God's Love
Every preacher likes to know that his listeners are actually
"listening." Tragically, some
people in our audiences on Sunday morning and some in radio and in television
audiences only half listen. They have their
minds attuned to other matters and hear very little the preacher says. These were probably the people James had in
mind when he wrote: They behold themselves in the mirror of God's word, go
their way and forget what manner of people they were (Jas.
It is refreshing to receive a letter from a man who apparently has
given much thought to our lessons on the International Gospel Hour. He disagrees not only with what is being
preached but also with the spirit in which it is being preached. Let me say as plainly and yet as kindly as I
am able: Although I believe his criticisms are uninformed and poorly reasoned,
I am grateful for the letter. My initial
reaction was to throw the letter in the wastebasket, but on further reflection
I decided to respond on the air to the letter.
If my correspondent has some objections to the content of the sermons
and the manner in which they are preached, maybe there are others in my
audience who have the same criticisms.
The letter challenges me to examine the hundreds of sermons I have
preached on this program in the last five years and inspires me to make my
sermons as scriptural and compassionate as I am able.
My correspondent says that love is missing from our broadcasts. He adds: "I hear a lot of criticism of
other Christian personalities and denominations, but there is none of God's
love contained in the words you expound."
It certainly is possible for others to disagree with how much emphasis
is placed on certain topics. How many
sermons should I devote to God's love? I
sat down before preparing this message on God's love and reviewed every sermon
I have preached on our thirty-minute programs.
Obviously, I cannot list all the topics I have used in the past five
years, but I do want to mention a few.
My very first sermon on this program was "Why Choose
Jesus?" My second was "Jesus
Is Lord." In the first year I spoke
on "The Grace of God," "The Death of Christ?" "God's
Image in Man," "The Claims of Christ" and `The Inspiration of
the Bible." Every other topic
during that year was either directly or indirectly related to God's love for
man and man's love for God. When I
addressed the topic, "Do We Focus on the Man or on the Plan?" I was
exalting God's plan for saving man.
Over the past twelve months beginning in September of 1999, I have
discussed "God's Love for Fallen Man," "John 3:16,"
"What Does God Demand of Us?", "Abounding in the Work of the
Lord," "Why Did My Savior Come to Earth?", "Who Speaks for
God?", and many other topics-all of which were intended to show God's love
for us and to challenge us to love God with all their hearts, souls and
minds. Maybe other preachers would have
emphasized different themes, but I have chosen every topic because I sincerely
believed it was desperately needed. For
example, I spoke recently on churches' appointing women preachers. There are few topics more relevant to modern
life than that. It is dividing churches
all over the country, including some left-leaning churches of Christ. Am I ignoring God's love when I speak on that
topic? If the Bible means what it says
about women preachers or elders or deacons, would I not ignore God's voice as
revealed in the Bible if I did not discuss it?
Can I ignore the plain teaching of God's book and pretend to love God?
My correspondent probably has not read widely
enough to know that scholars and preachers from most religious groups speak out
against what they consider to be soul-condemning error. If time permitted, I could give you hundreds
of examples. I shall give you just a few
examples. John Shelby Spong, former
Bishop of the Episcopal Church in
Dr. Norman Geisler, the president of Southern
Evangelical Seminary in
D. R. McConnell, a Pentecostal preacher, has
written an excellent book with the title, A Different Gospel: A Historical
and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. McConnell’s book contains a devastating
critique of the teaching of Kenneth Hagin, Charles Capps, Fred Price, Kenneth
and Gloria Copeland. He quotes E. W.
Kenyon, one of the so-called “faith teachers” as saying, “What I confess, I
possess” (p. 137). According to
McConnell, “In faith theology, a personal loving God does not determine what
comes into the believer’s life. PMA
(positive mental attitude) and positive confession do” (p. 140). Does God’s love prohibit Dr. McConnell from
showing the error of the modern faith movement?
McConnell’s book is not radical and ugly-spirited. But he believed—and I wholeheartedly
agree—that he had an obligation to show the error of the faith movement. How could he live with himself if he did not
condemn what he believes is error?
I have no idea how
many books Dr. John MacArthur, president of the Master's College and Seminary,
has written. I have at least twenty of
Dr. MacArthur's books and have reviewed one of them-Ashamed of the Gospel:
When the Church Becomes Like the World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993-on
the Freed-Hardeman University annual lectureship and in The Spiritual Sword,
an excellent journal published in Memphis, Tennessee. While I vigorously reject Dr. MacArthur's
Calvinism, I have to say to you that I have profited greatly by reading all of
his books. In his book, Ashamed of
the Gospel, Dr. MacArthur objects the George Barna's emphasis on
"market driven ministries" and "user-friendly churches"
(pp. 45-66). Dr. MacArthur criticizes Donald
McGavran and Peter Wagner for their pragmatic approach to church growth. Dr. MacArthur has a number of books dealing
with religious error, at least, "religious error" as he understands
it. Has Dr. MacArthur ignored God's love
by showing how false some doctrinal positions are? Could he do otherwise and be true to himself?
Dr. Thomas C. Reeves teaches history at the University of
Wisconsin-Parkside. His outstanding
book, The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Christianity (New York:
The Free Press, 1996), documents how liberal churches, including his own
denomination, are in the process of dying.
Dr. Reeves asks, "Do churches, well, really matter any more"
(p. ix of the Preface)? He says he has
belonged to a mainline denomination all his life. He affirms that the attitudes and actions of
the mainline churches are "leading toward the serious debilitation, if not
extinction, of these historic churches" (pp. x-xi of the Preface). Dr. Reeves says that morale among the
mainline denominations is very low. One
survey showed that only 27% of Protestants gave their churches an excellent
rating (p. 13). I have a question for
the man who wrote to me about my not emphasizing God's love. Does Dr. Reeves love his own people less
because he points out the error that is leading them extinction? Would he love them--more if he did not show
how seriously flawed their approach to scripture is? Do we fail to show God's love for fallen men
when we help prodigals-both individuals and churches-return to the Father?
I wonder
if my correspondent has ever read Old Testament prophetic writings. Does he believe God's spokesmen under that
covenant stressed the love of God for his people? The prophet Isaiah said to the Jews: "Ah
sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children who
are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy one of
Isaiah's words admittedly are very harsh. Calling the prophets, priests and kings
"rulers of
Jesus Christ came into this world to make God's love known to man. He accomplished that goal in a number of
different ways. He voluntarily died on
the cross to redeem fallen men from their sins.
Jesus lived in such a way as to show men how much God loved them and had
provided for their every genuine need.
His words also demonstrate God's gracious provisions for our
salvation. Would my correspondent agree
that all of Christ's words and works reveal God's love for us? But some of the harshest words ever spoken
came from the mouth of Jesus Christ. How
could one who loved all men so much say to his own people: "You are of
your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of lies" (John
Our Lord's most intensive and extensive
criticism of any group in the New Testament appears in Matthew 23. If you think love prohibits a preacher from
criticizing other religious groups and their leaders, please read the entire
chapter. I shall read a few brief
excerpts from Matthew 23. "Woe unto
you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven
against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer them who are
entering to go in. Woe unto you,
scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a
pretence make long prayers: therefore you shall receive the greater
condemnation. Woe unto you, scribes,
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and
when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, blind guides, who say,
Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear
by the gold of the temple, he is debtor! You fools and blind: for whether is
greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold" (Mt
Do you have any doubt about Paul's love for
the Corinthians? The greatest treatise
in the world on love is 1 Corinthians 13.
Even the enemies of Christianity, such as secular humanists, praise
Paul's chapter on love. Have you
bothered to examine Paul's first letter to the Corinthians to ascertain how
love operates when Christians are in danger of being lost? Should not Paul have been more tolerant of
the errors in teaching and in life that were in the church at
The Lord's supper is a vital part of the our
regular worship to God almighty. Very
few people who identify themselves as Christians would dispute that fact. But there were people at
Do you see God's love coming through in these
words? Many modern people think that
such preaching is too negative, too intolerant and not loving enough. But what if Paul had shared these foolish
notions? What if he had allowed them go
on in their rebellion against God? We do
not have to wonder about the answer to those questions. Paul urged the Corinthians to examine
themselves and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. "For he who eats
and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lord's body. For this cause many are
weak and sickly among you, and many sleep" (1 Cor.
The little epistle of Jude warns of the false
teachers who were doing so much damage to the cause of Christ. He knew that some members of the church would
be deceived and led astray by the false teachers. So he pled with his readers: "Keep
yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
unto eternal life. And on some (that is,
on those who were in danger of falling away or who had actually fallen away)
have mercy. And others save with fear, pulling
them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted with the flesh" (Jude
21-23). Could those early Christians
have kept themselves in the love of God if they had neglected to help their
wayward brothers and sisters? Can I
please God almighty if I fail to tell men and women that grace alone through
faith alone is not God's plan for saving man?
If I neglect to warn about the evils of division, will God be pleased
with my preaching?
I have tried through fifty-seven years of
preaching to do what Paul recommended, that is, to speak the truth in love
(Eph. 4: 15). I am sure I have not
always been able to do that. When I hear
a man on radio or on television promoting doctrines that clearly and
unmistakably contradict the plain truth of scripture, it is not easy to remain
dispassionate about such teaching. I
sincerely want to love the sinner and oppose his sin, but that may not always
come through on radio or even in the pulpit.
Paul became angry when he saw the world's most intellectual city devoted
to idolatry (Acts
Winford Claiborne