Tainted Funds: How the Church can use Evil so that Good May Come of it!

Recently, Pastor Bert Crabbe of the True North Community Church in Port Jefferson Station, New York, had a church member win $3 million in the lottery and he decided to give it all to the church. The man wished to remain anonymous, but he won his big prize by scratching off the “Ba Da Bling” lottery ticket. This story has made it around the Christian blogosphere and you can see what some are saying here and here.

From this dilemma Christians have been discussing "Should a Church or Christian Organization take such funds from a organization that destroys lives or causes people to sin?". First, let me say that most of the comments I've read seems to support the idea that the Church should take something from bad and use it for good. Although this seems to be a valid idea on the surface, one must keep in mind that God is not so much concerned about promoting outward benevolence, but rather what effect will this have on the motivation of peoples hearts. In addition, I think many have taken a Robin Hood like approach on this subject and that is take from the bad (gamblers) and give to the "good". I think we need to turn to the Scriptures in order to get some guidance on this matter................

Romans 14:13-15 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

I Corinthians 8:9-13 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

I would like to point out one very interesting point. Paul says in Corinthians that people watch us and if they see us doing something that they wouldn’t necessarily do, they will become “emboldened” and do what we are doing. We see that God is concerned about how we might be perceived by others (i.e. Non-believers) and that our actions might have influence on the attitudes or behaviors of others. This reminds me of a parent or an adult who drinks or smokes and then tells their children - "don't do what I do". Its the old adage - "Do as I say and not as I do". Sadly, this comes off as being hypocritical and it weakens our influence and reputation as Christ followers.

I realize some might say that taking the money as the end result of gambling is not the same as someone gambling themselves, but we must consider that gambling may be fine for some, but what happens to the person, who sees us (the church) taking and accepting this money and then becomes emboldened, tries it and becomes addicted? Could our acceptance of this money not possibly cause someone to think "Hey those Christians don't have such hard time with gambling after all". Have we not sinned against God and that person?

From these verses I think that we can extract a very good practice for all Christians. Even if an activity is acceptable before God, this isn’t the end of the question. If others weaker than ourselves are caught up into something as a result of our actions and they are in the end destroyed, we have sinned against them and God. Therefore, while the act wasn’t maybe a sin in itself, how we exercised our freedom in Christ was, and we sinned. This is a very serious thing indeed and one that we as Christians must be very aware. Now if God is concerned that our dietary habits might possibly cause someone to morally stumble - then don't we think gambling or the acceptance of the funds from gambling might also be of even a greater concern?

Let me also give another example, would it be alright for the church to take money from the windfall profits made by an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood? Would the church be OK with accepting money donated from the pornography industry? What if a convicted pedophile wanted to give a $100,000 dollars to a Christian orphanage? I think even many in secular society would have problems with these types of ethical situations. But yet why is it our churches and Christians blogging in the blogosphere seem to take little if any issue with all of this? It would seem to me that by accepting these funds the church could be construed by society as being accepting of these immoral issues.

Granted I've read folks saying "what if a stripper or a thief gave funds to the church, who are we to say we shouldn't take these funds?". But let me ask you this - what if that stripper or drug dealer or thief is giving to the church so he can quiet his or her conscience from their lifestyle of sin?! As a church accepting funds from such persons and turning a blind eye or by not rejecting such behavior, are we not actually contributing to that person's moral downfall? By accepting these tainted funds are we not allowing that person to slip further and further in rebellion and allowing them to quiet their conscience?? What if we caused only one person to sin as a result of accepting these funds would we be OK with that? Is the sins of one really worth any amount of money?

Secondly, God states clearly in his word that we are not to do evil so that good will come of it (Rom 3:8). But I can't help but think that's the attitude of many who have stated that they would accept this money, money that has destroyed countless lives, money that has ruined families and marriages as a result of gambling and now we as Christians want to take that which has resulted in evil and do good with it? Are we not using evil so in hopes to do good??

Finally, as Christians would it not be better to take the route Paul has put forth for us all:

Eph 5:1-5 Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children; (2) and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell. (3) But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named (hint) among you, as becometh saints; (4) nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks. (5) For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

As Christians we should not even have a HINT of sin among us. But yet why does it seem so many don't seem to take issue with this? Why is it we seem to think that we can take such "blood" money and use it for good? Where is our faith that God will provide - and provide through a better means than gambling profits? Is not our God greater than that? I think churches who are all too willing to jump up and say "well take that kind of donation" is a church that is seeking the approval of men, rather than of God and are not truly thinking beyond themselves.

Side note: I noticed many so called Christians on these blogs have tried to justify gambling by saying its the same as a 401K or the stock market - I have news for you its not!

When you invest in businesses that produce products, you are supplying much needed capital so that they can expand and maintain operations. This in turn will produce an increase in your investment if the company is managed correctly. The goal here is that you have a realistic expectation that the company will succeed. Either you or your funds manager will take the time to research the company to make sure that their business plans are sound and that the risk you take is minimized. Is this the case with gambling? Surely everyone knows that the odds are in the favor of the house. They will not lose money. Yes someone will win some, but at the end of the day, the house will always turn a profit, and a very big one at that. Basically, anyone who views Las Vegas as an investment opportunity is completely diluted at best, and an utter fool at worst.

But some may say that the only reason to invest in the stock market is for money so isn’t the underlying motivation the same? The answer as I see it is no. Investing is a long term approach that will provide fruit over time. You are helping some company succeed in their business which is producing products that people need and want. The overall impact to society by investing in stocks is good. Due diligence and patience is required. Gambling is a rush, a quick fix, and a “trill”. Gambling is not prudent or a wise choice of investment strategies. The casinos are not producing anything useful for society. They don’t even have a product. Their product is the illusion of quick riches.

The Bible speaks of investing in positive terms.

Luke 19:22-23 His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?

Matthew 25:26-27 His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

Does anyone think that the Master would have been congratulatory of one of his servants if he come back empty handed having lost everything shooting dice? Or how about he doubled the Master’s money by rolling sevens? Do you think that the master would have considered this a reckless gamble? I think so, but then again, the reader may have a different view.

New Discovery in Open Thiesm and Church History

I thought I would pass along this article from Greg Boyd's Blog regarding some recent discoveries in the area of Open Theism! This is exciting news, as most critics of Open Theism claim it is historically baseless. I highly recommend you read this article. You can find it here.

A Test - How Would You Score?

How would you answer the following test?

T F 1. A good description of a Christian is a "Sinner" saved by Grace?

T F 2. You can sin and not know it?

T F 3. It is normal for Christians to sin everyday?

T F 4. A bad thought is sin?

T F 5. It is easier for a Christian to sin than to do right?

T F 6. The closer we get to Christ, the less we will be tempted?

T F 7. We get closer to Christ through actions of righteousness?

T F 8. Sainthood is attained by only a few Christians?

T F 9. To be tempted is a sign of sinfulness?

10. How many sins have you committed today (You may have to approximate)

11. How many acts of righteousness have you committed today?

12. How righteous is Jesus Christ on a scale of one to hundred?

13. How righteous are you on a scale of one to hundred?


See my later post for the "Answers".

Tales from the Dark Knight

The other night my friend Jay and I went and saw the movie The Dark Knight. I must say it was stunning. I don't know if I can add to what has already been said about Heath Ledger's performance, but he plays the quintessential evil villain in this film. The Joker is evil not on the basis of a desire for wealth, power or fame, but purely on the basis of watching the world burn. He is truly a tormented soul!

In my opinion the movie has a really interesting moral undercurrent, and speaks tremendously about the moral code of all human beings and primarily does a good job of showing the conditions of natural law.

(Warning spoiler ahead)

Probably the most interesting scene in my opinion is the scene where in Gotham Harbor are two Ferry boats filled with people. The one Ferry is packed with inmates from the local prison, while the other is filled with innocent citizens. The Joker has devised a ingenious plan whereby both Ferries have been rigged with remote controlled explosives. He notifies each Ferry that they each have a detonator to the other Ferries bomb. However, he gives them an ultimatum. He gives them each 15 min to detonate the other Ferry. Whoever blows up the other Ferry first he will let that Ferry live. If neither Ferry makes a decision to kill the other group of people, then the Joker will blow up both Ferries.

Of course the citizens begin to rationalize that they have a legitimate reason to blow up the prisoners Ferry, because society will be better off if they were to rid all the criminals on that Ferry, that it would be justifiable to "kill the wicked" in exchange for the innocent. However, there are also innocent police officers, prison warden and prison guards to consider who are also on the Prisoner Ferry. This debate goes back and forth for several minutes in the film - showing both sides debating if they should blow up the other Ferry first for their own survival. In the end, neither group could bring themselves to blow up the other Ferry.

What came to mind was immediately natural law. Instinctively, each person - both criminal and innocent citizen realized to kill 300+ people would be a monstrous act and neither could allow that thought to pass by their conscience without tremendous guilt and shame. This also reminded me of when Jesus said to the group ready to stone the adulteress - "You without sin cast the first stone". It also reinforced to me that mankind is not "Totally Depraved", but man does operate according to his conscience and natural law instilled in us by our Creator. If man were truly "Totally Depraved", then by the very totality of that depravity man would have had no problem pushing that detonator - nor any associated guilt in doing, as guilt is a direct outward working of natural law. It would have been like child's play - simple, no guilt, no remorse. But instead - mankind has tremendous potential for good. In the movie the Joker is the one who thought man was totally depraved - was inherently evil. The Joker is trying to show Gotham that they need not to live by a moral code, but they should live according to their "true nature" - evil and chaos. It is the hero or the savior of the movie, Batman shows Gotham that he believes in the good people of his city and that they have great potential for good. He believes that given the right motivation they can rise above evil and live in peace. He is willing to go to any lengths to do this for the people of Gotham.

Again, I see many parallels between the redemptive story of Christ and his desire for his children to choose love over self. That Christ sees the great potential all of his children to love the Father and our neighbor. Christ came to awaken us from the depths of our own selfishness by dying on a cross. That he would go to great lengths to show us he desires mercy over sacrifice, that he desires genuine fellowship with his creation. It is a story that is universal and should speak to us all.

Are You Being Hated?

John 15: 18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

1 John 3:13-15 "Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him."

Luke 16: 22"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man."

Matthew 24:9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

As I survey the current landscape of the modern day church, I must admit I don't see these verses being presently fulfilled by the church today. Do we see churches to the point where men are wanting to kill us? I don't mean some subtle loathing by atheist or anarchist, but is the WORLD truly hating us? Do we see the world hating the church for its stance on sin? Do we see the world hating us because we have a love & devotion for Truth and Righteousness? Do we see the world hating us because we publicly denounce sin? Do they hate us because we are telling men and women to repent and love their God and Creator?

Instead we see churches who have seemingly embraced the world rather than rejected it. I see churches whereby their pews are packed to the brim , but yet I see our world spinning into further into darkness & rebellion - hence a connection?? I see churches that have more of a concern about being culturally relevant, than being heart broken over sin and wickedness in the world and how it breaks God's heart. I see churches that are rarely persecuted for their faith, but praised more for their entertaining services or how the pastor looked on Sunday. Where is the persecution??? Where is the hatred of believers in the name of Jesus??

I often wonder if the early church were hated because of how "loving" they treated others or if it was their their public rebuke of sin? I mean, were Christians really killed because of being overly nice to their neighbors, or were they killed and tortured for some other reason? Here is what Clement of Alexandria once wrote concerning the reason behind many Christian persecution:

"They persecute us, not from the supposition that we are wrong-doers, but imagining that by the very fact of our being Christian we sin against life (the world). This is because of the way we conduct ourselves, and because we exhort others to adopt a similar lifestyle" - Clement of Alexandria c. 195. Vol 2 Page 423 of Ante Nicene Fathers.

Christians were not killed simply because they loved their neighbors or for being overly kind to others, although naturally this is commanded by Jesus of all his followers. Instead we see that rulers and men murderer Christians because of their obedience to God and for exhorting and rebuking others to turn from sin and adopt a life of love and obedience. People killed Christians simply on the grounds that Christians caused people to have a condemned conscience and to have guilt over their sins. It was as if a light was being shined into the eyes of a person who had been sitting in a darkened room for so long, and that the light being shined forth by Christians was causing such discomfort of the persons soul, to the point of wanting to kill them to stop the light from shining into the darkness.

Where do we see any of this in our country? Where are our persecutors? I see a church that is being loved by the world because it no longer strikes conviction or repentance into the hearts of men, but rather have become places where men can come and find temporary relief or solace for their conscience. Where are the churches that are shining the light of Truth into the eyes of a darkened world? It seems to me churches are more concerned about abiding in their "Eternal Security" rather than striving daily to finish the race for Christ - and finishing it well!

Jesus said that we would be hated because of him - but where is that hatred?? Has the world stop hating the righteous, has the world stop hating Truth? No! Instead the world loves a lukewarm apathetic church. A church over grown with weeds and tares.

What will it take for us to be hated, to be persecuted? Here is what Leonard Ravenhill put forth:

......."The World has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it. Do you ask, "Well now, where do we go from here?' The answer is, "Where sinful individuals or sinful nations can only go - back to a merciful God." Hear me! Every church without a prayer meeting condemns us; every Bible unopened condemns us; every promise of God unused condemns us;every lost neighbor condemns us; every lost heathen condemns us; every dry eye among us condemns us; every wasted minute of our time condemns us; every unclaimed opportunity condemns us. Next year is not ours. Tomorrow may be too late. Unless we repent now, unless we return and fire the prayer alters now, unless we fast and weep now, woe unto us at the judgment".

What the church needs to do is basic and very simple. Do what all great patriarchs and apostles did, they repented and weeped over their sins and turned their hearts toward God and a vowed never to break his heart again. Let us stop making our churches into 21st Century white washed tombs, whereby they are very appealing to the eyes of men and yet have little or no depth of God word. Let us take up the business of finding ourselves to be worthy in the eyes of our Lord and God and not the eyes of the world.

Born Gay or Born Sinful??

Fellow Christ follower Jesse Morrell made a very interesting and insighful post the other day on his message board regarding homosexuality and the doctrine of sin nature. You can find the post here. Essentially, Jesse puts forth the following argument:

Calvinist and many doctrines today state that sin is a result of human nature. In other words people are not sinners by choice, but by birth. That sin is a part of our DNA or an inherent part of our flesh. For example, Calvinist or proponents of Original Sin doctrine will often say: "We sin because we are Sinners". I on the other hand would argue that we are sinners because we choose to sin. What's the difference? One is essentially stating we sin because of what we are - we are born totally depraved and therefore can not do anything but sin. On the other hand, I would argue that one sins because one willfully chooses to sin, that sin is a moral choice, a decision.

Calvinist have argued for centuries that mankind is born sinful, that we have a depraved nature from the moment we leave the womb. However, in recent years with homosexuality on rampant the rise, Calvinist are facing a real dilemma explaining away an argument the gay and lesbian community have recently taken that actually agrees with Calvinist! Homosexuals in recent years have argued that they are born gay and have no real choice in their behavior or lifestyle. They say homosexuality is not a choice, but is merely something you're born with.

But I have yet to find a Calvinist that would be willing to agree with the homosexuals that being gay is something your born with. If they would agree to this argument, then they would be actually giving the homosexuals a legitimate excuse for their behavior. Many Calvinistic Christians would argue the exact converse to this argument and say that homosexuality is not something your born with, but is a choice. But wait a minute! Aren't the homosexuals actually agreeing with the Calvinist for once?! If Calvinism is true, then would every murderer, pedophile, rapist, homosexual have the same legitimate argument and that is they are neither responsible for their sin, nor can they can be held accountable for their sinful actions??

The real issue here is that homosexuals want to say they are born this way because they want to cover and excuse their sinful acts of perversion. If they can somehow excuse their sin under the guise of being "born that way", they have then a "legitimate" excuse and therefore can ease or quiet their tormented conscience. The problem is most of our doctrines in most of our churches these days actually fuel this type of argument rather then refute it! Here is what author Alfred T Overstreet said regarding this type of theology:

“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For if they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if its true that he was born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. In fact the murderer, the rapist, and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the rapist or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created all men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. No man is born a homosexual.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8).

Furthermore, the bible is clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of our human nature but rather it is a perversion (See Rom. 1:26-27; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7).

Jesse Morrell brings up a very valid questions to the Calvinist community and one that I suspect will go unanswered, and that is:

1. Is human nature sinful?
2. Is homosexuality a sin?
3. Is homosexuality human nature?

Jesse goes on to make a very valid point and that is :

A person who says that homosexuality is human nature is a person who either:

1. Does not know the Bible (at least not very well).
OR
2. Does not believe the Bible.

It has to be one of the two.

I must agree with Jesse here. What we as Christians must do is be willing to do is to take a long hard look at our theology and see if it is actually giving sinners an excuse to sin, or are we presenting the truth so that they will be saved from it! Any theological doctrine that makes sinning easier or excusable is one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and examined - for most likely it is no Truth after all.

Desiring More Than God?

I was thinking this morning about the whole doctrine of election and predestination. Here is what got me to thinking about this particular doctrine:

"If God is the one who has "double predestined" everyone either to heaven or hell, how is it then that I have a greater desire for others on this earth to enter into a personal relationship with God, than God himself does?"

I mean as a follower of Christ, I truly hope that EVERYONE is saved from sin and brings joy to the heart of our God and Savior, but yet according to Calvinist God seems to want or desire only a select few to enter into his presence for all eternity. This means that I have a greater desire for others to be saved than God himself does! Does this not strike anyone as just plain odd!!? I mean if predestination is true, then God really doesn't desire everyone to be saved, but only those he has predestined! How is it then we as followers of Christ have a greater desire for others to be saved from the torment of sin than the very Godhead does? This cannot be so!

I once heard evangelist and teacher, Gordon Olson once say that he converted from Calvinism as a result of an experience he had while preaching one Sunday. During his sermon he had a thought that shook him to the core. He realized that according to his present theology of Calvinism he had a greater desire to see others in his congregation to be saved than God himself did. Gordon realized there was something tremendously wrong with that sort of thinking and began to re-evaluate his theology. He came to understand that any theology whereby man could somehow desire his fellow mankind to repent and be saved more than God, had some real problems.

So for those who embrace Calvinism and yearn to see men saved, you need to ask yourself this question: Do YOU have a greater desire for men to be saved than what your doctrine puts forth??? Do you have a greater desire or love of your fellow man than your current image put forth by your doctrine? Do you question why you have a greater desire to see men saved or desire for revival and grieve why God has not yet moved?? The issue is not that your desires betray you, but that your theology has created a false image of the Godhead!