Cool Illustration

I shared this last Sunday on my study on the "Sign of Jonah". I was asked to post it on the blog so here it is. I don't know where this story originated but I read it some where on the internet. If I am ever able to trace the source, I'll credit the author

A Religion Professor named Dr. Christianson taught a required survey of Christianity course at small college. Every freshman was required to take the course regardless of his or her major. Although he tried hard to communicate the gospel, students viewed the class as nothing more than a waste of time.
One particular year Dr. Christianson had a student named Steve. Steve was the Center for the college football team and also a strong Christian who intended on going to Seminary. One day Dr. Christianson had an idea and he asked Steve to stay after class. "How many push ups can you do?" He asked. Steve said, "I do 200 every night." The professor asked Steve if he could do 300. "I have never done 300 before" Steve said, "but I think I can do it." "Good," the professor said, and he proceeded to tell his plan to Steve.
Friday came and Steve got to class early. Dr. Christianson came in with a large box of fluffy, cream filled doughnuts. The class was excited, it was Friday the last class of the day, and they could start their weekend early. Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the row and asked, "Cynthia would you like a donut?" "Yes," she said. Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, "Steve would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?" "Sure." Steve jumped down out of his desk and counted off ten push ups. Dr. Christianson laid the donut on Cynthia’s desk. Joe was next. He asked Joe the same question and Joe said "yes." Steve did 10 more pushups and the professor laid the doughnut on Joe’s desk. And so it went all the way down the first row and half way down the second until it came to Scott. He was a basketball player and friendly to female companionship. Scott replied to the professor’s question by saying, "I want the doughnut if I can do my own push ups." Dr. Christianson said, "No Steve has to do the pushups." Then Scott said, "Well I don’t want one if I can’t do my own." Dr. Christian turned around and asked, "Steve, would you do ten push ups so Scoot can have a donut he doesn’t want." Scott said, "hey! I said I didn’t want one!" Dr. Christianson said, "Look, this is my classroom, my class, my desks, and these are my donuts, Just leave it on the desk if you don’t want it." And he put the donut on Scott’s desk.
Steve had begun to slow down a little and sweat had began to form on his cheeks. Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Students were beginning to get a little angry. Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, "Jenny, do you want a donut?" Sternly, Jenny said, "NO!" Then Dr. Christianson asked, "Steve, would you do ten more push ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn’t want?" Steve did ten-Jenny got a doughnut.
By now a sense of uneasiness had filled the room. The students were all beginning to say "no." There were uneaten donuts on every desk. Steve was now putting forth a lot of extra effort to get the pushups done for each doughnut. A small pool of sweat was on the floor, his face was red, and you could see the sweat soaking through his shirt.
Dr. Christianson asked Robert, the most vocal unbeliever in class, to watch to make sure Steve did the full ten. Dr. Christianson started down the forth row. Students from other classes had came in and were sitting along the side of the room watching on. When the professor saw them he counted and saw that there were now 34 people in the room. He was worried about Steve, "Could he do that many push ups?" Jason, a recent transfer student, didn’t know what was going on and came in to see. The class yelled, "Go away! Don’t come in!" Steve picked up his head and said, "let him come in." Jason was asked and he said "yes." "Steve will you do ten push ups so Jason can have a donut?" Steve did ten pushups very slowly and with great struggle. Jason, confused, was handed a donut and he sat down. Dr. Christianson then finished the fourth row and began on the visitors. Steves arms were shaking uncontrolably with each push up. By this time sweat was pouring off of his face and arms. The very last two students were cheerleaders. "Linda, do you want a donut?" Linda cried and said, "no thank you." Professor turned to Steve, "Steve would you do ten push ups so Linda can have a donut she doesn’t want?" Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow push ups for Linda. The last girl was Susan. "Susan would you like a donut?" Susan was full of tears and did not answer. "Steve would you do ten push ups so Susan can have a donut?" Susan asked, "Dr. Christianson why can’t I help him?" Dr. Christianson had tears in his eyes also and replied, "I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not. When I decided to have a party I looked at the grade book and found that Steve was the only person with a perfect grade. All of you had failed a test, skipped class, or turned in inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up he must do push ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes."
Steve slowly got up off the floor, he had done 350 push ups, his arms buckled beneath him as he started to get up. Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile. "Well done good and faithful servant", said the professor, "not all sermons are preached in words class." Turning the the students the professor said, "My wish is that you may fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. God did not spare His only Son but gave him up for all of us. Whether or not we accept His gift is our choice. The price has been paid. The empty tomb proves that Wouldn’t you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?...

Amy Carmichael; The Unpredictable Missionary

The average church or missions board would have a hard time supporting Amy Carmichael's ministry. Although she spent nearly 60 years in the field she never once reported to her board of the people who supported her. She went out into the field under the authority of a board but pretty much did her own thing. She did not ask for financial support, yet she saw every need met right on time. When people offered to sponsor part of her ministry, she suggested they support a different mission. She was unpredictable and independent and the average missions board would have dropped her like a hot potato. We like the ministry to be carried out in a predictable way with no surprises, no changes, and no unexpected decisions that pioneer new territory for the gospel. It might upset the donors. But Amy wasn't wired that way and she did not fit into our modern world of interchangeable parts, because she was unique. She knew what God wanted her to do and she did it. She was not a rebel; her board and co-laborers were full partners in the ministry. She was one of the Lord's special servants and he used her to accomplish a miracle ministry in South India.

She was born December 16th, 1867 in County Down, North Ireland. Her father and uncle owned a flour mill business and she grew up rather comfortable. Changes in the milling business forced the family to move to Belfast where her father died in 1885. In September of 1886, some friends invited Amy to Glasgow where she atte4nded meeting along the lines of the Keswick Convention. For many months she struggles with how to live a holy life. She found her answer at the Glasgow meetings; ironically not through any of the speakers or their sermons, but through the closing prayer offered by the chairman. He paraphrased Jude 1:24, "O Lord, we know that you are able to keep us from falling". Those words brought light into the darkness and Amy Carmichael entered into a life of faith and victory.

But Holy living was not a luxury for her; it meant sacrifice and ministry. She had no time for Christians who went from meeting to meeting and soaked up bible truth but never reached out to share Christ with others.

It was said there were three crisis in her life: her conversion, her entrance into the life of faith, and her call to be a missionary. That third crisis took place January 13th, 1892. It was not in some dramatically but quietly and uneventfully. But the Lord made it clear to her hat she was to give her life to him to live as a missionary, and permit Him to direct as He pleased.

On March 3, 1893, she set sail for Japan. She had some remarkable experiences ministering in Japan through and interpretor, but Japan was not to be her final mission field. A serious illness forced her to go to China to rest them Sri Lanka. By the end of 1894 she was back in England but a year later, on November 9, 1895 she landed in India where she remained until her death on January 18, 1951.

On March 6, 1901 something happened that dramatically changed Amy's life and ministry. a 7 year old girl named Preena fled one of the temples into her mission compound and begged for protection. I was then Amy discovered one of the ugliest sores on "Mother India's" body--the secret trafficking of young temple girls. Mothers and Fathers shamelessly sold their sons and daughters to the temple gods for temple prostitution. Infuriated, Amy declared war. Many hours were spent in prayer. One more than once occasion, Amy and her co workers risked their lives, and faced arrest and imprisonment just to save a child from defilement and destruction. One by one the girls found their way to Amma (the Tamil word for "mother) , and she protected them.

On October 24, 1931 Amy Carmichael suffered a serious fall, other complications set in, and she had to end her active ministry. She was limited to her room and an occasional veranda stroll but that did not stop her. In the next 20 years she wrote 13 books, and directed the ministry from her bed. In 1948 she suffered a second fall and from then until her homecoming, she was confined to bed. That didn't stop her either. she continued to appear before the throne of grace, and God answered her prayers. God is still answering her prayers. The Dohnavuer Fellowship she established in South India continues to function to this day.

We in the ministry need to be organized and efficient but Amy reminds us to be flexible and open to adjusting our "Day Timers" and leave room for God's divine appointments. May we never become so ensconced in our agendas that we miss the fact ministry is about people. They are not interruptions to our ministries they are the ministry!

I think it would be good for us to end with Amy Carmichael's principles for prayer. 1) "We don't need to explain to our Father things that are known to him. 2) We don't need to press Him as if we are dealing with an unwilling God; and 3) We don't need to suggest to Him what to do, because He Himself knows what to do".

If all of us took these principles to heart, I think the religious speeches many of us make under the guise of prayer, would be silenced in many of our prayer meetings.



I thinl

Oswald Chambers: The Apostle of the Haphazard

"I feel I shall be buried for a time, hidden away in obscurity; then suddenly I shall flame out, do my work, and be gone". Those words were spoken by Oswald Chambers, author of, My Utmost for His Highest. His statement was prophetic except that the flame of God lit is still burning brightly thanks to his wife Biddy and his daughter Kathleen who penned the book after Oswald died. They were a collection of various writings and sermons he had given. Like the wind spoken of in John 3:8, Oswald Chambers came and went in seeming erratic fashion; yet there was a definite plan in his life and he was greatly used by God. He was born in Aberdeen Scotland, July 24, 1874. His parents were baptized by Charles Spurgeon who also ordained his father as a Baptist minister. While living in London, young Ozzy in his teens gave his heart to Christ. After his training in Britan, He felt there was a need for a bible college that emphasized personal living and not just education, theology and practical training. With the help of some friends, he founded the Bible Training College at Clapham. The school operated on faith and prayer. A freind offered to endow the school but he said "no, if you do that it will probably go on longer than God means it to." He felt led to offer himself as a military chaplain during WWI, and on October 9, 1915, he sailed with the troops to Zeitoun, Egypt where he ministered until his untimely death November 15, 1917. He had appendicitis and didn't know it. Peritonitis set in and his life could not be saved. In many respects, Oswald Chambers was not in step with the Evangelicals of his time. On his way to Egypt, he wrote in his journal: "How unproselytizing God is! I feel the 'soul winning campaign' is often at heart the apotheosis (glorification) of commercialism, the desire to see so much result from so much expenditure. The ordinary evangelical spirit is less and less congenial to my own soul." His writings are a good antidote to the success philosophy that has invaded the church today. He said that "the 'soul saving passion' as an aim must cease and merge into the passion for Christ, revealing itself in holiness in all human relationships. In other words, soul winning is not something we do, it is something we are 24/7, and we live for souls because we love Christ.

I think we could learn from Ozzy. We hear a lot about learning the language of the post modern culture if we are going to be affective in reaching them for Christ. If Oswald Chambers is right, and I think he is, we need only to love Christ, and speak and live the the language of the gospel to be affective in evangelism. If we do, like that city on a hill, people will see it and be drawn to it.

Interesting Article by John Macarthur

I was given this article by a friend and found it thought provoking and worthy of discussion

Grunge Christianity?

Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel

by John MacArthur

One of the favorite topics on the evangelical agenda these days is how the church should “engage the culture.” Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain “relevant”? Some evidently think so.

We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture.

You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christanity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.

Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.

That way of thinking has been around at least since modernism began its aggressive assault on biblical Christianity in the Victorian era. For half a century or more, most evangelicals resisted the pragmatic thrust of the modernist argument, believing it was a fundamentally worldly philosophy. They had enough biblical understanding to realize that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

But the mainstream evangelical movement gave up the battle against worldliness half a century ago, and then completely capitulated to pragmatism just a couple of decades ago. After all, most of the best-known megachurches that rose to prominence after 1985 were built on a pragmatic philosophy of giving “unchurched” people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable. Why would anyone criticize what “works”?

Whole churches have thus deliberately immersed themselves in “the culture”—by which they actually mean “whatever the world loves at the moment.” We now have a new breed of trendy churches whose preachers can rattle off references to every popular icon, every trifling meme, every tasteless fashion, and every vapid trend that captures the fickle fancy of the postmodern secular mind.

Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.

Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts. Besides, the issue has already been discussed and dissected at several blogs. Earlier this year, Tim Challies cited one typical example of Driscoll’s vulgar flippancy from Confessions of a Reformission Rev. The sermons I listened to also included several from Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” series, including the one Phil Johnson critiqued in October.

The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to “engage the culture.” It’s possible to be overexposed to our culture’s dark side. I don’t think anyone can survive full immersion in today’s entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.

Let’s face it: Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descends further in its spiritual death-spiral. It’s like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.

We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”

When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Even Jesus’ high priestly prayer included a thorough description of the Christian’s proper relationship with and attitude toward the world: “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14-16).

Whenever Jesus spoke of believers’ being in the world, He stated that if we are faithful, the world will be a place of hostility and persecution, not a zone of comfort. He also invariably followed that theme with a plea for our sanctification (cf. John 17:17-19).

The problem with the “grunge” approach to religion is that it works against the sanctifying process. In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world’s filthy fads—practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.

I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?