David Westerfield

When Our Faith and Practice Contradict Each Other

On October 22, 2008

“Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations?” – Jeremiah 7:9-10

I have now arrived in the book of Jeremiah in my Scripture reading plan and came upon this really convicting verse. Sometimes we can feel ourselves removed from the context of the situations where God is condemning Israel in particular, in verses such as these. However, if we believe all of Scripture, we would also believe Jesus’s words in the New Testament concerning the Law in the Sermon on the Mount.

For instance, He says, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:21-22). In addition, He goes on to say, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

With these words and other similar statements in the sermon, Jesus ratchets the Law up to a level that is absolutely impossible for us to keep, because within our hearts, we are sinning continuously, at least according to God Himself (Genesis 6:5), whose perspective and opinion on the matter seem to carry a bit more weight than what any man thinks, seeing as how God sees the depths of our blackened hearts. Not only does committing the act of murder or lust make you liable to judgment, but so does merely insulting someone in your heart or looking at a woman lustfully! According to Jesus, it’s the same as if you had committed these acts in the eyes of the Lord if you even think them in your heart.

So the verses from Jeremiah at the beginning do indeed apply to us in the Church today and are not just meant for the Israelites in their respective context. We evangelicals are the “Israelites”. We are the one’s who steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to other gods … and then go into the Lord’s sanctuary and say, “We are delivered … by Jesus.” Many times, we then leave the service without any conviction of our sin, only to go on doing those same things, either externally (through explicit acts) or internally (through explicit evil thoughts).

May God have mercy on all of us, on me. Our hearts are quick to run to sin and that must be a principle that is always on the front of our minds, which will drive us to constantly rely on the Holy Spirit for the ability to do what is right. In as much as I say this to anyone reading this, I say it to my own heart. We need His Spirit to not only restrain us, but then change us from the inside out so that we do not want to do things that are displeasing in His sight. We need desire-change, heart-change, thought-change, will-change, that is all renewed and regenerated in the likeness of Christ. Only then can we do what pleases the Lord.

This whole point of our faith and practice goes back to that DesiringGod video I posted a week ago, based upon James 3:10, “From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.”

Praise God He does not leave us without hope though. If that was the stopping point of the message, it would just be conviction, guilt and shame without any resource for changing the source of our thoughts and actions: our hearts. We would still be left in our sin, without hope of recovering, only expecting to return to the same things again and again. Yet there is free grace extended to us in the Gospel, that we would repent of our wickedness daily, continuously even, and return to Christ for cleansing and forgiveness (knowing confidently that in Christ, we are fully acceptable to God because of His cross).

Our goal in coming to the Lord’s house, corporately with the people of God, or privately into His throne room in communion with Him, through the intercession of Christ’s blood, is not just to be forgiven of our wickedness and idolatry and then return to our vomit once again (Proverbs 26:11), abusing the grace of the Gospel and putting God to the test, just as the Israelites did in the desert.

But our goal is to come, be convicted of our sin by God’s Word, in light of His holiness, and ask the Lord’s forgiveness, knowing full well He is faithful and righteous to do just that because of the cross (1 John 1:9). Only then can we move forward in holiness by His power working in us, having been accepted in His presence because of Christ’s work in our place to save us. And all of this in light of God’s great mercy toward us that we are not owed or have earned in any sense. He freely gives it to those whom He pleases to give it.

If the Gospel is simply a means to the end of staying in your sin (which according to statistics recently by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life many evangelicals are doing just that), we should fear the wrath of God that is coming, for it exposes the possibility of our not having apprehended or accepted the Gospel of God’s grace and mercy with a living faith to start with. Sure, you can respond back with all of the answers from the Bible about what the Gospel is. But the question we should be asking is, “Have I personally received this Gospel by a supernatural work of God in me? Have I been born again by His power instead of my own?” This is the one of the themes in Hebrews, James and 1 John.

Now of course in no way are we going to achieve perfection until we are with Christ. But this is the point: if our hearts are not on track with the convicting and liberating message of the Gospel, we should examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith or not. The books of Isaiah and Jeremiah show us that it would not be out of the ordinary for those of us who claim to be redeemed to be far from the heart of God, just as the Israelites were.

Our lack of zeal for the Gospel and turning away from our sin exposes the fact that we have not been struck with the power of the Gospel in our hearts, by God’s Spirit. Yes, we can have down days or even seasons, for certain. But what is it that drives you in everything you do? The world or Christ? That is the issue. It should make us mourn that we don’t consider the work of Christ in everything we do, but at the same time we should not cower away from Christ, but instead return to Him that we may be healed and restored by His power. It is only His sustaining grace that will carry us through to the end.

Whoever Wins The Election Should Be Served With Excellence

By David Westerfield

On October 20, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Theology

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” – Romans 13:1-7

In 15 days, a new President will be elected and as a result, about half of the country will be disappointed with the results, one way or the other. Things are favoring Obama at the moment and so it appears he will be our next President, though of course, you really never can tell what the results will be until people actually start pulling the lever. The pollsters can say whatever they want right now. Many elections in the past have proved that point.

Regardless, whoever the next President is should be served with excellence, from whatever political vantage point you are coming from as a believer in Jesus. I do not endorse Obama because of his policies on abortion, economics, social issues, and a host of other things. However, as a believer who submits to the verses as cited above, if Obama is President, he should be served with excellence by those he oversees as the Commander in Chief. To not serve him with excellence, but instead serve him merely out of duty with bitterness in your heart, is to rebel against God’s authority which is then ultimately a personal issue between you and the God of the universe, (which all rebelling, in any form, is exactly that).

Many self-professed conservative Christians will be tempted to rebel and revolt in either small ways (within their hearts through a form of bitterness or grumbling) or in bigger ways (through external, unlawful means). But to do so is ultimately to rebel against our Creator. For whoever is President did not get there by luck or chance, but only got there because God would have it so in His permissive will and over-arching plan. Just as Jesus said to Pilate before He was crucified for us who believe, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above,” (John 19:11) so also no President or leader in any position over us is able to make it to that office unless the Lord would have it so. Nothing catches God by surprise and nothing is apart from His will.

Even more than that, even if things were to get terribly ugly in this country and people become so polarized so as to rebel in a violent way, as John Hendryx from Monergism.com has been keen to point out in an interview he did a number of years ago, the Gospel is not chained because of a political regime that is in power over us. In fact, the Lord uses those things we see as hindrances many times as the very instrument He will use to bring the Gospel to those who are wrath-bound. Just ask the Christians in China. The Communist government there sought to squelch Christianity by humiliating believers through forcing them to go door-to-door and collect residents trash. What wound up happening was the exact opposite of what was intended: the Christians began spreading Christianity by going door-to-door, and now the Gospel is spreading like a wild-fire throughout the country. God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1-2). And is that not a perfect picture of that?

Now I do not believe things will get to the point of Chinese communist oppression with Obama in power (though the Fairness Doctrine is definitely a start down that road) and conservatives who think so need to get out more and have a few conversations with the opposing political side. I’m simply making the point that even if our candidate of choice doesn’t make it (whoever that may be), as believers, we should know and remember first and foremost, that no governing authority can squelch God’s power to save and change people.

That does not mean that we should be uninvolved in the political process and not support our perspective for what we believe is best for the country, for a democracy doesn’t work unless the people are involved. But it does mean that even if things do not go the way we envision or think they should go, we should know that it is all within God’s sovereign, ordained plan and power to have it so.

Therefore, we should trust Him that He knows what He is doing in decreeing whoever the President will be. So if Obama is voted into power in 15 days, conservative Christians should submit to God and serve “President” Obama with excellence, to the glory of God, as the One who has instituted him as a leader over us. And if McCain is voted into power, liberal Christians should submit to God and serve “President” McCain with excellence, to the glory of God, as the One who has set him up as a leader over us. And we all, as believers in Jesus, should live in unity under the all-encompassing power of the Gospel to save the lost. Is that not our ultimate hope in every way to begin with, even moreso than a political regime that is temporal and fading as soon as it is instituted?

Environmentalist Battles Will Never End Until We Do

By David Westerfield

On October 19, 2008

In Apologetics, Culture, Environment, Technology, Theology

http://gizmodo.com/5065587/greenpeace-o … ood-enough

So Apple, in response to the environmentalist outcry over the past few years, that their products are harmful to the environment (which I am for reducing toxins I might add), stepped up their efforts to make good on reducing the amount of damage they cause in towns like China where they are produced, as well as issues such as the cancer-causing toxic fumes reported to be burning off of the motherboards. So, as this article says, with one hand, environmentalists are patting Apple on the head and saying, “Good job,” while apparently the other hand is still chastising them for not doing enough. What is enough for an environmentalist, I ask?

This leads me to one fundamental conclusion: as long as humans are alive and consume anything, anything at all, whether it is food such as plants, animals, or if we use wood for building houses to live in, or use cars for transportation, fuels for energy, environmentalists will complain and fight all forms of technology that advance society. Now that doesn’t mean we have no responsibility to take care of the Earth as Christians. But it does mean that it should not become our god as it has for the environmentalist movement who opposes the God of the Bible (for the most part, with exceptions of course).

This leads me to more thought at a worldview level of where we as Christians are coming from and where our environmentalist friends are coming from. Are humans more valuable than anything else on the face of the planet as the Scriptures say, or are they of the same worth, value and honor as everything else that exists, which makes us just common place amongst a host of other organisms and matter? For instance, does a plant, as has been dictated in Switzerland by their governmental ethics board, have just as many inherent “rights” as humans and as much God-given value and honor? Or are humans distinct in honor and value apart from all other things in creation as has been ordained by our Creator?

Now my presupposition with all of this is that God is the Creator of all things and created all for His glory. In addition, I believe people were created in the image of God, to reflect His glory and attributes. The evolutionist/environmentalist does not believe any of this and so just as belief in the God of the Bible guides all my other beliefs and decisions, so also their underlying beliefs about reality (based largely outside of any text or manuscript, but based in very large assumptions that have been widely accepted by the scientific community) guide all of their other decisions regarding the world and our role as humans in it. These beliefs naturally and logically lead them to conclude we have no more inherent worth than that of a rock.

The Christian worldview says humans were created by God as His crowning achievement, made in His image and possess more inherent worth than any other of His creations. The evolutionist/environmentalist worldview (though not all environmentalists I might add) explain humans away as just a series of chemical and biological reactions that just happened to come into existence by chance, survival of the fittest or natural selection. Therefore, what worth do we have as humans that is more than that of other creatures, they seem to ask on an almost constant basis, at least implicitly?

This exposes the fundamentally different ways of viewing humanity and our use of the environment. Both camps believe (or should at least) that we should care for and protect the environment. Yet the reason why we should do this is what splits us. The Christian worldview says that we should take care of the environment out of our glory to God and thankfulness for what He has granted us to live in. The environmentalist (who for the most part holds to a evolutionist worldview) is merely a survivalist, believing humans to possess no more worth than that of a rock or plant and then applying the same worth and value we possess as humans, as granted to us by our Creator, to that of other objects with which we come into contact.

At what point will environmentalists cease their varied agendas? In their worldview, until humans are using no resources or are using only the most limited amounts possible to the point where there is no progress made at any level in our civilization, will their endeavors be complete. So should environmentalist policies and legislation be imposed on the collective society so that everyone must abide by their assumed rules? Is this not the very thing the same kinds of people accuse Christians of doing, imposing moral laws on the collective society? Do they not believe their proposed laws to be rules that are morally correct for all people and that we all should abide by them?

As Greg Koukl insightfully points out in his lecture on Relativism, and this whole discussion proves as a case in point, when you really get down to it, morality is the only thing you can legislate. This is clear between both the Christian and environmentalist worldviews. Now I don’t believe you can bring people to salvation through legislation (what many on the Christian right seem to assume), all the while ignoring the actual changing of people’s hearts by the Holy Spirit.

But the question is, which one of the meta-narratives for our existence is true? The Christian worldview that values humans above all in creation? Or an atheistic, evolutionist, radical-environmental worldview which believes humans to be of equal worth and dignity as anything else that exists, like plants now? I would argue it takes way more faith to believe we got here from nothing than to believe God was always there, self-existent, creating us and all things out of nothing by His infinite power. The latter at least logically makes more sense for how we got here and what our point of existence is: to find our ultimate joy and fulfillment in giving glory to God through Jesus, not in trying to save a world marred by the fall, though of course we sinners can make it worse off a lot faster if we’re not careful by how we use resources.

Does God Trust Us With His Work After We Believe?

By David Westerfield

On October 16, 2008

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Philosophy of Ministry, Theology

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” – Ephesians 2:10

I have had a couple of conversations recently in which I noticed a certain idea being articulated as it related to the person’s life circumstances and God’s role in it all: that is that God, after we believe in Him, trusts us to build His Kingdom. And from the relationship perspective, that God trusts us to go through trials. Most people might brush aside such a thought as a simple notion that gives no weight to what one savingly believes concerning God; or bringing it down to a practical level, how that idea affects everyday life and practice. However, I personally believe it is quite a revealing notion about the way in which many are beginning to view God’s role in bringing us to Himself and making us more like Christ.

I have a hunch I know where this idea is coming from, an idea that I believe to be quite injurious to the Church; if not immediately, maybe on down the line as people pick up on it more and more, particularly in youth groups around the nation, whose members then grow up to be adults a decade from now.

There was an article written by Dale Van Dyke a few years ago that reviews Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. In it, Van Dyke points out a particular quote from Bell’s book on pg. 134 where Bell states (in no uncertain terms I might add, which I find ironic at a belief system level … but I digress), “[Jesus] 1/4 left the future of the movement (the church) in [the disciples] hands. And he doesn’t stick around to make sure they don’t screw it up. He’s gone. He trusts that they can actually do it.”

Now before continuing, I would like to quote Van Dyke’s own preface to his review that I think is appropriate here as well: “I believe that Rob Bell is well intentioned. He is passionate about helping Christians break out of the drudgery of a tired, traditional religion into a vibrant, culture-transforming relationship with Christ. He earnestly desires to help people live out the commands of Christ. This is commendable and explains in large part his appeal to the largely churched Grand Rapids community.” I totally agree and have seen some of the good that Bell has done locally, through a few videos, coupled with some leaders who shared the Gospel, in (at the very least) helping a few people come to believe in Christ and are now off at college and vibrant in their faith.

However, even small ideas that may seem minute at the moment can have eventual catastrophic effects down the road, maybe not within the immediate generation (though I believe we’re already seeing the effects in some ways), but what about 10, 20, 30 years from now when our youth groups are all grown up, taking these ideas we’re giving them, that we’ll be held accountable for on judgment day?

There are several presuppositions in this quote of Bell’s that are contrary to the text of Scripture, however, that may not be obvious on first glance. Something may not sound right to you, but your not quite sure what it is. Here are a few I noticed, if it helps at all, though by no means is it exhaustive of everything Bell would have to say; in addition, he may very well not be intending it though, I believe they are unavoidable in the language he uses:

1) that implicit in this idea of God trusting Kingdom work (or trials) to His disciples (even 1/4 of it), God is not directing the course of history sovereignly for His own glory and purposes which is so clear in the Old Testament quotes of God Himself;

2) that there are things that could potentially thwart God’s purposes if the Kingdom is left in the hands of sinners and God is hands-off even a 25%, to one degree or another;

3) that man is capable in himself of carrying out God’s eternal plans;

4) Jesus is not providing the constant power, ability and will (a gift purchased and secured at the cross) to carry out the very things in His people that He wills to come to pass in His Kingdom.

This is ultimately a denial of God’s over-arching sovereignty in creating and acting in the way that He does to bring glory to Himself, from beginning of creation, to redemption, to the end, the ultimate purpose of creation and even more specifically, salvation. Now I would not say Bell himself supscribes to an outright rejection of God’s sovereignty, but those listening to his teaching sure might.

All of this adds up to what I see as a misapprehension of the theology of the Kingdom of God. Who does what in the Kingdom? What is God’s role and our role? Is it something we build for God or that is God’s to build Himself, using us as His instruments? I would argue the latter.

Now I will confess that some believers can carry around these ideas while inconsistently believing at the same time that God is sovereign over their lives. At some level, we all inconsistently believe something that is amiss from the Gospel, which always inevitably results in sin, a turning away from the glory of God, as Paul defines it in Romans and other places. But that’s not to say that these beliefs do not go without their necessary and undesired effects in our lives and even relationships with God. This point is no different. However, missing this point can result in a dramatic shift from the overarching premises of the Bible, which ultimately affects our Gospel message that we are preaching to a dying world who does not know Him. All that to say, this is very important.

Dale Van Dyke has an excellent insight on Bell’s statement above as to what is wrong with this idea that I think further drives this home: “This is a profound and poisonous reinterpretation of the relationship between God and man. When the gospel becomes the message of God coming to earth and dying on a cross to help men realize how great they really are – something is horribly amiss. A teaching that claims that God trusts his glory and sovereign purposes to the abilities of sinful man has the stench of blasphemy.”

This is ultimately the presupposition that is subtly being subverted, if not explicitly then (maybe, without knowing it) implicitly, by adopting the postmodern ethos that we live and breathe in our culture on a constant basis: that man is in such desperate need of being saved because of the depravity and blindness of his soul, that Christ had to actually set aside His glory for a time, embody Himself as a man that could die (like any one of us), and do what we could not by living a life by God’s standards, in perfect obedience, on our behalf, which He then offers as a ransom for us sinners who could in no way lift a finger to save ourselves, by turning away the wrath of God and removing all hindrances from us through His atoning blood, rising from the dead in power, and then infallibly crediting our accounts with His excellent Gospel-work by raising us from among the spiritually dead in the unfolding of time, simply because He loved us and knew we were utterly helpless in our sin.

You are telling me Jesus did all of that simply to go back to heaven, leaving the future of His Kingdom in our sinfully marred, messed up hands, that without His grace, will run to shed innocent blood with the motives of our hearts every day in one way or another? I don’t think so. Rather, maybe it is that God Himself creates in us a faith that wasn’t there by the work of the cross, applied by the Spirit, who gives and then sustains that power in us to carry out all He has required and decreed from eternity (Ephesians 2:10)?

Maybe it’s not so much that God trusts us to get His work done without Him because we’re sufficient in ourselves for the task (which I thought the Christian life was all about humbly submitting ourselves to Him and relying on Him with and for our everything … well what does that actually entail?). But maybe it’s that God effectively and actively intervenes at every point in our lives, from the ground up, intimately and intricately involving Himself in all of it, in such a way that He receives all the glory, by granting us the ability, power, desire, and strength to carry out what He has sovereignly ordained would come to pass from the foundation of the world?

Bell’s statement, while I have no doubt is well-intentioned, subtly negates the all-sufficiency, omnipotence, sovereignty, and eternally effective love of Christ to build His Kingdom, something that in all reality we’re not doing really in the first place. We are merely recipients of His working and doing. It’s His work to build His Kingdom, not ours. Now we are active participants yes, only by God’s decree, yet God does the supernatural work of raising souls from the dead among us. We are merely instruments in the Redeemer’s hands, created to be used by Him in humble submission to His will, not ours and our various flawed, man-centered agendas that would surely hinder the Kingdom if left up to us.

David Well’s puts it so eloquently in His book The Courage to Be Protestant on pg. 196: “God’s inbreaking, saving, vanquishing rule is his from first to last. It has no human analogues, no duplicates, no parallels, and no surrogates. It allows of no human synergism. The inbreaking of the ‘age to come’ into our world is accomplished by God alone. This is all about the spirituality that is from ‘above’ and not at all about that which is from ‘below.’ It is about God reaching down in grace and doing for sinners what they cannot do for themselves. For if this is God’s kingdom, his rule, the sphere of his sovereignty, then it is not for us to take or to establish. We receive, we do not take; we enter, but we do not seize. We come as subjects in his kingdom, not as sovereigns in our own.”

Well’s, on the same page, also says, “We can search for the kingdom of God, pray for it, and look for it, for example, but only God can bring it about (Luke 12:31; 23:51; Matt. 6:10, 33). The kingdom is God’s to give and take away. It is ours only to enter and accept (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32). We can inherit it, possess it, or refuse to enter it, but it is not ours to build and we can never destroy it (Matt 25:34: Luke 10:11). We can work for the kingdom, but we can never act upon it. We can preach it, but it is God’s to establish (Matt 10:7; Luke 10:9; 12:32).”

And this right here is a case in point of why in no way can we make the Gospel more attractive to the culture by stripping certain doctrines because they are offensive. What you are left with is not the Gospel, but another religion, which again, is ironic for a movement that hates religion. Atonement, the sinfulness of man (you know, the actual doctrine, not the stripped down version), grace, predestination, the reality of hell. If you strip these from Scripture, what you wind up with is not authentic Christianity, but rather a man-made appearance of something that looks like Christianity, using the same lingo, but falls infinitely short of the Biblical Gospel and is in fact a false gospel, according to Paul.

This message of the cross is an offense to the Jew and the Greek, remember? Well, this Western postmodern culture is of Grecian philosophical descent. Greeks think the Gospel is nonsensical foolishness, based on Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. Just ask any number of the new atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins and they will fill you in. You cannot strip the doctrines and demands for faith and repentance in the Gospel, for you will be left with no Gospel at all in the end.

In one of the particular conversations I mentioned earlier, the person had gone through some very difficult circumstances recently, none of which I am unsympathetic to by the way. In no way do I question the person seeing and experiencing God at work in it or their own personal beliefs concerning the Gospel. I would say based on that conversation they love Christ even more as a result. However, the person made the statement that it was cool to see that God would “trust us enough that He would let us go through trials.” And as I thought on that statement later, I couldn’t help but think that in no way does God trust me to go through a trial. Is that not the reason God interposed His blood for me and sustains me with His grace, namely because I couldn’t do it at all myself without Him?

Rather, God sovereignly let’s me go through trials and in the midst of it stokes and sustains my faith by His power alone, in such a way that He gets all the glory for all of the working and I get changed into the image of Christ in the process. If God trusted me with my trials, to uphold my faith, without His sustaining power in me, knowing just an inkling of the deceit of my own heart (and based on Scriptures diagnosis of my own heart in Isaiah 64:6), I would walk away from Christ for sure and betray the Kingdom. I love Him because He first loved me and it is that very reality that keeps me attached to Him and it is He that sustains that reality in me.

Bell’s assessment simply misapprehends the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God and the power of Christ’s saving work. And ultimately it eclipses the glory of God, which is the whole point of all creation and the work of salvation to start with. If this is not plain to you, I ask that you think through why God does what He does in anything, from creating, to permitting sin and evil and trials (without being complicit in it of course, a mystery indeed), to redemption. Is it because His modus operandi is to make much of us, or Himself, the most valuable One in all the universe that demands to be praised, because to do less is to dishonor Him? We would all do well to pay attention to what we have seen and heard lest we too become deceived by the working of Satan in attempting to derail the Church. What we need to see and hear more of is the Gospel. And the place we see it is in Scripture, prayer and fellowship. Error always starts out small and then grows, like a festering wound that will ultimately poison your blood and kill you off.

Classic Pioneering Electronica from 1977 – Kraftwerk – The Robots

By David Westerfield

On October 16, 2008

In Culture, Entertainment, Music, Video

Keep in mind … this was in 1977. Still weird, but it gives it some perspective … 31 years ago during the middle of the Cold War, two years before I was born.

The Financial Collapse, Net Neutrality and Political/Economic Theory

By David Westerfield

On October 14, 2008

In Business, Economics, Politics, Technology

I’m a conservative and a strong believer in free markets because it stokes competition, which benefits the consumer in the way of lower prices for goods and services, and ultimately creates a greater level of wealth for the majority in a society. I believe corporations should be free to compete and prosper with as little government intervention as possible. I am not for Obama’s economic plan of redistributing wealth like Robinhood, taking from the rich and giving their money to the rest of us (who are in relation to their bags of money, poor). What I’m talking about here economically is not taxes or income redistribution, but checks and balances within an economy to ensure that those on top don’t make decisions that injure the lives of thousands of people. How is that best achieved in light of man’s sinfulness and tendency toward greed?

As we’ve seen in recent weeks and building up over the past decade, unregulated free markets without proper checks and balances can spin out of control and cause entire corporations and even some sectors of the economy to collapse (or face the prospect of it) and hurt thousands or possibly millions of people in its devastating wake.

So what is the proper approach? Totally unfettered, unregulated free markets? Fully regulated markets? Or free markets with minimal but necessary regulation so as to keep corruption from occurring, with the people’s interests in mind?

I’m not proposing I know any one air tight argument. I’m simply throwing these ideas out there as a way to ponder the prospect that free markets, without checks and balances, is a risky deal for an economy and it can actually become a national security issue. Think Enron, WorldCom, and recently Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and a host of other giant companies that have failed, where thousands of employees lost jobs due to corruption and bad, unethical, immoral choices, and millions of people financially injured as a result. And with a bad economy, you don’t have capital to keep the country safe from those who are bent on harming us.

Just as we need checks and balances in the political sphere (the very way in which our country was established), so also in the corporate sphere, this seems to be something that may need to be required. Free market capitalism, as great as it has been has a down side: sinners run it. Sinners become greedy for money, for power, ruthless, self-centered, envious, etc. With that fundamental principle in mind, based on a proper assessment of the history of what sinners are capable of when in power, our founding fathers framed the Constitution and arranged the government in such a way that it checks itself against error and corruption in order to preserve freedom.

Could it be we need something similar within the economy? Not checks on how rich people get, but more about the business decisions that are made. I’m simply proposing the idea, I’m not set on it. But people are getting hurt out there by fat cats sitting pretty, obtaining a lot of cash through greed and immoral decisions at the expense of a majority of people down on the totem pole. That’s just straight up immoral.

Now too much regulation is a bad thing. That’s where the former USSR comes in. That is where the government owns companies and tells them what they should and shouldn’t be doing in every way. That is one of the most inefficient ways to run goods and services for a society, and ultimately the system crumbles apart altogether, or stays like Cuba.

But no regulation at all? That’s what pure free marketers want. Yet a totally unregulated market can actually allow businesses to become the very oppressive, greedy, reckless entities many of these same people oppose in a government because of human sinfulness. Corporations are now the size of small governments, economically speaking. There is a lot of room for the same excess and error on the same scale as that of a corrupt government in some cases. Granted, less issues arise than other economic systems, but the potential is there for really big problems to affect a large majority of people. And not only is there potential, there has been a real situation where this very thing has actually happened.

Historically, what framers of economic theory in the past would have seen corporations growing to the size of many governments? There are factors we must take into account that those in the past couldn’t even have foreseen. Am I talking about the government running companies? No. Again, checks and balances. How does that work? I don’t really know to be honest, I’m just brainstorming more than anything. But if we are to believe that man is dreadfully sinful, to be consistent, it seems we should apply that same understanding to capitalism, should we not? Should we keep our government in check while not keeping our economy in check? I don’t know, just an idea.

So where’s the line drawn between unregulated and fully regulated markets? Honestly, I’m thinking it’s kind of a gray area more and more, though I have been pretty adamant about pure, 100% free markets until recently. And I also believe that it may depend on the sector of the economy and not just an all or nothing kind of thing. I’m still formulating my thoughts on this and nothing is very cohesive yet as to my opinion only because these are recent thoughts I’ve had in light of this economic crisis. But events over the past decade, particularly recently, have really made me question pure capitalism without any government regulation or oversight.

There has been another issue that has come to light in my mind that further shows where the government may be needed to step in: network neutrality.

As a worker in the IT world, as with people in other lines of work, I know things that workers outside of my field do not know. I have an inside look I guess you could say. I see and understand things that others find an enigma, just as I find Greek and Hebrew to be an enigma and rely on scholars and theologians to help me understand what Scripture, in the original text, is saying. (Not saying I’m the equivalent of a scholar in the IT field). I would never presume that I know or fully comprehend the Greek language unless I had studied it to some degree or another. I’m not boasting, or saying I’m great because I know IT and others don’t, so don’t take me the wrong way. Nor am I saying I know everything pertaining to my field, for I only know an inkling. I’m making a point to say that sometimes others talk as if they are in the same line of work as someone else when in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.

And that brings me to net neutrality. The fundamental way to explain this is to say that ISP’s (or internet services providers, e.g. Charter, AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) are increasingly working to limit what you can and cannot view and what services you can and cannot use for their own profit (i.e. you would pay more to get more services, versus the current model where internet access is open for all services). Now the free market in me wants to say that companies should be allowed to gain from their business dealings, no matter what.

However, what happens when a company seeks to stop certain services from being utilized by a consumer? Well, fine, switch internet providers then, right? But what happens when you don’t have access but to only one provider? And what happens when all of them are doing the same blocking and stifling the use of a potentially great service or protocol that you can’t use now? And even further, what if those services could be used by developers for further innovation and progress in the realm of internet services?

Net neutrality would be law that forces ISP’s to leave the internet network services open, mandating they not interfere with the accessibility of certain protocols and services developed for the internet (that’s about as simple as I can explain it; I would get technical, but that’s outside the scope of what I’m saying). In my view, this would actually promote competition and keep the ISP’s personal interests at bay for the sake of the consumer. A free and unfettered internet (through legislation) would actually promote innovation and competition with other services. Free marketers cry out that this is just smoke and mirrors for government censorship of certain sites, yet it really is the opposite: it’s keeping the internet open from the likes of the medium you access it through, your ISP, and locking down what you can and can’t do. You see, once again, if net neutrality doesn’t pass, instead of the government having control over what you do (the fear of pure free marketers), the corporations do instead. How about the government checking companies to make sure they are not stifling communication and innovation?

I point that out to say that sometimes, in order to preserve freedom, the government may need to step in to keep the people responsible for your access from blocking the very consumers and citizens they are bringing a service to. Am I wrong? Maybe. I’ve only recently started thinking through all of this and wouldn’t mind some input. But sometimes, like in the financial sector and the tech sector (specifically internet access) government regulation can be a good thing and help the citizens. However, at the same time, it can be a bad thing if it’s too much.

So ultimately I’m coming to the idea we may need checks and balances in our economic system to maintain a prosperous and growing economy that keeps executives from making reckless decisions as well as stifling innovation and technological progress.

James 3: A Story – Really Convicting Video

By David Westerfield

On October 13, 2008

In Christian Culture, Theology, Video

Total Rage Toward Republicans in Manhattan

By David Westerfield

On October 12, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Video

I’m warning you in advance: there are quite a few middle fingers and maybe a few obscenities screamed out in the background. But I post this to simply show the kind of utopian world liberals demand we all live in. And if you object … well just watch. In posting this, I do not think conservatives are morally better people because we’re all jacked up. Conservatives exhibit Pharisaical attitudes many times, whereas liberals many times (as shown in this video) will exhibit the attitudes of Herod or Nero. Both camps, at their worst, were murderers in the Scriptures.

But I do want to point out, at merely the intellectual level, the blatant contradiction in ideology and practice of the pure liberalism here in Manhattan. I believe this is quite telling about how “unity” is defined between liberals and conservatives. And the quote at the end I think sums it all up: “The leftist idea of unity is, and always has been … the elimination of dissent.” That attitude is clearly displayed here.

Now I know there have always been some conservatives who have exhibited the same kind of behavior toward homosexual people or toward others they disagree with, which is wrong. However, I would submit to you they are in the minority. This is taking a walk through a public section of a major city, not just one small segment. This is the leftist ideology at its essence. Many liberals talk all day long about being sensitive to all kinds of people from differing views. Yet I see very little of that attitude exhibited here.

The Prodigal Sons, Tim Keller, Politics, and the Gospel

By David Westerfield

On September 23, 2008

In Audio, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

The Prodigal Sons – Tim Keller (MP3)

I’ve heard this sermon before, but listened to it again because it’s so excellent. I’ll admit: recently I’ve had a wrong tendency to want to blackball one political group over another. Keller reminded me (because I’m so quick to forget) that even deeper than all of that is an attitude of superiority.

In taking a step back from all of the nonsense going back and forth between camps at this time, I realized (once again, because I need constant reminders) that there are many unbelieving conservatives who are the elder brother in the parable. They influence much of what is heard and thought about in the conservative political sphere. This is also true in the liberal sphere.

As believers in the Gospel, we (I) really need to be careful about how much stock we put into what they tell us. Our priority beyond politics is the kingdom of Christ and His Gospel. How quick my own heart is to forget that … yet one more reason why I need to preach the Gospel to my own heart on a continual basis.

A Zeal For God Not According to Knowledge

By David Westerfield

On September 17, 2008

In Christian Culture, Theology

“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” – Romans 10:2

These words were spoken by Paul testifying to the Jews zeal for God, His ways, His acts, His words. Yet their zeal for God, as he says, was not according to knowledge. The whole discourse of Romans chapters nine through eleven is dealing with the unbelief of the Jews as a whole and how it is God’s promises to them still stand in light of the fact that a majority of the nation of Israel rejected the Messiah, Jesus. Paul’s undeniable response as to why God’s promises still stand is that not all physical Israel (Israelistes) is spiritual Israel (all of God’s people for all time), but rather His promise stands according to election, that is, His choice, not ours, in who He wants to save through granting faith.

Reflecting on this verse in particular though made me think not so much in terms of the Jews as a whole though, but rather my own heart (the first place we should start in applying the Scriptures) and its daily tendencies toward unbelief, and in our own day, specifically within evangelicalism at large within America. There are many people in our culture who claim to be Protestant Christians, who claim the title born again, claiming to be regenerated by the power of God from death to life, and yet their lives are totally out of sync with that confession, living as if they had never been born of God’s Spirit. There is no outward evidence pointing to the inward, supernatural reality that the Holy Spirit has indwelt their hearts. This verse makes me think about this a lot. How many of us in our Evangelical Christian Culture have a zeal for God, just as the unbelieving Jews did, yet a zeal not according to knowledge, that is, a zeal for God outside of the Gospel? No one can definitively know of course, for only God sees the belief or unbelief of the heart. Yet there are clear indications in Scripture (James, 1 John) that point in one direction or the other.

Surely, there are many many people nowadays who have a zeal for God, for His ways (as long as they are the positive attributes), His acts (the same), and so on. Yet based upon Paul’s assessment of his own kinsmen in this verse, it is probable many even in our own time possess this zeal for God outside of the Gospel, which ultimately leads to eternal punishment, because if you have a zeal for God outside of Christ, ultimately, your salvation is based on works and not on faith alone. It is not enough to simply have a zeal for God outside of trusting Christ’s work on your behalf. You need to be saved from the core of your being outward, by His power and Spirit. You need God-produced faith in you that sees and trusts Jesus as Savior, not merely a zeal for Him that pursues Him on your own efforts and works.

This was the error of the Jews in Paul’s day: they had rejected the Messiah and setup their own righteousness as what made them acceptable in God’s eyes. Sure, they had a zeal, desire, and even head-knowledge of God. Yet as Paul says, it was not according to knowledge and they found themselves outside of the grace of God, under the wrath of God, even at that moment (John 3:36). What kind of knowledge do we need though? Divinely granted knowledge revealed in Scripture, for how else can we know God unless He opens our minds, hearts, wills, and souls to see and receive Him (John 3:1-10)? We need God’s divine knowledge of the Gospel and we need Him to work in our hearts so that we love and trust Him in truth, in Gospel-knowledge.

What is so saddening about the unbelief of the Jews Paul seeks to explain in Romans nine through eleven is the way he prefaces this whole section in Romans 9:1-5:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Just consider for a moment all of the vast privileges the Jews had. Yet Paul is lamenting their unbelief! To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, and ultimately from them came Jesus Himself. What an honor and privilege! And oh how sad it is, they are outside the grace of God, because God has now spoken to us by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-4). To reject Him is to reject God and be forever under His just wrath.

Consider today for a moment all of the vast privileges we have in this nation: freedom of expression, the unfettered ability to preach the Gospel, the mass media, a (relatively, compared to other nations) stable economic environment, the freedom to meet together on Sunday’s to worship. And yet I fear the same thing for many people here Paul did for his brothers, the Israelites: there seems to be a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge on a mass scale in evangelicalism. I turn on the television and see preachers say nothing of the core content of the Gospel, even the basics, just simply that “God loves you.” That is not the Gospel, it is a half-truth at best, which as J.I. Packer says becomes a complete untruth. I hear radio sermons that mention nothing of Christ’s blood sacrifice on behalf of sinners. I see church websites that offer nothing of what they actually believe concerning Christ and His work, who go under the label evangelical. I’m not talking about doctrinal precision, I’m talking about Gospel precision, where is it? For many preachers, teachers and lay people, “God loves you” is all they need to hear, without all the fuss of sin and justice talk. Yet this is not a message according to knowledge, divine Gospel-knowledge. It is a message that Satan seeks to use by watering down and mute the Biblical Gospel with all of its hard edges. And how pervasive this message seems to have become.

My fear for people in our churches today is that many adhere to Christianity for cultural reasons, not personal salvific reasons, identifying with a group for its own sake instead of running to Christ alone for salvation. If this is possible with the Israelites who had way more advantages than we have (the natural branches, as Paul referred to them), how great of a possibility is it for us (the ingrafted branches) to fall into the same unbelief, all the while supposing we are all saved, merely because of a shallow message, “God loves you”?

My prayer and hope is that God will cause a revival in the church in America, not just of emotions, but a revival of Gospel-truth, passion for God’s infallible Word, a passion for doctrinal truth, all of which will inevitably result in a revival of heart-felt affections for Him and seeing others enter into the Kingdom through Christ alone. May God be merciful to us. May He be merciful and turn my own heart from unbelief in His promises, for I know how easily I can go astray myself.