection in sensitive consciences, and emboldens the empty efforts of those who just happen to be brave enough to “humble” themselves at the steps of the platform. No, “coming forward” isn’t about proving anything.

4. We do not call for a public response to “fill the altars.” First of all, the idea that our assemblies have a physical altar to God is unscriptural. According to Hebrews 13, Jesus (and His atoning sacrifice for sin) is our altar. “By him [we] offer the sacrifice of praise.” Jesus (and ultimately His atonement for sin) constitutes the bridge whereby all of our service is accepted with God. Furthermore, altars in the Old Testament were not places of decision: the decision was already made before the offerer arrived at the altar! Secondly, geography is insignificant to the issue at stake in the invitation, which is making a decision.

5. We do not call for a public response to merely end the service. The invitation can and does conclude, but it is not a separate part of the service. Since it is a natural extension of the sermon, it is important to see the invitation as part of the entire service. Unfortunately, the “why” of giving an invitation has been lost to many. Therefore, it has become little more than a rote observance with no real, practical purpose.

Getting at the “why” is what we will discuss in next week’s post.

The post About that Invitation… (Part 2) first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Years ago, I attended a lecture that proposed the use of debate tactics in preaching. Stress was placed on the logic necessary to present truth well (and somewhat convincingly). Recently, I’ve been challenged to look into the idea of teaching logic which, of course, means that I have had to read up on it. I have found Robert Gula’s book Nonsense very helpful. Here are a few points of logic we would all do well to remember as we try to carry on a dialogue:

• The “abusive ad hominem” falls under the heading of irrelevance. In this type of argument, “the personality of someone is criticized or attacked instead of what the person is saying.” The point of a debate is what is being said, not the personality or position of the one saying it.

• Arguing a priori means that you treat “what you suspect to be true as if it is true.” I wonder how many things are said because someone suspects them to be true (and perhaps they are), but has no sound reasons for why they are true. Thinking it is so doesn’t make it so.

• The irrelevant appeal to the sacred cow is an appeal to ideas or principles that are held dear. For example, a person’s criticism of altar calls or how they are handled does not in any way mean that he is against evangelism, Bible preaching, or invitations. To say, “Your criticism of altar calls is an attack on evangelism,” is to appeal to a sacred cow, and it is irrelevant to a healthy discussion of altar calls!

• One type of oversimplification is called a false dilemma. With a false dilemma, “two extremes are presented as if they were the only alternatives when, in fact, there are actually several alternatives between the two extremes.” This can be presented as an either-or option. This doesn’t mean there are never legitimate either-or situations. We just need to be sure we’ve thought out our argument before creating a false dilemma.

• Comparisons and contrasts can sometimes be irrelevant and/or invalid. For example, judging a city by comparing things as they are now to the way a person remembers them thirty years ago is a little unfair. The city has changed enough that it needs to be reexamined on its merits as it is. The contrast with a previous time is irrelevant to a discussion about the merits of a city today.

• Then there are arguments of tradition and precedent. “We’ve always done it this way.” “We better leave well enough alone.” What was fitting for the past may not necessarily be appropriate for the present. “It’s time to change what we’ve always done.” Then again, new does not necessarily mean better. But it would be good to remember that “the unquestioning appeal to, or scorn of, tradition and precedent is a type of oversimplification and invariably reflects glib, shoddy thinking.” We should be able to hang our hats on more than history.

• Finally there is the straw man. A straw man is created in an argument when you take something that has been said, exaggerate or distort it, then attack what you have created by your distortion. You have attacked a misrepresentation of what he said, not what he actually said.

These are just a few points of logic to consider. All of us should think soberly about thinking, and hopefully that will lead us to be better communicators. To motivate us to that end, Gula has advice with the closing sentence of his book on logic: “The world does not need another smart aleck.”

The post Keep Logic in Your Theological Discussion first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Does it seem like a strange command to give? Don’t boil a baby goat in the milk of its mother. Three times in the Old Testament, God gave this command to Israel. Two times it is mentioned in close relation to the offering of firstfruits. The third time it is found at the end of a list of dietary restrictions (Deuteronomy 14:21).

We know from Paul that Old Testament commands regarding agriculture did not imply God’s sympathy for the livestock. “Doth God care for oxen…?” No, He says it “for our sakes” (I Corinthians 9:9-10). God was saying more to Israel than, “Let your livestock feed in the harvest time.” He was teaching them something about being His people. Paul saw that, and he realized that God was saying something more to him too. The laborer has a right to enjoy the fruit of his labor.

Recently, I came across this quote that seeks to give clarity to the struggle we sometimes face when interpreting and applying texts from a radically different cultural context. “To give a correct meaning of a text is to give a correct application; at the same time, to give an application is to give a meaning. We cannot ultimately distinguish them.” What God was saying to Israel, and across time was saying to Paul, He is still saying to us despite the differences in our cultural contexts.

So what could God have been teaching Israel about being His people when He commanded them not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk? This kind of humane consideration would have been vastly different than the barbarism of the heathen around them. Even Proverbs points out that “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” in the context of the treatment of livestock. “A righteous man,” it says, “regardeth the life of his beast.” So how about this: My people are to be characterized by a consideration and a compassion for all life because I am considerate and compassionate toward all life. That’ll preach!

One more quote: “…if God is immutable and in his providence assembled a book to guide his people in all times and places, then what he revealed yesterday about his character and his design for his creatures will not be changed today.” When we know what He was saying to them, we know what He is saying to us. Different cultural contexts? To be sure, but that is the beauty of the Scriptures: they transcend time and culture.

So preacher, God is still speaking. When you preach, let Him speak for Himself.

The post Preacher, God Still Speaks first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Dwight L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, and J. Wilbur Chapman made use of the inquiry room. Those concerned about salvation were invited to the front of the auditorium either during a closing hymn or after the closing prayer. These responders would be paired with a counselor and led into the inquiry room (usually there were separate rooms for men and women), or they would be corralled into a separate meeting room for what was called an “after meeting.” In either case (in the inquiry room or in the after meeting), the decision being made by each responder was further explained, confirmed, and assured from the Bible.

Billy Sunday altered public invitations. In the Sunday campaigns, those in the audience needing to be saved were invited to shake the preacher’s hand, thereby sealing their decision to receive Christ for salvation. Those making a decision were paired not with a counselor, but with a “secretary” who took down the responder’s name, address, and church preference on a decision card.

At what point the platform was retooled as an altar, I’m not sure. (And that’s an entirely different series of blog posts coming I’m sure.) But this brief history has at least left me with this question: weren’t people invited to make decisions before Finney? Yes, they were. Much of New Testament preaching is recorded without a preacher’s call for public response (or an altar call as it were). People were converted under the ministries of Solomon Stoddard, the Wesley brothers, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards without (as far as we can tell) a call for public response.

For those prior to Finney then, how did they get a response if they didn’t call for one publicly? The answer is simple: their preaching was the invitation, and preachers knew enough to expect seekers after a message that invited the audience to make a definite decision.

Sometimes preaching puts listeners in a dilemma, like when Peter preached on Pentecost. His audience looked around and said, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” These people obviously needed follow-up! Sometimes a sermon answers questions. Sometimes preaching points out sin. Sometimes preaching simply informs. But if a message doesn’t invite listeners to a decision (and it’s OK if it doesn’t), a public invitation makes no sense.

If you’re going to make a call for public response, remember: the message sets up a public invitation when the message makes a definite invitation.

The post About that Invitation… first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Because of the specific ministry with which I am involved, I have had the opportunity not only to become friends with others in ministry but also to partner with them in outreach efforts. That makes sense, doesn’t it? People in ministry will, most likely, have friends in ministry. However, in Mark 9, we find a man doing ministry whom the disciples should have befriended, but didn’t. (Interestingly, it was “John, the beloved” or the “apostle of love” who led the criticism of this should-be friend.)

What was this guy’s problem according to John? Was he doing a different work than the disciples were doing? No, he was casting out devils, something the disciples had done before (though they were unable to do so not long before this). Was he using different methods? Perhaps, but it appears he was doing his work the same way the disciples had: “in thy [Jesus’] name.” So just what was John’s issue with this guy?

“He followeth not us,” John said. Twice. John passed up the opportunity to befriend another man in ministry, and even condemned his ministry, on the grounds of association and elitism. “He followeth not us.”

The “followeth not us” criticism comes in many varieties today. The “us” may be referring to an alma mater, or a city where a well-known church is located. Personalities and styles may dominate the discussion of “us.” “Us” may identify a group who adhere to a “checklist” of sanctioned church practices. However, when our ministerial friendships are based on anything other than the truth, they fall short of being Christ-centered. A.T. Robertson says of this episode, “One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one’s own narrow prejudices.”

Just because someone didn’t graduate from your school or doesn’t attend the conferences at a popular Fundamentalist church, doesn’t make him an enemy of the gospel—and it shouldn’t make him your enemy either. He may not speak your “religious language” and he may not use all of your methods. He may use methods you don’t. Can’t you see all the “followeth not us” in those standards for friendship?

Now I am not advocating that we all go join the local ministerial association. Most of these associations disparage agreement on truth and pursue cooperation in spite of the truth. Christ-centered friendships (partnerships, associations) will center on the truth. Where there is agreement on truth, there can be association and cooperation: friendship. What John missed (and I wonder sometimes if we miss it too) is that our field of friends could be much wider if we didn’t narrow our vision of friendship based on association and elitism.

The post Christ-Centered Friendships first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.”—Titus 2:11-12

The reemergence of teaching on grace-based Christian living has been met with both praise and criticism. Praise has come largely from Christians fed up with or burned out on “boot strap” Christianity. “The rules have hampered us from living grace-filled lives,” they say. “God’s grace sets us free from rules and standards.” Critics charge these grace-walkers with recklessly abandoning standards of music, dress, and behavior, and charging down a path to loose living.

The minimizing of rules or standards by the new grace movement has been, in part, a knee-jerk reaction to a carnal approach to ministry and discipleship which emphasizes externals over a personal relationship with Jesus. The personal testimonies of how grace-walkers “came to grace” bear this out. Years of flesh-dependent living finally gave way to frustration and burnout. Grace seemed like the answer to all their fruitless trying. And they are partly right: for salvation, sanctification, and Christian ministry, God’s grace in Christ is the answer. But grace is not opposed to standards; it is opposed to earning.

The word grace in the New Testament has two meanings: graciousness, or a gift. The former was evident in the earthly life of the Lord Jesus: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us… full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The latter is evident in God’s saving of men: “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8). In this regard, grace is God’s doing something for us that we could never do or deserve; it is a gift.

As Christians, God’s grace is also to be evident in us through how we live: “…when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). It was evident to Barnabas by the Antiochian Christians’ testimony of salvation (v. 21), by the fruitfulness of their ministry (v. 24), and by the manner in which they lived (v. 24, 26b) that God was at work. Barnabas saw Christianity in the disciples at Antioch. No doubt he saw brotherly love, humility, and holiness. Can it be denied that he also saw relational and behavioral trends in them that were counter to the culture around them?

The Grace Walk movement tends to confine Christianity to an ethereal and theoretical realm. Its focus is the potential of truth. Positional truth (meaning what we are in the sight of God because of Jesus) is the framework for most of their Bible interpretations. That leads them to redefine what a command is and to explain away its actual demands on a Christian’s behavior. They play semantics with what a “sinner” is and debate if a Christian is one after he is saved. Though it is true that in his position a Christian is not considered a sinner by God, sometimes a Christian contradicts his position by his practice.

Biblical Christianity is intensely practical. Theological? It’s that too, of course. But Christian theology bears itself out in practice. Our new position is a glorious fact, and Christians should live in light of who they are in Christ. But we must not stop at just knowing who we are in Christ! We must live it. Our practice should line up with our position. Living according to Bible principles practically demands an application of Bible principles to what I do. Guess what. That’s what standards are: applied principles. So when the Bible says, “Love not the world,” what does loving not the world look like? In that command is a principle that, when it is applied, will produce a standard. Applying Bible principles to life is merely taking God at His Word and depending on Him to live in light of it. That’s pretty basic stuff, but it is so important.

God’s Word spells out the principles; God’s grace enables you to live by them.

The post Grace vs. Standards first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

One frustration that is bound to confront any parent is a child’s complete ignorance of everything. (I mean, come on, how could he know nothing? Right?) As adults who have been to school, learned all kinds of stuff, matured (hopefully), and essentially been around longer than our kids have, we can easily forget what it was like to not know anything. Couple that thinking with our biblical understanding that every child is born with an innate tendency to do wrong, and we might assume that our children’s behavior is always intentional rather than simply uninformed. This misunderstanding can lead to serious frustrations.

God wants us to train our children to be wise, and Proverbs 29:15 reminds us of the balanced approach to training our children to behave wisely: the rod and reproof. The “rod” is a proverbial reference to punishment for disobedience. “Reproof” means correction, an argument, or a chiding. Reproof is the instruction, telling what is wrong; the rod is the enforcement, correcting what is wrong. The balanced approach to training, then, is to lay down rules for right and wrong and to punish when a rule is disobeyed. This will teach a child to act in light of what he knows, which is being wise.

An unbalanced parenting style, however, will emphasize one aspect of the training process to the exclusion of the other. A child will be frustrated when he is punished for something he had no idea about. Parents will be frustrated when they expect obedience by talking about right and wrong but never enforce the right. I can remember at times being frustrated with my own child’s behavior and thinking, “How could he not know the right thing to do?!” or “How could he not know how dumb that was?!” The answer might shock you: I had never told him! Sad to say, I was being unbalanced in my training.

When we lean heavily on a “rod-response” to uninformed behavior, or when we never get around to correcting deliberate misbehavior, we are unbalanced. If we find ourselves frustrated with our child’s behavior, we need to ask ourselves, “Have I talked with my child about this previously?” The answer to that question will direct us to our next action. As Matthew Henry said, “If a reproof will serve without the rod, it is well, but the rod must never be used without a rational and grave reproof.” The balanced approach of instructing and enforcing is the Bible way to raise wise children.

The post Unbalanced Parenting first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

A new generation of Calvinists are cropping up as a reaction to the weak biblical teaching and man-centered pragmatism of some fundamentalists. I recently finished a book by a champion of these “new Calvinists” containing a blatant defense of Calvinist doctrine. The writer’s belief was that for anyone to be biblical, he needs to believe the tenets of Calvinism. To believe anything else would be unscriptural, he opined.

He criticized those who preach a “new [pragmatic] gospel,” as opposed to “the old [scriptural] gospel.” This new pragmatism, according to him, preaches a “pitiable Savior” and a “pathetic God” because it pleads with men “as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time.” Ultimately his conclusion was that one is either a Calvinist, believing only some will be saved because Jesus only died for some, or a Universalist, believing all will be saved because Jesus died for all.

Knee-jerking against man-centered pragmatism, however, is hardly a reason to be a Calvinist. Scriptural principles, patterns, and implications should shape our theological positions, and the pattern of Bible ministry contradicts the theology of Calvinism. Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost is just one example.

Peter invited people to “repent” and to “be baptized… in the name of Jesus Christ.” Space prevents us from exposing the meaning of baptism “for the remission of sins,” but it is enough to point out that Peter’s appeal was to the will of every listener before him on the Day of Pentecost. They were being called upon to choose. Calvinist’s cannot make that kind of appeal honestly. The aforementioned writer states that “fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel” and that the opposite view of Calvinism makes “saving faith… man’s own work.” An honest Calvinist preaching “by grace through faith” (especially the way he defines those terms) couldn’t invite people to make a decision—especially the way Peter did. That reality sets Calvinist theology against a biblical pattern.

Peter invited “every one” to “repent” and to “be baptized.” Peter’s appeal was also universal (or, shall we say, unlimited?). It doesn’t appear that Peter thought the atonement provided through Jesus’ death was limited. Does that appear to be the belief of any New Testament preacher? A plain reading of the Bible affirms that the death of Jesus for sin was sufficient for all sinners (I Timothy 2:5-6; I John 2:2; II Corinthians 5:14-15). Yet the writer of the aforementioned article states, “Preaching the gospel… is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them.” Perhaps he doesn’t mean that you can’t tell people that God loves them or that Jesus died for them, but it sure looks like that’s what he’s saying. The writer goes on to acknowledge, however, that “the question of the extent of the atonement does not arise in evangelistic preaching.” I ask, “Why should it arise at all?”

These new semi-Calvinists will argue that their invitation is still to everyone. But I ask you: why be any kind of Calvinist? Space forbids us from exploring this thoroughly, but Calvinism wrongly defines biblical terms like election, grace, and faith. It will lead to practices that are contrary to the biblical pattern. You don’t have to be a Calvinist to be a thinker. Better to be a non-Calvinist altogether.

Yes, the charge of man-centered pragmatism could be leveled at many fundamentalists, but one doesn’t have to be defined by either man-centered pragmatism or Calvinism. I have found that it’s better to walk the road than to choose one ditch over the other.

The post Non-Calvinist Evangelicals first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Have you ever been lost in a crowd? One minute you were with a group of friends or family; the next minute you turn around and find yourself facing unfamiliar faces. A definite feeling accompanies that kind of experience: confusion, hopelessness, and anxiety all wrapped up into one.

You might find this humorous, but I experienced the same lost feeling when I heard that the United States had a women’s hockey team.

“Women’s Hockey?!” I thought. “Where did that come from?” Doesn’t hockey scream masculinity and absolute contradiction to femininity? Hadn’t anyone asked if there even should be women’s hockey? (I know, I’m on thin ice here—pun intentional.) I suddenly realized that while I was thoughtful about gender-appropriate roles and activities, the post-modern culture around me that wasn’t had passed me by and done whatever they wanted. Culturally, I had been left behind.

But being left behind is never bad when you’re standing in the right place to begin with. What’s right isn’t defined by standards but by the unchanging principles of God’s Word. As the ever-digressing culture around us marches “forward,” those who adhere to the timeless truths of Scripture will undoubtedly be left standing where they’ve always been. This is not an appeal to return to the mid-1900s; but it is a call to return to real-time, actionable application of timeless Bible truth. (That is why we independent Baptists label ourselves “old fashioned” to our own detriment. God’s truth isn’t simply older than what is, it’s as timeless as the One Who spoke it. That means it cannot be confined to any time or the fashions of that time.)

In the face of negative cultural shifts, the timeless truths of the Bible need to be even more clearly communicated and clearly communicated even more. Christians, and especially Christian congregations, who are concerned about the tide of our culture need to demand that fluff and bluster in the pulpit be replaced with clear, applicable Bible preaching. The truth needs to be not only theoretical, but livable.

Will Christians and congregations who return to living the truth in this way be left behind by our post-modern culture? I expect so. But perhaps by standing on those truths they will also be standing in the way of the continual cultural decline. Regardless, it would be better to be left behind standing on the timeless truths of God’s Word than to be swept away with the tide of the culture around them.

How is the Ranch trying to address these cultural shifts?

For over sixty years, the Bill Rice Ranch has endeavored to make the most of preaching for the benefit of churches and the people they try to reach. The Ranch expects that this Word-centered philosophy will continue to benefit churches. We also sense the timeliness of our newest program, Bill Rice Bible Institute. The goal at Bill Rice Bible Institute is to clearly communicate God’s truth in word and demonstrate its principles in action (as we always have tried to do) so that students will think clearly, communicate clearly, and live clearly as Christians in this world.

The post Left Behind… in a Good Way! first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Once at a church in New England, I asked a group of deaf adults: “Heart: what mean?”  I asked this question after a Sunday school lesson in which the word heart was signed often. For them to have understood the lesson, understanding the spiritual dynamic of the word heart was necessary.  What I learned shocked me.

Their answers were varied: some said, conviction or guilt; some, Holy Spirit; some, touched; and others Jesus. So obviously, I repeated my question: “No. Word H-E-A-R-T, heart [signed], what means?” Many responded with the same answers.  Then I changed my approach: “Does heart mean *pat, pat on my chest* [then I opened and closed my fist like a beating heart]?” Their answer: Yes.

The Bill Rice Ranch has always been concerned that the gospel be presented clearly, and that deaf people especially understand how to be saved.  This experience with deaf adults gave me a greater conviction that many deaf people do not understand the word heart in its spiritual context.

The word heart in the Bible refers to the mind, emotions, and will of a person.  It is what a person actually is behind the facade of the physical body.  Below is a sampling of uses that illustrate the diverse meanings of the word heart both in the Bible and in Christian circles:

Attitude – a servant’s heart

Passion/Desire – “my heart is fixed, O God”; a heart for God

Mind/Thoughts – “Keep thy heart”

Will – “with the heart man believeth”; “ye have obeyed from the heart”

Conscience – “create in me a clean heart”

Of course, the Bible also uses the word to mean the physical heart.  But, because of the many different meanings of the word heart and a misunderstanding among deaf people about the spiritual meaning of the word, we do not use the phrase, “Ask Jesus to come into your heart” when explaining salvation. Some time ago, I had a conversation with a deaf man who taught a Sunday school class at a fundamental Baptist church.  This man had undergone some heart procedures, and during our conversation, the subject of heart transplants came up.  His comment to me was, “If I ever had a heart transplant, I would pray to be saved again because I wouldn’t know if the heart came from a saved person.”  At first I thought he was joking, but I quickly realized he was not.  His misunderstanding about the spiritual meaning of the word heart and the tendency of the Deaf to think literally led him to believe that Jesus actually lived inside his physical, blood-pumping heart!

The crux of the issue is simply this: the phrase “Ask Jesus into your heart” makes the decision of salvation unclear.  The decision of salvation is not asking, but believing.

“But,” someone might say, “Doesn’t the Bible say, ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’?”

Yes, it does, right before it says, “How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed,” and right after it says “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.”

“But,” someone else asks, “Doesn’t Jesus come to live in our hearts when we get saved?”

Yes (through the person of the Holy Spirit), but that’s what happens after a person makes the decision to be saved.  And the decision for salvation is not asking, it’s believing.  In fact, when presenting the Gospel, the decision for salvation does not even need to emphasize the heart.  Think of the fundamentals of the Gospel: sin, punishment, Jesus, faith.  Why does the word heart even need to be brought up when bringing someone to a decision about salvation?

“But the decision to trust Christ is a heart-decision, brother!”

The decision to be saved is a decision of the will (heart), yes.  But the one decision that a person must willfully (heartfully?) make to be saved is faith in Jesus.  Other words are synonymous with faith: believe, trust, depend; and even receive and accept are all words that the Bible uses to describe what the decision for salvation is.  Those are the words we should emphasize.  And aren’t they Bible words, after all?

How we explain salvation to a deaf person at the Bill Rice Ranch is the way I try to explain it to everyone.  At the Ranch, we use the term place to describe a deaf person’s position before God.  As he is, a person’s place (or, position) is sin, punishment, and hell forever.  God will not accept him into Heaven as he is.  In order to be saved he must have a new place.  Jesus’ place, we explain, is perfection, peace, and Heaven forever.  His place is the same as God’s!  Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect life, and then died on the cross for our place.  A person must decide to accept Jesus for a new place.  Jesus died for his place; now, if he will accept Jesus, he can have Jesus’ place.  When he accepts (depends upon, trusts) Jesus, he has a new place and God accepts him into Heaven.

The point is: what is the one decision a person must make if he is to be assured of salvation?  There is actually a very clear answer to this from the Bible. When the apostle Paul was confronted by an honest, seeking man about the way of salvation, Paul did not mention praying, asking, or even more than one step.  “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” the jailer asked.  Paul’s response was, “Believe.” Nothing less and certainly nothing more was necessary.

The Gospel is the most important message God has ever given to mankind. Surely God intends that we be good stewards of the message He has given us in His Word. So let’s be clear when we present the Gospel, and be sure that our hearers understand the one decision they must make to have a place with God.

The post The One Decision for Salvation first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Displaying Your Gender (part 2 of 2)

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

—I Corinthians 11:14-15

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”—Deuteronomy 22:5

Two biblical principles should inform our dress decisions: modesty and distinction. Modest attire is the adequate covering of our bodies. Distinct attire is that covering expressing the distinction of our Creation.

Distinction

In I Corinthians 11, Paul is starting to deal with issues of the Corinthian gatherings.  Many try to assert that the issue at hand is the tradition of women wearing a shawl. However, the immediate discussion is “hair length” in the context of appropriate, public worship.

First, Paul nowhere mentions a veil or a shawl. Second, the words Paul uses throughout the discussion repeatedly refer to hair (“shaven,” “shorn,” “long hair”).  Third, Paul says that a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering. The point of the issue is that hair that hangs down is too long for a man, and hair that does not hang down is too short for a woman.

Hair length is the male and female’s natural ability to visibly distinguish what their gender is. Even if you believe the issue in I Corinthians 11 was over wearing a shawl, the conclusion is the same: a man or woman who has the appearance of the opposite gender “dishonors his head [authority].” It is dishonoring to God when the visible distinction between male and female is not maintained.

The conclusion from I Corinthians 11 is only underscored by the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5.

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”—Deuteronomy 22:5

The key word in this verse is “abomination.” God did command Israel to view certain animals with disgust (Leviticus 11:10-13, 20, 23, 41-42), even though, as part of His Creation, those animals were not an abomination to God Himself. But, for a behavior or person to be “abomination,” or an “abomination to the Lord,” means that by it, or them, there is some compromise of God’s perfect sacrifice, God’s unique position, or God’s moral absolutes.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”—Leviticus 18:22

“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.”—Deuteronomy 7:25

“Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.”—Deuteronomy 17:1

Some argue that Old Testament laws were simply a shadow of the greater reality. They point to some of the other laws in the same chapter as merely teaching the general principle of separation (not mixing seeds, not plowing with a donkey and an ox). But even if Deuteronomy 22:5 was the “shadow of a greater reality,” what would that greater reality be? What “general principle” would it teach? Wouldn’t the greater reality have to be the differences between male and female?

The prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 is rooted in the natural distinction of Creation. The distinction of genders is an absolute that transcends time, place, and culture. The verse teaches that, in an orderly society, some things pertain to men and some things pertain to women. Any behavior that blurs the natural distinction between men and women compromises God’s moral absolute as it relates to gender.

Some argue that male and female distinction is irrelevant since Christ abolished those distinctions. They quote Galatians 3:28,

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Those who argue that Galatians 3:28 teaches that salvation abolishes the distinction of male and female misunderstand the verse. First, they misunderstand the interpretation. Galatians 3:28 teaches that there is no difference between male and female in the matter of being saved: both male and female have equal privilege and opportunity to be saved. Second, they misunderstand salvation. Christ’s redemption does not erase God’s Creative intent, it restores it! Salvation brings us back into the relationship with God that had been forfeited in the garden. Though we still wrestle with sinful tendencies, we are empowered by the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling Christ to be everything God intended us to be from the beginning!

Clearly displaying our gender is part of being what God intended us to be. Between male and female, there is obvious distinction. This distinction is God-ordained. Our roles and our dress should accurately reflect the God-given identity of our creation.

Be what you are; that’s what God intended.

The post Be What You Are – Part 7 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Displaying Your Gender (part 1 of 2)

“Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”

—Exodus 20:26

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”—I Timothy 2:9-10

The American film industry has regularly tried to normalize gender confusion. Their humor frequently makes light of the inability to determine a person’s gender based on appearance. An old Saturday Night Live skit about an individual with an indeterminate gender, named Pat, is just one example. Their scripting plays up the awkwardness that actually occurs when someone’s gender is not clearly discernible.

Biblically, what we are and what we do is further supported by how we appear.  Old Testament regulations regarding the attire of priests, and high priest, are an example of clearly displaying role with attire. A negative example is the harlot who was clearly identified by her clothing. When how we appear contradicts what we are confusion rules Remember Jacob’s deception of Isaac, or the showiness of the Pharisees.

Gender distinction is built into God’s Creation, and God intends for each gender to fulfill his or her distinct role. God also intends for us to clearly display that distinction through our appearance.

Two Biblical Principles

Most Christians agree on some level with the principles of modesty (adequately covered) and distinction (not cross-dressing). These are biblical principles that should influence how we appear.

Modesty

As Dr. Rick Flanders has pointed out in his helpful booklet, the word naked in the Bible almost never means nude.[1] Nakedness means inadequately covered. Being adequately covered is a principle that reaches back all the way to the garden of Eden.

“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”—Genesis 3:7

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”—Genesis 3:21

Adam and Eve’s shame over their unclothed condition was not an issue of immodesty between a husband and wife, but between fallen man and their God (Genesis 3:9-10). God clothed them with “coats” (a full covering), in place of their “aprons” (a partial covering) so that their nakedness would be adequately covered in His presence. The clothing God provided symbolized the atoning sacrifice for mankind’s sin, and the righteousness that would be imputed to humanity as a result of it. Man’s attempt at atoning for his own sin (aprons of fig leaves) has always been woefully inadequate.

In the Bible, the public removal of clothing, or being inadequately covered in public, is sinful and shameful.

“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.”—Genesis 9:20-23

“… Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)”—Exodus 32:25

“Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.”—Nahum 3:5

“Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.”—John 21:7

Noah’s “uncovered” condition and his son seeing him in that condition were both shameful. The idolatry of the children of Israel led them to public nakedness. Idolatrous practices and the consequence of punishments are described throughout the Old Testament prophets as revealing a nation’s “nakedness.” Peter, a backslidden disciple, was inadequately covered. Before he would stand before the Lord Jesus, he adequately covered himself with “his fisher’s coat.”

In the church, ladies are to be examples of modest dress accompanied by good works.

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”—I Timothy 2:9-10

The word modest means orderly, or decorous. The word shamefacedness means reverent timidity, or downcast eyes, and is used one other time in the New Testament to describe our attitude toward God (Hebrews 12:28). The word sobriety means soundness of mind, or sanity. A woman’s attire should be orderly, reflecting a sane understanding of her position in the church. A woman who dresses immodestly (inadequately covered) does not reflect timidity, or a sane understanding of herself, especially when in the presence of men.

Adequate covering would at least reflect the Bible standard for covering nakedness (Exodus 28:42, “from the loins [middle-back] even unto the thighs [covering them]”) on both men and women; and would include, on women, additional covering above the waist. Articles of clothing that are too tight, though they may cover, would be immodest because of what they still reveal: the physical forms of the natural body.

The post Be What You Are – Part 6 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Playing Your Role (part 2 of 2)

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”—Genesis 3:16

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…”—Ephesians 5:22-23

Former Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers created a firestorm of controversy in January 2005 when he speculated out loud to a mixed group of scientists that the reason why more women don’t occupy positions in math and science departments could “stem from biological distinctions between the sexes.” Another of his considerations was that most women play the role of wife, and mother to children, thereby limiting the amount of time they can dedicate to their work.[1] Summers resigned as Harvard’s president on February 21, 2006.

University professors, like the ones who pounced on Summers’s comments, would like to convince us that differences in male and female roles can be traced to cultural tradition. As we will see, the female role of wife and mother is a biblical pattern not a societal trap.

The Function of Distinct Roles: Female

Just as the male role can be described with the words leader and provider, the female role can be described with the words helper and caregiver.

Female as the Helper

The whole creation of the woman surrounds the search for a suitable helper (“a help meet”) for Adam.

“… but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him…. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”—Genesis 2:20, 22

Adam could not fulfill God’s intended purpose for mankind by himself. No member of the animal kingdom was compatible. Another male would not have sufficed. It was the woman who fulfilled this role of a helper “meet [fitting, suitable]” for Adam. The New Testament reaffirms this connection for the female role:

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”—I Corinthians 11:8-9

The female role is that of helper, especially in relation to a male. According to the Bible, a female fulfills her God-given responsibility by submitting to the headship of the male, and by assisting him in carrying out God’s Creation mandate. In this way she is a helper.

This is a great paradox: male/female equality and male headship/female submission. Man and woman are equal as human beings, but they are not equal in their role. Feminists wrongly assume that the submissive role equals inferiority. But a woman is no more inferior in her role as helper than God is when He fulfills the role of Helper in our lives, or Jesus Who “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister” was in His.

Female as the Caregiver

The curses of Genesis 3 make clear God’s original intent for each gender.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”—Genesis 3:16

In God’s directive to the woman, he makes plain that her responsibility was that of a wife and mother. Her suitability for the male corresponds to her being a wife (Genesis 2:20-25). Her bearing the children correlates to her tending the children. The female’s primary arena is the home, and consequently the care of children (I Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:4-5).

So, what about Proverbs 31? Isn’t that a working woman? Yes, but the caregiver aspect of the female role does not prohibit working outside the home. In fact, the Proverbs 31 passage has the woman’s responsibility to her family fully in view.

“She will do him [her husband] good and not evil all the days of her life.”—Proverbs 31:12

“She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.”—Proverbs 31:21

“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.”—Proverbs 31:27-28

The Proverbs 31 woman has a virtuous character, in part, because she faithfully fulfills her role as caregiver to her family.[2] The central question is How does working outside the home contribute to the fulfilling of her role as caregiver to her family?

We must also understand that the Creative intent for woman as helper/caregiver applies to the female gender. Even Lawrence Summers (mentioned above) relayed the story of his daughter who, when given two trucks for her playtime, imagined one as “Daddy” truck and the other as “Baby” truck![3] The giving of care is naturally expressed by the female.

Whereas a man’s mistreatment of women and children contradicts his role as leader/provider, a woman’s disrespect toward a man and the neglect of children contradicts her role as helper/caregiver. Though, as with the male, age and marital status will dictate how it is practically carried out, the female role is that of a helper/caregiver.

The post Be What You Are – Part 5 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Playing Your Role (part 1 of 2)

 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree… cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life… In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground…”

—Genesis 3:17-19

I knew who the actor was, and I knew that his character on the weekly primetime sitcom was a sleazy, with-a-different-woman-every-week womanizer. Though I had never seen the television program (nor do I intend to), what little I had caught from commercials during Sunday afternoon football had brought me to these obvious conclusions. Then a bombshell was dropped on me: the actor was actually a homosexual! The role he was playing for the sitcom did not reflect the person he was. (Incidentally, his homosexuality does not reflect the person God made him either.)

The Fact of Distinct Roles

God intends for what you are to be clearly connected to what you do. That male and female are to play different roles in God’s Creation was evident from the beginning. The fact that there were two parties involved in fulfilling the Creation mandate points to the fact that each had a part to play. For example, the command “be fruitful, and multiply,” coupled with the fact that standing there were a male and a female, requires that each play a different, distinct role in order to fulfill that command. One would “father” a child; one would bear the child. These roles are different yet equally important in God’s Creation.

What are the roles that God intended, and intends, for male and female?

The Function of Distinct Roles: Male

The masculine role, as God intended it, can be summed up in two words: leader and provider.

Male as the Leader

God’s intention for male headship (role as leader) is confirmed by several important facts.

First, the entire human race was named man. “And God said, Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added). This statement is also repeated in Genesis 5:1. Then, Genesis 5:2 takes the case even further by stating:

“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”—Genesis 5:2 [emphasis added]

By identifying the entire human race with the title “man,” and by recognizing the male/female relationship with Adam’s name, God showed that He intended the male to be the head, especially in relationship with the woman.

Second, the man named the woman.

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”.—Genesis 2:23

Adam had previously exercised his role as head of God’s Creation by naming all the animals. As the woman, who unlike the animals was a suitable helper, stands before him, he exercises that naming authority with her. This was an expression of Adam’s sense of his role as leader. Not only that, but Adam’s first act of obedience after the curse (a result of his forfeiting his headship) was to reclaim his role as leader by renaming his wife Eve in light of God’s new promise of a coming “seed” (Genesis 3:20).

Third, Adam bears the blame for the whole calamity of sin.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”—Romans 5:12

When God returned to the garden, He called for Adam (Genesis 3:9). And though the woman receives a curse because of sin, a reason for Adam’s curse is plainly stated: “because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” (Genesis 3:17). Adam surrendered his rightful role as leader, allowing disobedience to God’s command. He bore the responsibility of sin because he bore the responsibility to lead.

Fourth, the New Testament reaffirms the intent of Creation that the man should lead.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”—I Corinthians 11:3

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”—I Timothy 2:12-13

These passages deal with authority in the church, not marriage. What is especially clear from the First Corinthians passage is that the leadership role does not equal superiority, but authority. God the Father occupies a “higher” position of authority than the Son, just as the man occupies a place of authority “higher” than the woman. The issue is not superiority versus inferiority; it is simply a matter of position in an authority structure. In First Timothy, Paul sees the role of a teacher as a position of authority. Therefore it would be contradictory to God’s original intent (since “Adam was first formed”) for the woman to occupy that position over a man. Creative order signifies Creative intent.

Male as the Provider

Working in order to provide was built into the male role from the beginning.

“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”—Genesis 2:15

The work of tending the garden was rewarded with the enjoyment of partaking of the garden. In his partaking of the garden, Adam would have no doubt shared with his wife and children. Work was not a result of the curse, difficulty was.

Together, Genesis 2:15 and Genesis 3:18 make clear that the Genesis 1:28 command to “subdue” the earth was specifically meant for the male. This is not to say that a woman working outside the home is unbiblical, nor does it question a woman’s ability to work. But it cannot be disputed that the role most responsible for the work, provision, and protection for the family was intended to be the man.

This leader/provider role is God’s original intent for the male gender, especially in relation to a female. Any mistreatment of women or children would be a direct violation of God’s intent for the male role. Age and marital status will dictate its practical expression, but any man seeking to fulfill his God-given responsibilities must take this role seriously.

The post Be What You Are – Part 4 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Embracing Your Identity (part 2 of 2)

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”—I Corinthians 7:2

After World War II, American culture succeeded in promoting the idea that masculinity (the male role) is promiscuity, and that femininity (the female role) is chastity. Then, in the 1960s, the “sexual revolution” supposedly set everyone free to be promiscuous. After all, the girls could be “just as good as” the boys, right? Enter feminism, the homosexual movement, and gender confusion! But a Christian who understands his identity based on Authority must recognize the moral boundaries established by that Authority as well.

God’s Purpose: Morality

Embracing your identity will mean submitting to moral boundaries. If you will trust God’s Word for what you are, trust His guidelines for protecting what you are. What are God’s moral boundaries?

First, all homosexual activity is forbidden. Despite the world’s twisted attack on people who believe it, God’s design at Creation and His plainly stated commands affirm this prohibition. God made them male and female with the express intent that they were meant for each other in physical union, that is, the male for the female, and the female for the male. This is clearly God’s Creative intent:

“God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…”—Genesis 1:28

“…they [a man and his wife] shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”—Genesis 2:24-25

Homosexuality does away with God’s design for male and female by putting male for male and female for female. It is a denial of God’s Creative design. Homosexual acts cannot and do not fulfill God’s command for mankind to “be fruitful, and multiply.” Therefore, homosexuality is contrary to God’s design for His Creation.

Beyond the plain design that God had for male and female at Creation are God’s repeated prohibitions against homosexual behavior throughout the entire Bible: Old and New Testaments. Here is what the Christian’s Authority has to say about homosexuality:

 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”—Leviticus 18:22

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…”—Leviticus 20:13

The word abomination is a strong word. Anything that compromises God’s perfect sacrifice, God’s moral absolutes, or God’s unique position is an abomination. Homosexual behavior violates the moral absolutes found in God’s Creation and Law.

 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men… when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful… God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator… For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…”—Romans 1:18, 21, 24-27

What begins as the creation’s refusal to respect God as Creator, ends in the “vile affections” and “lusts,” and the “unseemly” activity of homosexuality. Notice that the slippery slope begins with their not honoring Him as God, and their not being thankful (v. 21). We honor and appreciate God as Creator when we accept what He created us to be. Failing to embrace what we are puts us on the path to immorality. Failing to submit to His moral boundaries makes us immoral.

Second, all sexual acts outside of marriage are forbidden. God’s Creative intent generally was male for female, and female for male. But, more specifically, His intent of the male/female relationship was husband for wife, and wife for husband. Adam and Eve were not only the first man and woman; they were the first husband and wife!

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”—Genesis 2:24

Adam didn’t even have a “father and… mother,” but future boys and girls would. In the Garden, God instituted marriage as the approved condition for male/female relations. God did not command men and women to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” He commanded a husband and a wife. Paul reiterates this:

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”—I Corinthians 7:1-2

The act of marriage is reserved for marriage. Outside of marriage, the physical relationship between men and women is forbidden by God in numerous passages throughout the Scriptures (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20; Deuteronomy 5:18; 22:22-24; Ephesians 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalonians 4:3-4). God promises strong punishment for those who ignore this moral boundary that He has established (Hebrews 13:4). Sexual immorality damages your conscience, scars your mind, affects your reputation, and inflicts harm on your body (Deuteronomy 22:22; Proverbs 6:32-33; I Corinthians 6:18).

Submitting to God’s moral boundaries protects both male and female, confirms them in their identity, and allows them to mature in that identity.

God’s Passion: His Glory

Third, embracing your identity means trusting God as your Creator, and your Guide for this life. Having looked at the Scriptures, and having seen what God says about gender identity and boundaries, no matter how you feel or what someone may have suggested to you, know that you can trust your loving Creator. He made you what you are for a reason. And, at the end of the day, His reason is His glory.

For whatever other reasons God made you male, or female, the ultimate reason was so that you would live as He made you, trusting Him entirely with that, so that His unique position as Creator could be seen and praised. He will get that glory by working in you and through you.

“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”—John 9:1-3

This man was born blind. That was his condition at birth. The reason for his being born blind did not have anything to do with him or his parents. His blindness was part of God’s design to manifest His work. Now, hopefully you don’t see your gender as a handicap! The principle is that you are what you are so that God can show His works through you.

And God not only has His reason, but He is good. His intentions for you and toward you are good, and hopeful.

“For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.”—Jeremiah 29:11

God’s passion for the Christian is that we glorify Him. We cannot do that by denying what He made us, or by ignoring His moral boundaries. So, what are you? Embrace that identity, strengthen it by submitting to God’s moral boundaries, and then glorify God through that identity by accurately playing your role, a subject we will look into next.

The post Be What You Are – Part 3 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Embracing Your Identity (part 1 of 2)

“And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

—Genesis 1:26-27

A 2012 Gallup survey of 121, 190 people reported that 3.4% of the American adult population identifies themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT). The study also found that 8.3% of women and 4.6% of men between the ages of 18-29 identified as LGBT. This age group represented the highest percentage of any age group in the survey.[1] Though news media and television programs would have us believe the homosexual population is much higher, this statistic is still staggering because it brings to light the epidemic of confusion surrounding gender identity. Gender identity to them is subjective (figuring it out based on feeling), not objective (knowing it based on fact).

What You Are

Your identity is, essentially, who and what you are. Recognizing your identity as male or female is entry-level identification. Unlike the world which searches for an understanding of its identity through exploration and experimentation, a Christian has Divine Revelation to give him understanding. So, for a Christian whose Authority is the Bible, there is a very short answer to the question of gender identity: You are what God made you.

 “…male and female created he them.”—Genesis 1:27

“…male and female created he them.”—Genesis 5:2

“…he which made them from the beginning made them male and female…”—Matthew 19:4

“…from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”—Mark 10:6

A person’s identity as male or female is the Creator’s decision. You are either male or female, and what you were created is what you are. To question what you are by creation, or to reject what you are by creation, is to question and reject the God Who made you.

I can hear someone objecting now: So what you’re saying is that I’m just the sum of all my physical parts? No, there is much more to you than just your anatomy. But, I am drawing two conclusions. First, if you are going to gain any understanding at all about your identity, you do have to start there. God only created male and female, and we are born as one or the other. Though we grow to discover what it means to be male and female, we cannot dispute that we are male or female. Second, if our identity is defined by creation, we need to embrace that identity. It is what we are, and running from that fact can only lead to confusion and immorality.

So what does embracing your identity mean?

God’s Perspective: Equality

First, it does not mean accepting either an inferior or superior position. Often Christians have swallowed the line that “girls can play sports as good as boys,” thereby making boys the standard for girls. Since when should girls aspire to compete with boys? That kind of aspiration is contrary to the Scriptures. What we learn about God’s initial creation of mankind is that male and female are equal in three ways:

1. Male and female equally bear God’s image. Being made in the image of God was not the special privilege of Adam. The Bible says that “man” (read mankind) was made in the image of God, bearing His likeness. Both male and female exhibit intellect and creativity, the capacity to reason and communicate, and the ability to relate to someone other than themselves.

2. Male and female are equal in relation to God. God does not view male and female differently with regard to personal responsibility, or relationship to Him. Both have been given responsibilities that God expects each to fulfill. Both have the privilege to know God personally, and to obey Him.

3. Male and female are equal in relation to one another. Woman was “taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23) in order to be a suitable helper for Adam. But she was not made to be a slave to Adam. Together, they were each in their respective roles to contribute to fulfilling God’s command “be fruitful,” and “subdue” the earth, and “have dominion over… every living thing” (Genesis 1:28). The male’s role as leader (we will discuss roles later) doesn’t make him better. The female’s role as submissive does not make her worse. Embracing your identity as male or female, then, does not make you less, or more, than someone else.

Since the fall of man, male and female also share in the equal privilege of salvation. That is, both men and women have equal opportunity to be saved and to experience all that salvation means.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”—Galatians 3:28

Therefore, embracing your identity does not mean accepting a position that is inferior, or superior, to anyone else. God’s perspective is that male and female are equal in their worth and standing before Him, and in relation to one another as human beings created in God’s image.

The post Be What You Are – Part 2 first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.

Be What You Are

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…?”

—Matthew 19:4

Kathy and her husband, David, welcomed their third child into the world on January 1, 2011. They named the baby Storm. The baby was born with beautiful blue eyes, fair hair, and chubby cheeks. There is absolutely no question that the baby is healthy and beautiful. The only real question on everyone’s minds is: what is it? You see, the parents have decided to keep the baby’s gender a secret, and let him/her decide for himself/herself when he/she is ready! Though obviously the parents, two siblings, and two midwives who helped with the at-home delivery know the actual gender of the baby, Kathy and David feel that it is important not to stigmatize the child with preconceived cultural ideas about gender by telling it what it is.[1]

This actual reported news story serves to highlight the fact that our society debates the importance of gender. Confusion over what constitutes manhood and womanhood, or how to define male and female abound. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Why can’t one just choose to be the other? In fact, the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage is merely a symptom of the underlying issue of gender confusion. What does it really matter? They ask. Aren’t we just programmed to believe and feel a certain way because of cultural pressures?  More and more in our society, gender is being defined not by what you are, but by what you feel that you are.

As crazy as the notion sounds, deciding your gender based on feeling is being propagated by schools, universities, special interest groups, music, television, and even some religious organizations (though they lie outside the boundaries of traditional Christianity). These groups seek to make the gender question open to interpretation. Male/female uniqueness and distinctions are downplayed or even discouraged (“girls are as good as boys,” etc.) Traditional roles are ridiculed (stay-at-home moms, etc.) Often on television programs, those whose lifestyles contradict Christian moral values are portrayed as heroes, normal, or “just as good as everyone else.”

As Christians, we can see that behind all of this confusion lies our culture’s denial of God’s authority. Fundamentally, what people understand about themselves (gender, e.g.) is a reflection of what they believe, or don’t believe, about God. If there is no Creator, then what I am and why I am here are questions open to debate. If there is no Designer, I get to decide how my body is used. If there is no Divine Authority, I get the final say on what’s right for me. I takes the place of God when I chooses not to believe in Him. And when a person becomes the final authority for himself, nothing can be forbidden him.

But the world should see the answers to all of its questions through the living example of the church. The church is, after all, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15). As people who accept God’s authority, the church should be the most settled on what they are and what that means. On the question of gender, however, even good Christians seem to need help. In this society, churches have not always clearly or helpfully addressed issues related to gender (dress, appropriate activities, etc.), and the gender-specific roles that follow a biblical pattern. The visible display of distinction between the genders has been a hot-button issue for decades. On the questions of being male or female and acting masculine or feminine, shouldn’t the church have its act together?

In order to rightly display gender, roles, and distinction to the world, we must look to the Scriptures and rediscover what God has said regarding them. Ephesians 5:15 challenges Christians to “walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise.” Living circumspectly as a wise person means behaving accurately in the light of God’s revealed will (verses 16 & 17 bear this out). Therefore, knowing God’s mind on identity, roles, and distinction, will lead us to more accurately display what God has made us to be both in the church and to the world.

In the following series of articles, we will look to the Bible and answer the question of identity to embrace what God made us to be. We will explore roles so we can act what God made us to be. And finally, we will tackle the subject of distinction and displaying what God made us to be. These answers from God’s Word can help us to both show and tell to the world God’s intent for His Creation.

[1] “Are these the most PC parents in the world? The couple raising a 'genderless baby'... to protect his (or her) right to choice,” by Daily Mail Reporter, May 24, 2011 (accessed at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html).

The post Be What You Are first appeared on Bill Rice Ranch.