“we will not neglect the house of our God”

JP: From Doug Roman.

How Important is the House of God?


In my Bible reading yesterday, I read from Nehemiah 10 and Acts 20. Both emphasized the importance of an assembly of believers. In Nehemiah 10, the assembly covenants together. The covenant was made only by those who could willfully make this covenant (10:28). The covenant was to keep the law of God (10:29); concerning marriage (10:30), commerce (10:31), giving for the maintaining the operation of the house of God (10:32-34), and bringing their tithes and offerings (10:35-39b). This also included the care of those who ministered in the house of God, i.e. priests (10:36). So the covenant is encapsulated with the phrase: “we will not neglect the house of our God” (10:39c). We ought to share the perspective and priorities of God’s people in the OT concerning the house of God. Its care, advancement, and primacy were foremost to the people. Not only did they concern themselves with the maintenance of the house of God, but aesthetics mattered to them. We shouldn’t skimp on what we have in God’s house. All too often we are content to do the bare minimum by way of furnishings, functions, etc. This should not be. God’s people in the OT understood that the care of the building reflected their view of the God they worshipped. They also understood that those who ministered in the house of God were worthy of their wages.


Overexposure to culture’s dark side

JP: Although this is not a new article (from December 2007), it is nevertheless a timely read by John MacArthur. Good phrase -“Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic”. May each of us be discerning!

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


… 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.

…. The point I want to make is …. 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.


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).