ralphmullenax.com

I have been torn in my thoughts by the current Occupy Wall Street movement.  On one hand I recognize the disparity between the rich and poor.  The fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who are very wealthy and make  a lot of money and there are people in this country that are poor and, obviously, don’t make a lot of money.  Many people in the United States (especially during our current economy) are struggling to make ends meet.  Houses are being foreclosed, jobs are being lost, and people can’t pay their bills.

There is a clear Biblical mandate for Christians to care for the poor.  In 1 John 3:17-18 one of the marks of a true Christian is pity and concern for the poor:  ”But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? ¹⁸Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” .  In fact, Paul commands Christians to work hard to earn and save in order to give: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.”  - Ephesians 4:28

While God has special care and concern for the poor and Christians are called to care for the poor, why does the Occupy Wall Street movement still make me uneasy?  Shouldn’t I be on board with such a loud, vocal movement which supports those who are poor in this country?  Indeed 1 Timothy 6:17-19 says,

“As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. ¹⁸They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, ¹⁹thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.”

When examining what the Bible has to say about Christians and the poor, I have to then examine what the Occupy Wall Street movement is seeking to do (or what its motivations are) and discern whether or not the two are congruous.  I have to say, no.  And here’s why:

As Christians, we are to care for the poor and give to the poor in love as a reflection of the love God has for us in Christ Jesus.  The Occupy Wall Street movement does not care and give to the poor but rather calls for others who are rich to do so.  Perhaps, for some, even in their stead.

We are also called from 1 Timothy 6:17-19 (quoted above) to “charge [the rich] not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches.”  But that’s not the only thing.  We are commanded to call on people to turn from earthly riches which moth and rust corrupt and turn to God! (17b).  The goal of this call isn’t to make rich people give and share, the goal is to call them to forsake themselves and “take hold of that which is truly life.”  The Occupy Wall Street movement is not calling people to forsake their riches and turn to Christ for salvation: to “take hold of that which is truly life.”  Instead, they are calling for people to forsake their riches and give it to them or others.

The truth of the matter is this: the rich put their “hopes on the uncertainty of riches” but the protestors on Wall Street and around the world are also putting their hopes on riches.  To the protestors the problem with this world is not that people are rich in possessions but poor in spirit and need Christ for the salvation of their souls.  Rather they see the problem is that some people are poor and others are rich and the poor people need the riches.  That is not the message of the Christian!  If poor people could just have money everything would be okay again and you have money so give it away!  No, no, no!  If every Wall Street banker wrote a check to split their riches evenly with the poor but no one has Christ – all are poor!

The heart of the matter, in my opinion, is gross violation of the 10th commandment.  Both greedy individuals who lie, steal, manipulate, and take advantage for financial gain and those who protest them for financial gain are violating the 10th commandment which says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”  - Exodus 20:17

Our culture is so engrained in the sin of the love of money and of covetousness, that even those who protest love of money and covetousness do so for love of money and covetousness.  The hope of the Gospel is that Christ died to make those who are poor truly rich.  Not with money, houses, cars, employment, or health insurance but with eternal life.  The message that both Wall Street and those protesting need to believe is the Gospel which leads to a mindset like Paul who said, “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”  - Philippians 3:8

Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

I was reading a blog post today which briefly mentions that Thomas Aquinas did not believe that life began at conception.  That got the gears in my head thinking a little bit.

I started to think about when life begins.  Does it begin at conception?  If not, when does it begin?  Stick with me here!  I thought that in the earliest stages of development there are only a tiny number of cells that are dividing over and over.  So are these cells life?

That made me think of other cells in our body – blood cells for example.  When we remove and destroy these cells do we believe we are ending life?  Is life ceasing when we bleed?  No is the answer.  So are the cells of a newly conceived child the same as blood cells?  The answer to that is also no.

So, what is the difference?  The difference is the cells that are dividing over and over again are not the mother’s cells!  Let’s hit the pause button after conception for a millisecond (or however long it takes for the first cell to divide).  Let’s imagine there is just one cell.  Even if there is only one cell, that cell is not the mother’s.  It has a different set of DNA which means it could biologically even be a different sex than the mother.  How could a part of our body be a different sex?  How can a part of our body have a completely different genetic makeup?  It can’t.

So that one cell is life.  It is something that will grow and develop, by God’s mercy and grace, into a child.  That one cell after conception has to be life.  If it’s not life, then what is it?  We even recognize one cell organisms as being life!

We should pray that God would be merciful to this nation and rid us of this evil!

With the death of Osama Bin Laden some that I know are questioning whether or not the death penalty is permissable Biblically.  I will endeavor to answer the question: What role does God assign to civil government in the areas of legal justice and is capital punishment included as legitimate recourse?

Starting Assumptions

But before I start I will disclose my assumptions as a foundation of my argument.

First:  The Scriptures are the infallible Word of God and are themselves the final authority of faith and practice.

Second:  Therefore, to declare something morally wrong (as some do for capital punishment), it is required to prove using the Scriptures that the Bible prohibits a penalty of death executed by a civil government.

Third:  Conversely, to declare something morally right (as I do for capital punishment), it is required to prove using the Scriptures that the Bible allows for a penalty of death executed by a civil government.

Fourth:  Scripture, as the infallible Word of God, contains no contradictions of itself.

Fifth:  Therefore, we must let Scripture interpret Scripture (which is part of an historically professed hermaneutic by reformation Christians).

It is also important to define what we mean by death penalty.  By the term “death penalty” I mean a decision made by the legal goverment of an established nation or part whereby the life of a guilty murderer is ended.

This is important to note because it adds clarity to verses used by opponents to capital punishment which I will address now.

Common Verses Used to Argue Against the Death Penalty

Three common verses or passages to object to the death penalty are John 7:53-8:11, Exodus 20:13, and Matthew 26:52.  Let’s take a look at these in detail.

John 7:53-8:11

John 7:53-8:11 says,

“[[They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.  Early in the morning he came again to the temple.  All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.  The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"  This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.  Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.  And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,   "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.  Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"  She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said,   "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]]

Before getting to the content of this passage, you will first notice the brackets.  These are placed at the beginning and end of most responsible translations because there is significant scholarship that argues whether or not this passage was in the original text.  Here is the note as found in the English Standard Version Study Bible

There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture. (ESV Study Bible Notes, John 7:53-8:11, Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.)

Having this as a foundation, let’s assume for a minute that this passage should be included in the canon.  This passage has nothing to do with the death penalty as defined above.  What we have here are religious leaders (8:3) attempting to trick Jesus (8:6).  They claim authority from Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, and Deuteronomy 22:24 saying an adulturess should be put to death by stoning. 

This is why we let scripture interpret scripture to provide insight.  What does the Scripture say about the character of Jesus? 

Hebrews 4:15 says “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Also, 1 Peter 2:22 says, “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.”

So Jesus was without sin.  What we can deduce from this fact is that the laws the Pharisees were referring to no longer apply.  If they did, it would have been a sin for Jesus to stand against the law and stop her stoning.

The laws the Pharisees were referring to were part of the civil laws of national Israel which no longer existed (having been replaced by Roman rule).  They were for a specific time and a specific people.  In fact, these laws (including on the punishment for adultury) were to point us to Christ.  Galatians 3:24 says, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.” 

Jesus makes this clear by appealing to the sinfulness of those who were about to stone the woman.  Hebrews 10:1 says the law was a shadow of the things to come.  So in what way was this specific punishment for adultery a “shadow of the things to come?”

They refer to the punishment we deserve and will receive for our spiritual unfaithfulness and adultury against our Bridegroom, Christ.  Take Ezekiel 16:35-38 for example.  Specifically Ezekiel 16:38: “And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy.”

Because of our sin and unfaithfulness to God, we are called whores and prostitutes throughout the Scriptures.  We will be judged as adulteresses were judged in national Israel: by death.

This encounter between Jesus and the woman (if it even happened at all) speaks about the mercy and salvation we receive through Christ and not about the death penalty.

Exodus 20:13

Exodus 20:13 is the sixth commandment and says, “You shall not murder.”  The 10 commandments are part of the moral law and have not been abrigated in the New Testament like the ceremonial and civil laws of national Israel.  They are still in effect today and serve as the moral standards by which the Lord will judge the living and the dead.

That being said, to whom does this command apply?  The moral law is a standard of living for individuals.  Jesus applies this commandment in Matthew 5:21-26 to the personal life of an individual.  These commandments do not address the role of civil government and does not apply in a discussion of the Death Penalty.

One might argue that why it doesn’t apply to governments, certainly there must be an individual who pulls the trigger, ties the noose, or turns the chair “on.”  Therefore, it must be a sin for that individual because they do the killing.  If this were true, however, then it would never be possible for a government to sentence a murderer to death (which I believe scripture elsewhere allows).  If this commandment were interpreted in this way, it would be contradict one of the responsibilies of government mandated by God elsewhere (which I discuss below).

Now, let’s talk a little about the Hebrew word used for the translated “murder.”  The word in Hebrew is “ratsakh”  The word itself means more than what we consider murder to be now.  If I were to witness a mugging on a street and do nothing and the individual were to die from the encounter, in today’s meaning of the word “murder” I certainly didn’t murder the person.  But “ratsakh” includes deaths that have occurred because of negligence and carelessness. 

Historically, the church has understood the sixth commandment to prohibit not only the premeditated murder of other people but also the failure to use one’s power and resources to prevent the death of others among even more.  For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism (17th century) Question 135 asks:

“What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?” to which is answered:

“The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.”

Question 136 asks, “What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?”  To which is answered,

“The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

So in the case of Osama bin Laden, a man who not only has murdered thousands and thousands of people but has plotted to continue a career of bloodshed, while it is not required by Scripture for him to be killed, it is certainly not prohibited or even morally wrong.

Also, it was God who instituted the death penalty in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”  This institution, which occurred before Israel was a nation, is still in effect today.  It has not been explicitly declared null or abrogated any other place in Scripture.  Furthermore, the justification God gives for this command is because man is made in God’s own image.  A man who kills another has destroyed a creation of God that was made in His own image.  It is an affront to the design and mark of God on His creation. 

Regardless, if God has created the death penalty, then it cannot be immoral by its nature.  It could be immorally carried out or even carried out in error.  but the thing itself has not immoral for it is created by God.  Even more, God created the death penalty and placed its use as the pivotal event of human history: the crucifixion of Christ on the cross. 

Matthew 26:52

Matthew 26:52 says:

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

This makes plain my argument thus far.  This verse is used time and again by opponents of the death penalty but its use is puzzling.  Again, this verse has nothing to do with a civil government executing its divinely-assigned role of keeping justice and punishing those who do evil.  In fact, Jesus is rebuking His disciple for His intent to murder the man taking Him.  Why?  Because it is a sin for man to kill!  Even more, Jesus is paralleling Genesis 9:6 here: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” against Matthew 26:52: “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”  It seems that Jesus is not contradicting Genesis 9:6 but rather further establishing it.  He’s essentially saying to His disciple, “If you kill this man, you will be killed for the law calls for it.”

The Biblical Purpose of Government

Paul writes a pretty substantial summary of the Biblical role of government in Romans 13:1-7:

“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.”

Here we are told to submit to all governing authorities.  He says that there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  In other words, any given government at any given time has been instituted by God and has only been given authority because God has given them authority.  God removes and sets up kings (Daniel 2:21).

It says governments are God’s servants for our good (13:3) but it also says that governments bear the sword (13:4), and serve as an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer(13:4).

Elsewhere in 1 Peter 2:14 it says that governments “are sent by [God] to punish those who do evil.”

Conclusion

Governments are established by God to keep justice, punish those who do evil, and reward those who do good.  We have established that the death penalty is not prohibited in Scripture.  We have established that the death penalty was established and used by God Himself.  We have established that nowhere in Scripture has this institution been abrogated.  We have established that letting a man live who kills again is indeed a violation of the sixth commandment.

We cannot read into the Scripture a morality that is not there.  While civic pacifism plays into the modernist, humanistic, “feel-good” culture of today it is nowhere found in Scripture.  We have to be serious about discerning that which God approves and disapproves.  Those who wish to argue against the death penalty must do so using sound Biblical exegesis which presents a coherent, non-contradicting Scripture narrative.  I believe that, however, is impossible.

I was at an Eagle Scout ceremony for one of the kids in my youth group today and a young boy from my church came up to me and asked a question.  Here was the conversation.
Boy:  Why do we call it Good Friday?

Me:  That’s a good question.  It certainly doesn’t seem good because Jesus dies.

Boy:  Right.

Me:  Well, why did Jesus die on the cross?

Boy:  So we can be forgiven?

Me:  That’s right.  That’s a pretty good thing, right?

Boy:  Yeah.

It was a great encouragement  1) to have this question asked of me and 2) that the boy was able to immediately answer, “So we can be forgiven.”

We don’t have to feel sorry for Jesus on Good Friday.  He chose to offer himself for our sin so we can be forgiven.

It’s a great reason to call this Friday good!

Wow!  I just saw Rob Bell’s interview with Martin Bashir on MSNBC.  I’m going to comment on the interview in the next few days.  Wow!  Just wow!

There are some big changes going on in my life right now.  It was announced on April 3 that I will be leaving my post at Long Valley Presbyterian and moving on to the next chapter in my life.

Here’s what I know about it:

• I will be putting myself in a position to move closer to seminary.

That’s it.  There are a couple of possibilities of what that will look like.  I have applied for a youth pastor position at another church in New Jersey that would provide a great place for my family to worship and would be a bigger position than what I currently have.  I would also be at a place where I would be able to start seminary within a year or two.  It would be a major blessing and great opportunity to serve the Lord by continuing to do what I love and feel the Lord has called me to do.

On the other hand, if that doesn’t work out I will be perfectly content with the other option which is working full time as a Teller Supervisor or Salesperson at a super-regional bank: one for which I currently work part time.  I have had a great time in banking and would be great at that job as well.  And would enjoy it!

The problem is I have to wait.  Neither of these paths have made themselves clear yet and it seems as though I might have another month of waiting.  On top of that, I have been wondering how am I ever going to get to seminary?  When will I ever be able to start?  How will I afford it?

What I need is to be patient.  It reminds me of Abraham.

The LORD made covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 that his “very own son shall be [his] heir.”  He was about 80 years old at the time and was probably thrilled and beyond excited to be promised not only a son but descendants as numerous as the stars!

But time went on and no son came.  In fact, 6 years passed and still no son.  That is, until Ishmael.  Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born and it resulted from an impatient, distrust of the LORD.  It wasn’t for another 14 years until Isaac was born.  Abraham had to wait 20 years for Isaac to be born and with it the early gestation of the nation of Israel.

Essentially, I’m preaching to myself here.  I can trust that the Lord has a place for me.  Whether it is with this particular church or with the bank or somewhere else I haven’t even thought of yet.  The truth is that the Lord knows and I need to trust, be patient, and wait with joy.

I need to wait with joy knowing that the Lord has planned my steps.  He has a place for me and it will come to pass.  I need to trust the Lord in obedience and patiently wait for my Isaac.

I read an interesting quote in a post on John Piper’s blog the other day.  It commented on the idea of “chronological smugness” which it defines as “the feeling that we have advanced to a moral condition higher than the generations before us.”

Essentially, they argue that we have not advanced to a higher moral condition but rather our societal standards have shifted.  The quote is by Shelby Steele:

I wondered if President Clinton would be defended with relativism if he had done what, according to gossip, Eisenhower was said to have done.

Suppose that in a light moment he had slipped into a parody of an old Arkansas buddy from childhood and, to get the voice right, used the word “n-” a few times. Suppose further that a tape of this came to light so that all day long in the media—from the unctuous morning shows to the freewheeling late-night shows to the news every half hour on radio—we would hear the unmistakable presidential voice saying, “Take your average n- . . . .”

Today in America there is no moral relativism around racism, no sophisticated public sentiment that recasts racism a mere quirk of character. Today America is puritanical rather than relativistic around racism, and if Clinton had been caught in this way, it is very likely that nothing would have saved him. . . .

The point is that President Clinton survived what would certainly have destroyed President Eisenhower, and Eisenhower could easily have survived what would almost certainly have destroyed Clinton. Each man, finally, was no more than indiscreet within the moral landscape of his era (again, Eisenhower’s indiscretion is hypothetical here for purposes of discussion).

Neither racism in the fifties nor womanizing in the nineties was a profound enough sin to undermine completely the moral authority of a president. So it was the good luck of each president to sin into the moral relativism of his era rather than into its Puritanism.

And, interestingly, the moral relativism of one era was the Puritanism of the other. Race simply replaced sex as the primary focus of America’s moral seriousness.
(Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era [New York: HarperCollins, 2006], pp. 5–6)

Very interesting observation and one that should humble our generation.

by Ralph Mullenax
common meter: 8.6.8.6.

How gracious is the Lord, our God,
How merciful and kind
He, for the praise of His own name,
Has wrath and love combined.

His wrath for sin seen on that cross,
Upon the Savior’s face.
“God, why hast thou forsaken me
To such a dreadful place?”

For love, O sinner, God has made
His only Son to die.
To place into your poor account
His righteousness, divine.

If He His mercy had withheld,
And left you to your sin
Just would He be to thus proclaim
You cannot enter in.

But love eternal, love so sweet,
By grace so rich and free,
His Life eternal, life so sweet
Has He afforded me.

How gracious is the Lord, our God,
How merciful and kind
He, for the praise of His own name,
Has wrath and love combined.

My Life As a Methodist

I was born and raised in The United Methodist Church. I attended Sunday School although I didn’t really attend worship. One day in Middle School I told my grandmom I wanted to stay for church after Sunday School. She let me.

I became an acolyte and became very active. I was confirmed in eighth grade and was very excited to officially become a member. In ninth grade I was invited to join the District Youth Ministry Team. From there I was elected to represent the District on the Conference Youth Ministry Team.

Once on the Conference Youth Ministry Team I became a tried and true United Methodist working at the District, Conference, and General Church levels: Annual Conference, United Methodist Youth Organization Convocation in Indianola, Iowa, Youth Jam in Akron, Ohio. Then I was a Young Adult and attended the Young Adult Summits in Nashville, TN. Then, through the faith of my DS, was appointed District Lay Leader in the Capital District. This was a whole new level: Primary Task Team, Laity Council. I attended the Quadrennium training in Jacksonville, FL and represented our Conference Lay Leader at the AACLL meeting in Sacramento, CA.

My Life as a Christian

I was born and raised in The United Methodist Church but I was bornagain in tenth grade. I was reading a biography on John Wesley. Wesley had been trying all of his life to earn salvation. He fasted and worked so hard! He left for the America’s to evangelize the Indians. On his way back, dejected and having failed, he wrote: “I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who will convert me?”

It wasn’t until later that he had realized that salvation comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ. You can’t earn it! While reading this amazing conversion of John Wesley, God was working in my heart and saved me.

Looking back, this really started my journey out of the UMC. I was by no means where I am today. I was still a baby Christian struggling with reconciling my new life with my old life in front of my friends. My life wasn’t rid of sin (and still isn’t!) and it wasn’t even fruitful – but God was drawing me ever so close to Him and I was absolutely blown away by His grace.

It stands as an amazing testimony to God’s pursuing love that I was saved in The United Methodist Church. This denomination remains as part of my journey with God and I belonged there for a reason.

From Infatuation to Reform

As I got closer to God, I had more and more respect for His word. I also began to study the history of Methodism and discovered that the church of John Wesley was far from her original roots. In fact, The United Methodist Church claimed many things as its official Doctrine in the Articles of Religion but the practice and culture of the church was inconsistent.

Article I says that the Godhead are three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But I remember one time when a member of the Conference Youth Team started his prayer with, “Heavenly Father” he was interruptedand told he shouldn’t start a prayer with “Father” and was told to start again properly. In fact, I remember at Annual Conference, praying “Our Father and Mother, who art in Heaven…”

Article XIII says “The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached.” But I can recount many, many sermons where the preaching came from a movie or TV show. The pure Word of God was not expounded upon—merely read, mentioned, and moved away from.

John Wesley once said, “My ground is the Bible. Yea, I am a Bible-bigot. I follow it in all things, both great and small.” Now, however, I was seeing the Bible explained away by Pastors and Bishops and church leaders! God didn’t really create the universe in six days. Jesus didn’t really ascend into Heaven – this must be figurative.

What had happened to The United Methodist Church is what is happening to many mainline denominations in the United States today. They simply stop believing the Bible. “I know the Bible says liars will be thrown into the Lake of Fire…but God really wouldn’t do that.” “I know the Bible says Satan exists but I don’t think he does” (I heard that one at an Advanced Lay Speakers course). “I know Jesus said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light- no man comes to the Father but through me’ but surely he didn’t mean we would exclude our Muslim brothers and sisters?”

Historic, orthodox, Protestant, Wesleyan, Biblical Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible, God-breathed, Word of God and is the sole authority for faith and practice. However, the modern UMC holds to a “manuscript” inspired by God but fallible with certain parts that are irrelevant to modern “sophisticated” thinkers.

My quest then became to work for reform from within the church. I was a lay speaker so I had authority to preach from the pulpit so I preached the pure, unadulterated Gospel. I taught workshops that included Methodism’s history. I had conversations that explained Truth amidst falsehood. I had some encouragement along the way: “thank you’s” after speeches at Annual Conference, discussions with Confessing United Methodists (www.confessingumc.org) in Sacramento, CA.

From Reform to Reformed

It was in college that I started dating the woman who is now my wife. She had introduced me to a theological understanding of the Bible that I had no idea still existed. Commonly referred to as Calvinism, I was staunchly opposed to Reformed theology. We would debate and argue about the doctrine and eventually I agreed that I would give it some serious study and thought. I picked up a book called, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olson. I also listened to formal debates with Dr. James White (a Reformed apologist) and studied Calvinism. Then, as if by a second work of Grace, everything clicked. I never would have guessed it but I became a Calvinist.

The Bottom Line: Why I Left

I left for two reasons. Ultimately, I was never able to reconcile my disagreements with The United Methodist Church over its liberal interpretation and low view of the Scriptures. In short, I was once in a meeting and had someone say “people who think homosexuality is a sin should just leave the church!” So I am.

My second reason is my primary theological reason for leaving The United Methodist Church. To quote my resignation letter to the District Superintendent:

“To put it historically, I find myself taking the side of Whitefield over Wesley. Through much study and prayer, I have been convinced that Scripture teaches the total depravity of man, the unconditional election of certain sinners for salvation, the definite atonement of Christ for God’s elect, the irresistible grace of God in effectually calling the elect to repentance and faith, and the perseverance of those saints into Glory.
To agree with Wesley and work for reform is one thing but to agree with Calvin and continue to be a leader in the United Methodist Church is dishonest.”

Do not get me wrong, I stand by the fact that there are some great remnants in The United Methodist Church. There are also so many friends and even family. In no way is it my intention to belittle those relationships or to take lightly my experiences with them. However I must move forward in the grace of God to serve Him as faithfully as I can. I must be honest and faithful to my convictions and respect the fact that I’m just not really a United Methodist anymore.

Calvinism has often been explained using the acronym TULIP.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

John Piper lectures on the doctrines of grace by walking us through this acronym in a systematic way.

Total Depravity
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

Unconditional Election
Part One
Part Two

Limited Atonement
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Irresistible Grace
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Perseverance of the Saints
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Ten Effects of Believing in TULIP
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five