Speaking Boldly

Prescient Piper

2011-07-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

When I started this four-part series in Acts back in December (so long ago that it was only going to be three parts back then), I had a visitor to the blog pose a very good question. The anonymous visitor asked:

"How do we categorize evangelical churches that are defintely adapting their environment to appeal to the postmodern, is fascinated with the new and different, but are still faithful to the Bible being home base for all teaching and practice? So they look alot like the emerging churches but are really not compromising like many in the movement."

Good question. While I'd like to think I answered part of that in the meta on that post - as well as in my most recent entry in the series, I read something today that is far more insightful.

In 1989, John Piper was preaching from Acts 20:28-31 and had this to say regarding the pursuit of newness and difference:

"Let me just mention one feature to watch out for in the recognition of wolves. As I have watched the movement from biblical faithfulness to liberalism in persons and institutions that I have known over the years, this feature stands out: An emotional disenchantment with faithfulness to what is old and fixed, and an emotional preoccupation with what is new or fashionable or relevant in the eyes of the world.

Let's try to say it another way: when this feature is prevalent, you don't get the impression that a person really longs to bring his mind and heart into conformity to fixed biblical truth. Instead you see the desire to picture biblical truth as unfixed, fluid, indefinable, distant, inaccessible, and so open to the trends of the day.

So what marks a possible wolf-in-the-making is not simply that he rejects or accepts any particular biblical truth, but that he isn't deeply oriented on the Bible. He is more oriented on experience. He isn't captured by the great old faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead he's enamored by what is new and innovative.

A good elder can be creative. But the indispensable mark when it comes to doctrinal fitness is faithfulness to what is fixed in Scripture—disciplined, humble submission to the particular affirmations of the Bible—carefully and reverently studied and explained and cherished. When that spirit begins to go, there's a wolf-in-the-making."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sometimes you have to tear down before you can build

2011-07-04T11:08:00.000-07:00

Once again, I've managed to let this blog slip into near-total obscurity. This is due, in large part, to the fact that I bit off more than I can theologically chew when it comes to this analysis of Paul's preaching at the Areopagus in Athens that is summarized for us in Acts 17. Still, that's no excuse - so it's time for me to tackle part two of this discussion. Parts three and four are, surprisingly, on the horizon as well. Then I'll get to tackle something fun: blogging through "Politics According to the Bible" by Wayne Grudem.

When we started our discussion of Acts 17:16-33, we'd taken a look at the many ways in which first-century Athens was like our twenty-first-century world: religious pluralism, urbanization and 'tolerance', an open hostility towards a biblical worldview, and a near-obsession with the new and different. Today, in part two, and also in the upcoming part three, we'll look at the framework Paul sets up in order before presenting the gospel - he tears down the worldview of the Athenians and lays out a biblical worldview before presenting a simple, but nonnegotiable, gospel that we'll look at in part four.

Paul tears down the worldview of the Athenians and lays out a biblical worldview before presenting [the] gospel.

Before we start, there's one thing we should really keep in mind. Luke takes only 10 verses to record the things Paul said in the Areopagus; it takes us maybe one or two minutes to read through it - and that's if we read slowly. But the Areopagus was not a place for short, bite-size presentations - this was the academic and cultural center of Athens, which was itself the academic and cultural center of the first-century Greek world! We can be certain that Paul expanded on nearly every point he made - this is clearly a condensed report of a much longer presentation. We can understand more of what Paul likely said if we look at his other writings, especially his thorough explanation of the gospel in Romans. Nevertheless, even in this condensed version, we find a very clear refutation of the Athenian worldview - one which we would do wise to consider when facing our own biblically-hostile worldview.

Creator God
(v. 24a)

Paul starts out by making the bold claim that God "made the world and everything in it". He would not have needed to make this point to audiences in Jewish synagogues, but here in the heart of a culture that was hostile towards a biblical worldview - much like our own - he began at the very beginning, not shying away from the biblical truth of creation. This fact of creation establishes that God is other than His created order, thus eliminating the pantheism favored by the Stoics in Paul's audience. It also demonstrates the folly, and sin, of worshipping a created thing instead of the Creator - idolatry.

Are we willing to take on the secular worldview regarding creation in our day? Or do we ignore this foundational truth because it's 'controversial' or because we think we might look foolish in the eyes of the world? And what will we do with the modern worship of self, success, wealth, pleasure or happiness in our world? Are we willing to point out the grievousness of the sin of idolatry when only the Creator is worthy?

Sovereign God
(v.24b)

Next, Paul points out that this God who created everything and everyone is "Lord of heaven and earth" and "does not live in temples made by man". For God to be sovereign over all of heaven and all of earth - i.e., over all of creation - was a direct contradiction to the pagan notion that each god or goddess ruled over their individual domains, or that each ethnic group or nation had their own god. The God of the Bible is sovereign over everything. Because His reign is universal, God is not tamed, or limited, by man-made temples.

While we don't often come into contact with polytheistic worldviews in our evangelistic efforts, we definitely fight against a worldview that refuses to consider, let alone acknowledge, the sovereignty of God. Do we clearly proclaim the sovereignty of God and the universality of His reign? Or do we cow before the secular worldview and begin to think of God as only in charge of those who believe in Him?

Independent and self-existent God
(v.25a)

Paul points out that God "is not served by human hands, as though he needed anything". This refers to the aseity of God - not a word we hear often anymore, but it means that God's very existence is independent of anything or anyone else.

Are we willing to point out clearly, as Paul did, that God does not need us; rather, we need God?

Not only is He self-existent (which goes hand-in-hand with being the Creator), but His needs are not met by, or in, His creation. In other words, God is very unlike the polytheistic culture to which Paul was speaking; in the Greek worldview, humans and gods interacted often - all because the gods 'needed' that which humans could offer. Paul was clearly pointing out - in stark contrast to what the Greeks believed - that God had no needs that could not be met within Himself.

How different this is from many of today's modern evangelical pitches which suggest, or at the very least, imply that God needs us, that Jesus is incomplete without our love or belief. Are we willing to go against the popular misconception and point out clearly, as Paul did, that God does not need us; rather, we need God?

Utterly-dependent and created man
(v.25b)

The truth, Paul points out in the second half of this verse, is that man is completely dependent on God. Not only are we created beings, but God "gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." Every person who has lived, does live, or will live on this earth owes his or her very life to God - whether they recognize and admit it or not. (This is also a reminder of God's common grace - it is all of mankind that He gives this to.)

The worldview we face today is strikingly different. Even those who profess a belief in God would not likely go so far as to admit complete dependence upon Him. Those of us who have grown up in America hold our independence in such high regard that the reality of our dependence on anyone is a concept that most will quickly dismiss. We must not make that mistake; first, let us acknowledge our total dependence upon God and then let us not shy away from confrontation against a worldview that desperately tries to cling to its mistaken notions of independence and self-determination.

Mankind's descent from one man
(v.26a)

At first glance, we might wonder why it's so important for Paul to point out that all the nations of mankind are descended from a single man. Two things come to mind - the first is that this contradicted many ancient ideas that held to the belief that different races and ethnic groups came into being in very different ways.

They mistakenly conclude that because individual beliefs about the truth differ, there must also be individual truths rather than a singularly true Truth

The second, and more important, reason is because the gospel that Paul preaches is a universal gospel for a universal problem. (See Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22.) Sin and death were brought into the world through the actions of a single man - we are thus all born into sin and subject to death and judgment. Paul cannot offer a gospel with a universal solution to a problem if he does not first make clear the universality of that problem.

We face a worldview today that, thanks to relativistic notions of truth, believes that something might be sin for one person, but not for another. They mistakenly conclude that because individual beliefs about the truth differ, there must also be individual truths rather than a singularly true Truth. Are we willing to point out the hard truth that all have been born into sin? That all of mankind, as descendants of Adam, lies under the curse and will face death and judgment? Or do we temper these truths and try to make the gospel a solution to problems other than the problem of sin?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Next time, we'll tackle the rest of Paul's efforts to dismantle the Athenians' worldview before presenting the gospel. We'll see man's need to seek God, discuss the immanence (or nearness) of God, go more into the sin of idolatry, and talk about the certainty of judgment. Then, in part four, we'll wrap this text up by looking at the very simple gospel that Paul presented.

After these messages, we'll be right back.

2011-03-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

Yes, despite appearances to the contrary, I am working on parts two and three to the Acts 17 discussion we started in December. But that's not why I'm here, dusting this thing off today.

Any of you who've been reading this blog from early on know that one of the motivating factors in my starting this blog was reading the recognition that all sorts of false teaching was gaining traction in evangelicalism and that people in the church were ill-equipped to argue against the post-modern, heterodox, Scripture-as-gumby authors and bloggers out there.

One of those heterodox authors is Rob Bell. The recent announcement of his latest book - Love Wins - started a little bit of a firestorm in the blogosphere. While I was concerned (rightly, as it turned out) about this new book, it turns out I wasn't nearly concerned enough. While I won't be reviewing the book myself anytime soon (I've got too many good books to read), I am so very grateful to Kevin DeYoung for the detailed, thorough, and biblical review that he posted today. It's a long one - 20 pages in PDF form - but I strongly recommend it.

Kevin DeYoung's God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins”

Deja vu, all over again

2010-12-05T13:32:00.000-08:00

Before I disappeared into the vast blogless void early last year, I had begun planning a series of posts delving into Paul’s preaching at the Areopagus in Athens, as described in Acts 17. Then, when I came back on the scene a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned this series as one of the things that might get some ‘airtime’ here on the blog. Before we get started, you might want to open up a new window with Acts 17:16-33 for reference.

In later segments, we’ll talk about the essential groundwork that Paul lays down in order to break down the worldview of his hearers before he even gets to the gospel. Of course, we’ll also cover the brief, but clear, gospel message that Paul preaches. However, in this first installment, I want to point out how eerily similar first-century Athens was to our own modern world - it is those similarities that will help us see just how Paul’s apologetic can be used as a framework for our own.

Religious pluralism

“... the city was full of idols.” “... I perceive that in every way you are very religious.”

There were two primary causes of the pluralistic society into which Paul came to preach the gospel. First was the Roman Empire’s historical tendency to adopt “local” gods into their pantheon, and to require the local populace to worship the Roman gods as well. This practice helped ensure that a subjugated people would be less likely to rebel; after all, the “gods” were now on both sides!

The other reason for the pluralism he encountered in Athens - and one which is far more recognizable in our own post-modern culture - was simply the result of urbanization. The close quarters in which so many people had to live and work created a sort of ‘coerced civility’, or what today we would call 'tolerance'. Of course, this has many good aspects - like the fact that we don’t seek to kill or imprison someone who thinks differently than we do - but it also tends to soften the distinctive edges of various belief systems.

Tolerance is a good thing when applied to the behavior of individuals, but a bad thing in our belief systems.

To put it more clearly, tolerance is a good thing when applied to the behavior of individuals within a culture, but it can become a very bad thing when it appears in our belief systems.

We now live in a culture that is steeped in religious pluralism; a culture that demands “tolerance” for every perversion of truth imaginable, all while simultaneously redefining the term. This is why so many who claim to be Christians no longer want to acknowledge the clear and unavoidable claims of exclusivity that Christ made regarding himself. But, as we’ll see in a later article, Paul did not flinch from this fact as he spoke to those in the Areopagus.

Hostility towards a biblical worldview

In whichever towns Paul went, he would always begin his preaching in the Jewish synagogue (Acts 13:5, 13:14-43, 14:1, 17:1-3, 17:10-12). Even here in Athens, that’s where he started (see Acts 17:17). In that context, he would (rightly) assume that his hearers had a biblical worldview; he would then use Scripture to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.

But his dealings with the various philosophers shows that Paul was now preaching to people who were not merely biblically illiterate, but to people who held worldviews that were in direct contradiction with Scripture (and with one another, for that matter). Only two are mentioned in the text itself - Epicureans and Stoics - but understanding the way they viewed the world is essential to understanding the nature of Paul’s preaching.

Understanding the way Epicureans and Stoics viewed the world is essential to understanding the nature of Paul’s preaching.

(A quick aside before I go on: I should mention that “philosophy” in ancient Athens did not mean “the subject you major in if you don’t want a job when you graduate”. Philosophy, in this historical context, meant the same thing that we would mean when we talk of a person’s “worldview” today - it’s an entire way of life, an all-encompassing, over-arching understanding that defines how a person sees, interprets and responds to the events of their life.)

Epicureans viewed reality as the random combination and dispersion of atoms; they would find the concept of a bodily resurrection absolutely laughable (see Acts 17:32). Stoics, on the other hand, were pantheists, and identified the divine as the principle of reason within all and - via the concept of an impersonal ‘fate’ - ruling all.

These disparate worldviews lead Paul’s hearers to insult him: “What does this babbler wish to say?” The Greek word for “babbler” here literally means “one who picks up seeds” and suggests one who pecks at ideas as a chicken, and then spouts them off without fully understanding them. There is a strongly condescending attitude coming from these learned men of Athens.

Similarly, we now live in a time where we can no longer safely assume a basic biblical worldview here in America, let alone anywhere else in the world. To the contrary, those with whom we must share the gospel now possess a worldview that, like those of the Epicureans and Stoics, is completely contradictory to Scripture. Whether it’s the secular humanist belief that we live in a world created by random chance (Epicurean), or the New Age pantheistic beliefs of postmodernism (Stoicism), we face worldviews that are strikingly similar to what Paul encountered. Finally, I don’t think I need to point out the condescension, if not outright hostility, with which most of the world views Christianity. Go and share the gospel with strangers in a public place for even five minutes and you’ll quickly be called worse things than “babbler”!

Fascination with the novel and unusual

“Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”

Luke gives us a preview of the response Paul will receive by portraying the Athenians as intellectual dilettantes more than actual truth-seekers. Skepticism had made major inroads by this time in history, and Athen’s intellectual life was marked by uncertainty and turmoil. They were fascinated with the trivial, obsessed with the new, and often enamored of the inconsequential.

Today’s culture is no different; as evidence, I point to the success of the banal, so-called “reality” television programming flooding our airwaves... or to the rise in the last decade of 24-hour news networks... or to the constant need to know what relatively useless thing our ‘friends’ are doing on facebook or twitter.

Our fascination with the new and different is pursued with more vigor, and on a larger scale, than anything the Athenians could have ever dreamed!

Our fascination with the new and different is pursued with more vigor, and on a larger scale, than anything the Athenians could have ever dreamed! Sadly, we see some in the church fall victim to this mentality - the emergent and emerging church movements are prime examples of how an obsession with being ‘cutting-edge’ can go much too far.

Conclusion

We could have gone into far more detail about the idolatry in Athens and how similar it is to our current “spiritual, but not religious” world - but that may be its own post someday down the line. For now, we’ll go with these three similarities: religious pluralism, a worldview antithetical to biblical truths, and fascination with the new and different. It seems clear that our world is far more similar to first-century Athens than one might initially believe.

In our next two segments in this study of Acts 17, we’ll take a closer look at how Paul directly addresses the worldview of his hearers, taking it on and dismantling it piece by piece. He does not try to fit the gospel message into the worldview of his hearers, as so many in our modern church seem to do. Instead, he does the hard and necessary work of tearing down worldviews that are incompatible with the biblical gospel before he even gets to the gospel itself!

As always, your thoughts, comments and questions are welcome. Stay tuned...

The Santa Claus theology phenomenon

2010-11-28T20:55:00.000-08:00

On long road trips, my mind often wanders (as my wife will testify, it usually doesn't return when called). Over this Thanksgiving weekend's 900-mile jaunt, I got to thinking about the similarities between how kids think about Santa Claus and how adults think about God.

As young children, we grow up being told about Santa Claus and how we need to be good little boys and girls so that Santa will bring us the toys that we ask for. (Unless, of course, we ask for an Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle, in which case Santa will warn us of the likelihood of self-inflicted ocular injuries.)

Have you been a bad little boy?

We're also told -- by adults with furrowed brows, pointing fingers and very serious voices -- that, if we are not good children, the only thing we will find in our stocking is a lump of coal.

Perhaps you were a well-behaved child and you almost never disobeyed your parents. (How about giving me their phone number so I can ask them for myself?) Maybe you were a typical child and only did what you shouldn't do when you thought you could get away with it. Or perhaps you were a real troublemaker, causing all sorts of consternation on the part of your parents - not to mention your probation officers. Whatever the case, did you ever get a lump of coal for Christmas? Did you ever even know someone who was given such a symbol of childhood-obedience failure?

Did you ever even know someone who was given such a symbol of childhood-obedience failure?

The truth is that most of us -- at least most of us here in middle-class America -- usually got almost exactly what we asked for, regardless of whether we were "good" or "bad".

So follow the bouncing-logic-ball for a moment. "Good" kids get toys. "Bad" kids get coal. I was kinda-bad, kinda-good throughout the year. I got toys. I did not get coal. My big brother, who gave me an atomic wedgie just last week, didn't get coal. In fact, I don't know anyone who got a lump of coal. Ergo, all kids are "good" enough for toys. Also, ergo, no kid is "bad" enough for a lump of coal.

Santa-warped logic: no one is "bad" enough for hell and God will still give everyone what they want because they're mostly good, or because they try to be good.

Fast-forward that childhood logic to adulthood and confront that same person with the biblical truth that no one is good enough for God (Rom. 3:10-11), and that we are all facing an eternal, burning lump of coal, and that Santa-warped logic will lead them to believe that no one is "bad" enough for hell and that God will still give everyone what they want because they're mostly good, or because they try to be good.

Be honest with yourself: do you view God as nothing more than a cosmic Santa Claus? If you don't (and I sure hope you don't), you probably know someone who does... how do you lovingly break through this faulty Santa-logic and convince your friend, colleague or family member that, one day, "they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead" (1 Pet. 4:5), and that God "commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed "a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:30-31)?

Thanksgiving: the will of God (revisited)

2010-11-24T20:05:00.000-08:00

The last time Thanksgiving rolled around when I was actively blogging was two years ago. I'm going to blatantly reuse that material (I'm thankful for archived posts!), and make a few edits to bring it up to date. So without further ado, here's a leftover turkey of a post... don't forget the gravy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanksgiving. I'm not referring to the Thanksgiving holiday that I'll be celebrating tomorrow... or the one I wish for you and your family. That is, not the one where we stuff ourselves with far too much food, loosen our belts (please, no unbuttoning of the pants - that's just wrong) to give ourselves breathing room, and watch the Saints beat the Cowboys.

No, I'm thinking of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18:

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

How often do we struggle, trying to determine God's will for our lives? We search the Scriptures and earnestly pray, asking the Holy Spirit to give us direction, guidance, clarity as to what to do in a particular situation. And we're absolutely certain that we'd obey if only we knew what His specific will for our lives was!

But do we already obey His clearly-stated will?

Are we "always" rejoicing? Or do we often lament our circumstances and complain about our trials?
Are we consistently and constantly praying? Or are there times that we'd prefer God not be in our conversation?
Do we give thanks in all circumstances? Or do we gripe and complain because we don't have what we want?

On a personal note this holiday, I am truly thankful to God for the many blessings He's given me:

I'm thankful that He gave me a loving, godly wife to stand at my side during good times and during challenging trials.
I'm thankful for the godly example set for me by my father, who passed away last month after suffering a stroke in July.
I'm especially thankful that my father faithfully loved and served Christ and that he is now in the presence of his Lord and Savior.
I'm grateful that God has placed me in a loving and faithful church family.
I thank God for the challenges that He's put before me over the last several years; through them, He has grown my faith, my obedience and my love for His word.
I'm thankful that I have work to perform, a place to live, clothes to wear and food to eat; though I sometimes struggle with wanting more than I have, I know He has given me enough.
I thank God for giving me the burden to strive for the faith of the gospel and the truth of His word.

Tomorrow, as we celebrate Thanksgiving with our loved ones, let's remember to give thanks in all circumstances as we walk in the will of God in Christ Jesus!

Speaking Sporadically...

2010-11-21T16:05:00.000-08:00

.

I'm fairly certain that, according to whatever rules control the blogging world, a layoff of a year-and-a-half would qualify as abandonment. If my blog had physical being, I'd have had to blow the dust off this thing and scare the rats away - but only after they (hopefully) chewed up some of my lesser entries.

There's a part of me that wants to explain the various reasons for my lengthy absence. Take your pick of the following reasons:

I got the DeLorean up to 88 mph and found myself unexpectedly in November 2010. Sadly, the flux capacitor no longer functions and I'm stuck here.
My internet connection went down. For 20 months.
The Central Intelligence Agency recalled me to service and I was a covert agent in this text is secret, don't look for the last year-and-a-half.
My dog ate my blog posts. He's really hungry.
I stopped having opinions altogether. (Well, this is clearly false.)

Truth be told, there is no single reason why I stopped - just as there's no single reason I'm back for more. But I am back. I've been praying and thinking about getting back into this since early this year - and, after some loving encouragement from my wife, and conviction from the Holy Spirit (not necessarily in that order), I decided that it's time to dive back into this. I make no promises on the frequency (or even quality!) of my posts, but I'll try to make sure they're worth reading.

Here are some of the ideas rattling around in my brain, that might just get some airtime on this blog:

What people wish the Bible said - a series of short articles on popular misconceptions of Scripture
A discussion of Dr. Wayne Grudem's new book, "Politics According to the Bible" (If you are a registered CBD user, you can read through the first chapter for free from this link)
Occasional quotes from Charles Spurgeon, with commentary from yours truly (as if)
As we approach Christmas, discussions about the Incarnation
Thoughts on the similarity between our world and what Paul encountered in Athens (see Acts 17:16-34), and how his apologetic there provides a template for us

If you've got anything that you'd like to see discussed on Speaking Boldly, just let me know. At this point, I'd be surprised if I had to use more than one hand to count my readers - but that doesn't change the fact that I want to involve you as well.

So stay tuned...

A first time for everything...

2009-02-20T12:14:00.000-08:00

So a couple of Sundays ago, when I was apologizing for my long absence, I mentioned that I would soon be preaching my first "mini-sermon". I think it came up again when I started my two-part blog about male leadership in the home. Well, you know what they say... time flies when you procrastinate. Or something like that.

In less than 48 hours, I'll be... preaching on 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 and what it means to be a "new creation".

Anyway, in less than 48 hours, I'll be standing in front of one of our pastors and a dozen or more men from my church, preaching on 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 and what it means to be a "new creation". I thought I'd take a few minutes here to share some of what I'll be talking about.

============

First - the nature of our new creation.

It doesn’t take a seminary education to recognize that the nature of our new creation clearly isn’t physical. Just like upgrading the operating system on a computer, our “hardware” remains the same. So what is it that is newly created? Well, it helps to remember who we really are in the first place. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” It is our soul - our spirit, then - that is the subject of the new creation. Paul talks about this earlier in 2 Cor 5. In verses 1 to 5, he talks about “the [temporary] tent that is our earthly home”, and compares it to the permanent house or “heavenly dwelling” that we have eternally in heaven. He expresses our common desire “that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” - that is, by real, eternal life.

Second - the means of our new creation.

Of course, this just brings us to our next question; how, or by what means, have our souls been newly created?

Paul tells us that our new creation is contingent on our being “in Christ”. We are a new creation because we are in Christ. To understand this, let’s back up just two verses from our reading to verse 14 where we see that “[Christ] has died for all, therefore all have died.” Though he doesn’t go deeper into this concept in 2 Cor. 5, we can understand what this means by looking at a few other passages.

Romans 6:3-4a -- Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death...
Galatians 2:20a -- I have been crucified with Christ...
Colossians 2:12 -- having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

So we have been baptized into Christ’s death, buried with him, and raised with him through faith. What does this result in for us?

Romans 6:4b -- in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:11 -- So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 4:22 -- Put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires.
Galatians 2:20b -- It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.
And, bringing it back around to 2 Cor 5:17 -- The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

It’s important to remember, though, that this act - being placed in Christ - happens, as Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5, not because “of works done by us in righteousness, but according to God’s own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”.

Did you catch those two words? Regeneration and renewal? Sounds a lot like “a new creation” to me.

Third - the purpose of our new creation.

We’ve seen that our new creation is spiritual in nature, and that it’s occurred because we’ve been placed in Christ. But what is the purpose of our being created anew?

Let's look at 2 Cor 5:15 where Paul tells us that “he [Christ] died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” Now that we are in Christ, we are to live for Christ.

But how does Paul describe living for Christ? What would our lives look like if we were no longer living for ourselves, but for Him who for our sake died and was raised? Scripture gives us a lot of reasons, but let's focus on just those we find here in the fifth chapter:

Trust in His word. Verse 7 reminds us that “we walk by faith, not by sight.” That is, we live our lives based on confident trust in God’s promises, even when we cannot yet see their fulfillment.
Look forward to His presence. Paul says that “we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” - we live for Christ now, while looking forward to one day living with Him.
Make your goal His pleasure. We ought to agree with Paul when he says that “we make it our aim to please him." We should live our lives with the intention of bringing God glory and delight through our actions and attitudes each and every day.
Be controlled by His love. In verse 14, we are told that “the love of Christ controls us." In other words, we are no longer motivated by our own worldly ‘loves’ or desires, but by the love of Him who “for our sake died and was raised.” As we see in Titus 2:11-12, we are to “renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.”
Faithfully preach His gospel. The passage reaches its climax here where we learn that we need to be "ambassadors of Christ… imploring others on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Having been placed in Christ, it is now our task - our joy! - to preach the gospel message to others so that they might also be a new creation in Christ.

Living for Christ -- that is why our souls have been made a new creation in Him.

Valentine's Day and being a REAL man...

2009-02-13T21:45:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, we began a two-part series on what it really means to be a godly man leading in a biblically-centered household. We looked at two key passages - 1 Cor. 11:1-3 and Eph. 5:23 - that showed us the biblical model: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of every man and the husband is the head of the wife. So while we might now know what the biblical mandate is for male headship, the question remains: how is the concept of "headship" lived out in the day-to-day home life of the Christian husband?

First, we must be real leaders. In doing so, we need to remember that headship does not equal dominance, where a man lords it over his wife and demands complete obedience. As we saw earlier, God does not view women as

We ought to treat our wives as a precious gift from God and our helpmate - for that is precisely who they are.

second-class citizens - as believers, we are all equally His children and are, therefore, of equal worth and value. We ought to treat our wives as a precious gift from God and our helpmate - for that is precisely who they are.

It is important to remember that God has intentionally placed the husband in this position of responsibility. It doesn’t matter if you are a “natural-born leader” or have no leadership skills whatsoever. It doesn’t matter if your wife is resisting your leadership, fighting with you or rebelling against your attempt to lead. You are not demanding this position; God placed you there. But, you ask, how do I lead?

Fortunately, we are given an example - the perfect example, in fact - of how to lead. Immediately after telling us about the headship of the husband over the wife in Ephesians 5, Paul goes on to call husbands to the highest of standards in vv. 23-25. These verses show us the next way we live out biblical leadership:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So, then, to be real leaders, we must be real lovers.

Our acceptance of our wives must not be based upon their meeting of our expectations, realistic or otherwise.

That is, we must love unconditionally; not surprisingly, Paul uses the word “agapao” here for love. This is no mere physical love; our acceptance of our wives must not be based upon their meeting of our expectations - realistic or otherwise - but on their worth as God’s gift to us. We can do this through our words - consistent affirmation and verbal reminders of our love go a long way. So, too, do a dozen roses on Valentine's Day. But real actions are also necessary. As 1 John 3:18 reminds us, “let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.”

If we look at the example of Christ, we see Him demonstrate agape love in action as the most sacrificial of loves - and this must be our example, as Paul makes clear. As Christ did for the church, so we must do for our wives.

The love that Christ demonstrated for His church - and thus, the love we must demonstrate to our wives - is both sacrificial and sanctifying.

When it comes to sacrificial love... guys, let's be honest with ourselves. Are we really loving our wives sacrificially? When was the last time you genuinely gave up something you wanted - a ballgame, golfing with buddies, time on a hobby, maybe even money - in order to demonstrate love to your wife? I'm not saying you should never go to a ballgame or go golfing with your friends - but if you have an opportunity to give up your own desire in order to tangibly show sacrificial love to your wife, well... it's what you're called to do. What we do with regard to our wives should be for their good, not for our own sake.

When it comes to the sanctifying nature of our love, our goal should be to help our wives be as holy as possible. Are you washing your wife with the water of God’s word every day? Are you praying with your wife every day?

Have you put the same amount of thought and effort into how you can spiritually provide for your wife?

Are you interceding for her in prayer every day? Are you demonstrating holiness in your own words and actions, leading by example? I know these are tough questions, guys - but they're vital. Your wife is the second-greatest gift that God has given you. Let's put it this way: you probably put a lot of thought into how you can materially provide for your wife... find a good job, work hard, set up a retirement fund, etc. But ask yourself this: have you put the same amount of thought and effort into how you can spiritually provide for your wife?

When you "appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that [you] may receive what is due for what [you have] done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor. 5:10), do you think Christ will be more concerned with whether your wife had nice clothes and a fancy car or whether you did all you could to present her "without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25)?

Finally, we must be real servants. Just as Christ is our example as it relates to how we demonstrate love to our wives, He is also our example for servant leadership. Paul reminds us, in Philippians 2:7 that Christ, in His incarnation, “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” We see in John 13:1-17 a prime example of servant leadership as Jesus washed the feet of His disciples.

We, too, must follow His example and humbly serve our wives; to do this effectively means we must first seek to know and understand their needs and concerns, and then work diligently to meet them. We must be willing to attend to their needs even before our own, regardless of the cost. Living this out leaves us no room whatsoever for exerting our headship for our own pleasure or self-gratifying purpose.

This is what it means to “love your wives, as Christ loved the church.” This is what it means to be a biblical leader in our homes.

Questions for my readers (oh, by the way, these are not rhetorical questions, despite what the silence on this blog might suggest):

Give an example of when you demonstrated sacrificial love to your wife?
Did you see that love make an impact on your wife? Did it help make it easier for her to submit to your biblical leadership?
How do you show sanctifying love to your wife? How often do you read the Bible and pray together?
Think of one way you can serve your wife this weekend - do it, and then tell us about it here.

Botched abortion results in live birth. WWOD? (What would Obama do?)

2009-02-11T19:14:00.000-08:00

Tonight, I was planning on posting the follow-up to last night's post about male leadership in the home. However, I felt that the following news story - despite its disturbing nature - needed to be discussed. Please understand that I am not providing this information to shock or disturb you - nevertheless, you will likely find it very disturbing indeed.

Last week, several news sources reported that a young woman went to an abortion clinic outside of Miami in 2006 and paid $1,200 to a doctor to abort her 23-week pregnancy. Before we go any further, you should know that at this gestational age, nearly 50% of delivered babies survive. That is, a child born only six months into a pregnancy may be extremely premature, but it is certainly viable.

A child born [at 23 weeks] may be extremely premature, but it is certainly viable.

(In fact, in February of 2008, quadruplets born at 23 weeks survived.)

After receiving medication to dilate her cervix, the young woman waited several hours for the doctor who had been notified. While she was waiting, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl. What happened next is extremely disturbing: one of the clinic's owners - who has no medical license - knocked the baby off the chair where the mother had given birth, cut the infant's umbilical cord, placed the live baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw the bag into a trash can.

An autopsy determined that the little girl had filled her lungs with air after being born.

A week later, police recovered the decomposing remains of the little girl in a cardboard box outside the clinic. An autopsy determined that the little girl had filled her lungs with air after being born, thus proving that she had been born alive.

Though all this happened over two years ago, the facts are only now coming to light because of a medical malpractice suit filed against the abortionist by the young woman.

Last week, the Florida Board of Medicine revoked the license of the doctor in question, and prosecutors are considering whether or not to file murder charges against the doctor.

What does all this have to do with President Obama? Well, if this had happened in Illinois, prosecutors wouldn't even have the option of charging this doctor with murder or homicide. This is because Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. That's right - a law that would simply extend constitutional rights to children who are born alive as the result of a botched abortion... and Obama repeatedly voted against it. Who would want something as insignificant as infanticide stand in the way of a women's "choice"?

Here are some choice quotes from President Obama regarding this issue:

"What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."
"The bill [is] unnecessary... and was introduced for political reasons [alone]."
"There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony..."
"[The Born Alive Infant Protection Act] would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment..."
"[It] was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade."

All this over the following text:

A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Now remember, this is the same man who proudly proclaimed his support for FOCA during the election and who, within a few days of taking office, signed an executive order that will result in an increased number of abortions overseas paid for by our tax dollars.

So, questions for my readers:

If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, do you regret your vote?
Did you know about Obama's record on infanticide?
If not, did you bother to look?

Male leadership means more than hogging the remote

2009-02-10T20:56:00.000-08:00

One of the things that's been keeping me busy recently is my involvement in a men's group at my church designed to help develop ministry leaders. The other day, when I gave you my pathetic excuses for not blogging, one of them was that I am preparing to preach a mini-sermon for the first time. The preaching assignment is for that class, and as I work on preparing my sermon (which will be on 2 Cor. 5:16-17), I'll share my progress.

I'm going to blatantly rip off my own material to generate a couple of blog entries.

But that's not this post. Nope, tonight I'm going to blatantly rip off my own material to generate a couple of blog entries. Oh, don't worry - it's still good stuff... in fact, I'm hoping to actually get a little dialog going here since all I've been hearing lately are the crickets.

So, one of my recent assignments for this class was to examine two passages (1 Cor. 11:1-3 and Eph. 5:23) and discuss the biblical mandate for male leadership in the home.

Christian men go to church, find a woman they like, drag her off to their cave and insist she bring him the TV remote and a cold beer.

This is a surprisingly controversial topic, since folks outside the church really don't get it - they seem to think it's a "Me Tarzan, you Jane" sort of deal where Christian men go to church, find a woman they like, drag her off to their cave and insist she bring him the TV remote and a cold beer. Okay, maybe that's a little hyperbole, but not much... just listen to NOW's rhetoric on this issue every time the SBC holds a convention.

There’s a well-worn joke about a man who died and went to heaven and saw two signs - one said, “Those men who have been bossed around by their wives, stand here.” The line underneath this sign went on as far as the eye could see. The other sign said, “Those men who have never let their wives boss them around, stand here.” One lone man bravely stood in this line. The newcomer approached the man in this second line and asked him, “How’d you do it? How’d you manage to be the only man in this line?” The man looked at him nervously and said, “My wife told me to stand here.”

Though we laugh at this comical example, the unfortunate reality is that our culture has - successfully, for the most part - managed to redefine the roles and responsibilities of men and women, both in society at-large and in the domestic arena. Even the church has struggled with its understanding of this issue, with the Complimentarian vs. Egalitarian debate regarding gender roles and leadership in the church causing division between, and often within, denominations.

While this blog is limited in scope to the role of male leadership in the home, it is important that we take the time to address this issue for the same reasons as we would consider the debate in the larger context. Some of these reasons include:

It is vital that the church act biblically. If the Bible speaks clearly on the issue and the church ignores it, we can be certain that trouble will follow.
It is equally vital that Christian families act biblically. When the biblical understanding of gender roles is ignored, undermined or disobeyed, marriages and families can be devastated.
We must maintain a clear understanding of biblical authority. Those who argue that the role of the male as ‘head’ is nothing more than “one interpretation among many” are ignoring the clear, repeated commands of Scripture and are thus undermining the authority of the Bible itself.
Finally, the nature and understanding of gender roles - and even gender itself - is at the core of many of the cultural shifts we find ourselves experiencing today. This is especially evident in the debates over homosexual marriage and the "new morality" we see in this area.

With these reasons in mind, let's take a closer look at the biblical mandate for male leadership in the home. Before delving further into this, one initial understanding must be made clear. Man and woman are both designed by God of the same essence (Gen. 2:23) and are equal in terms of their status in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29). The difference in roles does not mean - or even suggest - that there is a difference in value or importance. This is a popular misconception, and it's important that we understand this before moving on.

We will examine two passages in particular as it relates to this issue. The first is 1 Corinthians 11:1-3:

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Similarly, Ephesians 5:23 reminds us that:

the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Both these passages make the same point, that the husband is the “head of the wife”. In reading these, we see a chain of authority - God the Father is head over Christ the son. Christ is head over both “every man” (1 Cor. 11:3) and “the church, his body” (Eph. 5:23). Finally, in turn, the husband is the “head” of the wife. This distinct and clearly-defined order of headship is critical to understanding the precise nature of the role of male leadership in the Christian family.

As it is used in this passage, the Greek word for “head” can refer to either origin or leadership. Some have argued that, since woman was made from man (Gen. 2:21-23), origin - and not leadership - is what Paul had in mind here. However, this would mean that the Father originated Christ - something we cannot accept, since Christ is coeternal with the Father (see John 1:1-3).

Our proper relationship to one another as men and women is to be a reflection of the way God relates to Himself [in the Trinity].

Therefore, Paul was clearly illustrating the husband/wife relationship as being analogous to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Our proper relationship to one another as men and women is to be a reflection of the way God relates to Himself; the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father. As mentioned earlier, this clearly does not imply a difference in worth. In His earthly ministry, Jesus was subject to the Father even though He is equal to the Father (John 5:19ff, 10:30, 14:28). Similarly, the wife is subject to the leadership of the husband even though, in Christ, she is equal to him (1 Cor. 3:21-23, Gal. 3:28).

Now that we know why it’s important to study this issue, and what the biblical mandate for male leadership actually is, we need to look at how this can be lived out in the day-to-day home life of the Christian husband. So stay tuned for part two of this post later in the week.

In the meantime, questions for my readers:

Before you became a Christian, what was your understanding of the role of men and women in marriage?
If you're married, how do you deal with this challenging issue in your home?
If you grew up with Christian parents who modeled this for you, tell us how that helped you in working on your marriage?
If you didn't have this modeled for you, tell us how that hindered you from following the biblical mandate in your marriage?

Be obedient - even if it means getting wet.

2009-02-09T22:03:00.000-08:00

A year ago, if you'd told me that I'd be getting baptized this January, I'd have thought you were crazy.

God has a way of shattering my preconceived notions and assumptions

After all, I'd been baptized many years ago - when I was in high school - and had been a Christian for even longer than that... or so I thought. But, if you've been a Christian for any length of time, you've probably already discovered what I did - that God has a way of shattering preconceived notions and assumptions.

You see, I'd been living under the mistaken belief that I had been a Christian since praying a particular prayer as a very young boy. I struggled mightily with sin as a teenager and, even though I “rededicated my life” more than once at junior high and high school summer camps, all I'd really ever done was promise to "be a better person". As if it was up to me!

But last year, while going through a discipleship program (the one I mentioned in yesterday's blog), I spent some time reflecting on how and when Christ had drawn me to Himself. In the process, I discovered - rather uncomfortably, I might add - that my moment of true repentance and faith didn't come until I was a college student at a Christian university.

I'd felt bad about sinning before... I'd never truly repented of my sin.

One evening, during a communion service, I was struck with the sudden impression that I must not take part… though I had previously “believed” on an intellectual level all the basic elements of Christianity, I’d never truly repented of my sin, and placed my entire faith in Christ and what He had done for me in dying on the cross. That is, I’d felt bad about sinning before, but it was merely the "worldly grief [that] produces death"… in hindsight, that evening I experienced the "godly grief [that] produces repentance that leads to salvation". (2 Cor. 7:10.)

Though in my mind I was already a Christian at the time, I repented of my sin - not just the particular sin I was struggling with at the time, but my rebellious and sinful nature, my pride in trying to claim my life as my own - and placed all of my faith in Christ - and Christ alone - for my salvation, acknowledging His lordship over all of my life. By God's grace, though I may have mistakenly considered myself a Christian already, I truly belonged to Him beginning that evening.

Fast-forward nearly 20 years, and the realization struck me - my baptism as a teenager happened before I was actually saved! Quick, somebody find me some water and a pastor! Well, it took a few months, but I finally had the opportunity to be obedient to my Lord's command to be baptized last month. What a powerful testimony to God's grace - to see nearly 100 people come and be baptized... confessing their faith in Christ and being outwardly baptized to symbolize the inner baptism that had already taken place!

Some of us were like me - long-time Christians that had put the proverbial cart before the horse, and wanted to get things done in the right order. Others had been Christians for years as well, but had never been baptized. Still others were those who, though chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4), had only recently been granted God's gift of "repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18), and had placed their faith in Jesus Christ, the one without sin whom God made "to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21.) But all of us were heeding Christ's call to obedience, and proudly proclaiming to the world that we belong to Him!

If you are a Christian, and you've not been baptized, what are you waiting for? If you were baptized as an infant and think that 'counts', think again - and obey your Lord's clear commands from Scripture. We'll talk more about baptism and the role it plays in a believer's life later on - maybe in a few weeks. But for now, don't wait any longer... get dunked!

Questions for discussion:

Did you come from a religion with a tradition of infant baptism?
If so, and you eventually came to repent and place your faith in Christ, have you since been baptized?
If you're a Christian and you haven't been baptized yet, are you considering it?
If you have objections to being baptized, share them here - let's talk about them and see what Scripture says.

Making disciples - the importance of mentoring ministry

2009-02-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the eleven disciples to:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

This command, which would come to be known as the Great Commission, would become a driving factor in the growth of the early church. Of course, in order to make disciples, we must first proclaim "repentance and forgiveness of sins... to all nations" (Luke 24:47), remembering that "we are ambassadors for Christ... implor[ing people] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:29).

But what then?

How do we actually go about the process of making a disciple? Is it like making a cake?

Once someone repents and places their faith in Christ, how do we actually go about the process of making a disciple? Is it like making a cake? "Take one new believer, add a pound of church, a cup of Bible, stir vigorously and bake at 350 degrees"?

The word "disciple" means "one who learns", and Jesus goes on in Matt. 28:20 to tell the eleven precisely what these new disciples should learn; the eleven are to "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you." In doing so, Jesus turns His eleven remaining disciples ("one who learns") into apostles ("messenger, one who is sent").

This time, we're advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of silky clean har.

Since the very last thing that Jesus has taught the eleven is to "go... and make disciples", this process becomes self-replicating. Like that annoying shampoo commercial from the 70s... "and they'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on." Only this time, we're advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of silky clean hair.

Believer, have you ever thought about it that way? You learned about Christ from a friend, a family member, a pastor... and they learned about Christ from someone

You can trace the teaching you've learned all the way back to that mountain in Galilee!

before them... and so on, and so on, and so on... you can trace the teaching you've learned all the way back to that mountain in Galilee shortly after our Saviour's resurrection! No wonder "we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1), they're gathered to watch the fruit of their obedience to God!

But now it's your turn. Your turn to teach a new disciple "all that [Jesus has] commanded you." Find someone in your church, maybe someone in your Bible study or small group, who is a newer believer, someone who is still drinking spiritual milk (1 Cor. 3:2, Heb. 5:12-13) and come alongside and make them a disciple.

Or perhaps you're a new believer, and you need someone to come alongside you and help teach you "all that [Jesus] commanded". You're new to this road, grateful to God for His reaching out and saving you, but you're still confused by His word and don't know how to grow. Find someone in your church, someone who would be willing to mentor you, so that you will become "acquainted with the teaching about righteousness" and able to eat "solid food", being able to "distinguish good from evil" (Heb. 5:11-14).

Along those lines, I've been blessed to participate in a program at our church called Partners. It's a deep and challenging curriculum designed for one-on-one discipleship like what I've just been describing. I went through it - as the learning partner - last summer. Even though I've been a Christian for many years, I grew tremendously during my time in the program. Now, I'm getting to go through it again - this time as a teaching partner, helping a new brother in Christ to grow in his understanding, knowledge and love of God and His word. It is a constant reminder to me of God's grace to be able to be used by Him in this way, and I pray that He will continue to work effectively through me as I play my part in "making disciples".

Questions for discussion here in the blog:

How long have you been a Christian?
Have you ever come alongside a new believer and discipled him or her? Tell us about how God worked through you and the growth you saw in your partner.
If you've been a Christian for awhile and you're no longer just "drinking milk", but you haven't yet "made disciples",why not? Share with us your commitment to do so and keep us posted on your progress.

One final note: for those of my readers who attend CBC, I would strongly encourage you to join the Partners program if you haven't already. Whether you've been a Christian for a short time, or most of your life, I assure you that you'll grow in your walk with Christ as a result. To my other readers, the curriculum that I've used is available to anyone - you can read about it here, and order it online here.

{tap, tap, tap} "Is this thing on?"

2009-02-08T17:39:00.000-08:00

When this new year first started, we looked at the concept of making God-centered resolutions after studying a few from Jonathan Edwards' famous list. If you haven't read that post yet, please take a few minutes to look it over and come back (it really was a good one). A couple of days later, I posted my own list of resolutions relating to this blog. Needless to say, I've not been as diligent here as I'd have liked.

I owe my loyal readers - both of you - an apology.

The last two weeks have been filled with a whirlwind of activity; not that I offer that as an excuse, of course. Instead, I mention it because some of the things that have taken place in recent days are going to make their way onto this blog. So, a quick review of events and preview of blogs to come:

I'm leading someone through our church's Partners ministry, an in-depth, one-on-one discipleship program.
My involvement at our church's worship team has increased over recent weeks.
I was baptized last month.
I watched helplessly as my camera - the means by which I make a living - smashed to the ground and broke in pieces.
I'm preparing to preach a mini-sermon for the very first time.

So stick around for awhile, as I share a little "behind-the-scenes" of Speaking Boldly!

... but Wallis surprises AND disappoints

2009-01-24T19:14:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I posted a brief news item regarding President Obama's decision to rescind the "Mexico City policy" and allow federal funds to go to organizations that promote and perform abortions around the world. A disappointing move to say the least - but not especially surprising given Obama's clear and unmistakeable record on the abortion issue (which was discussed here, to some extent, before the elections).

Today, I read Jim Wallis' blog at Sojourners. Now, let's be honest here... Sojourners is a social-justice oriented and politically-liberal faith-based group. To give you an idea of their political and theological leanings, Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo are two of their contributors. Wallis himself is a longtime leftist (dating back to the Vietnam war era) who has written a number of books critical of Christians who hold conservative political or social beliefs. So it really shouldn't have come as a surprise... but it did. I'll let you read Wallis' own words here:

I am encouraged that President Obama’s first action on abortion was to release a statement supporting a common ground approach to reducing abortion, even as he also reiterated his policy of supporting legal choice. Even more significant was his decision not to issue an executive order rescinding the “Mexico City policy” on the day of the anniversary of the Roe decision and the annual March for Life. For the past two decades, this particular rule has become a back-and-forth of instituting and repealing as administrations have changed—almost as a partisan tit-for-tat.

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of abortions in this country and around the world.

In his statement, Obama acknowledged that “this is a sensitive and often divisive issue,” but went on to say “no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”

I support the president’s call for a new dialogue on the best ways to achieve abortion reduction while retaining his position on choice. And I hope the discussion can now move beyond the usual politics of abortion, changing the polarized debate, and building a new common ground movement to dramatically reduce abortion. This is a goal to which we can all agree.

At best, it is naively optimistic of Wallis to be "encouraged" by Obama's lip service

At best, it is naively optimistic of Wallis to be "encouraged" by Obama's lip service.

to the "common ground approach to reducing abortion". More likely, it is a reflection of Wallis' own political obeisance to the left that is preventing him from seeing the truth here. That truth is simple: there is no "common ground". Obama has shown every intention of keeping his campaign promise to sign FOCA (see these posts for more information), and yesterday's news item is further proof.

Apparently, though, the mere fact that Obama waited one additional day to rescind the "Mexico City policy" was enough to encourage Wallis. Since Obama didn't do it on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Wallis finds him to be oh-so-very-genuine about his claimed desire to decrease the number of abortions! Wow, now that is some seriously flawed logic.

Now that is some seriously flawed logic.

Apparently, by waiting an additional 24 hours (as compared to Clinton's reversal or Bush's reinstatement of the policy), Obama avoided the "partisan tit-for-tat" that Wallis argues has been this policy's history.

If that's "post-partisan politics", we're in for a long four years.

Wallis goes on to say that by delaying the signing of the executive order, "Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate."

Precisely how is Obama's decision... "showing respect" for [those] who believe that abortion is an unjustified killing...?

Somebody please help me here... precisely how is Obama's decision to allow our tax dollars to fund abortions overseas "show[ing] respect" for me or others who believe that abortion is an unjustified killing of an unborn human being. Seriously - anyone able to tell me... in what way does this show "respect" for those of us with a Biblical understanding of this issue?

Wallis acknowledges the "polarizing" nature of the debate; but he follows that statement with comments that indicate he believes polarization to be a bad thing, universally speaking. The fact is that important moral issues are typically polarizing - in fact, if they're not, that's probably evidence that it's not much of an issue to begin with. Whenever you take an uncompromising view against an evil - whether that evil is slavery, ethnic cleansing, fascism or abortion - there will be polarization. Not only is it logically unavoidable, it's morally inexcusable to try to avoid it!

Finally, Wallis expresses "support [for] the president's call for a new dialogue" and hopes that we can build a "new common ground movement to dramatically reduce abortion." Dramatically reduce? But if abortion is a valid "choice" - i.e., it's morally acceptable - then why bother working for a reduction in the quantity? Ah, but Wallis' statement belies the fact that he knows it's not a morally-valid option. Given that, how can he - or we - work for anything less than the complete elimination of this abhorrent act?

Would a mere reduction in slavery have been acceptable to Lincoln? Would a mere reduction in the number of lynchings been acceptable to Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would a mere reduction in
the number of Jews thrown into the ovens been acceptable to the Allied Forces in WWII?

Wallis' desire to build a "common ground movement" mays sound like a noble goal, but it's a compromise whose price will be paid in blood... and funded by your taxes.

Obama disappoints, but doesn't surprise

2009-01-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

According to various news sources, President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today that will remove a ban that previously prevented federal fund from going to international groups that "perform [or] actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

The policy, instituted in 1984 by then-President Ronald Reagan (or Ronaldus Magnus, as I call him), has come to be known as the "Mexico City policy" and also bans taxpayer money from going to agencies that lobby for the legalization of abortion in countries where it is currently banned.

This policy stayed in place from 1984 until the day after Bill Clinton's inauguration. (Gee, really?) Subsequently, George W. Bush reinstated the policy by executive order immediately after taking office. And now, this...

Just one day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the newly-inaugurated president has quickly followed through on one of his more disturbing campaign promises by repealing this policy.

[Obama's] working hard to make sure women all over the world can murder their unborn children, too.

Apparently, he's not content with the killing of 50 million unborn children in this country alone since Roe v. Wade, so he's working hard to make sure women all across the world can murder their unborn children, too. Mighty egalitarian of him, wouldn't you say? Of course, it's with your tax dollars...

This short rant is, I suspect, just the beginning. We continue to pray that President Obama will change his mind when it comes to his support for the Freedom of Choice Act. See my post of October 27 for more on this issue, including a video of Obama endorsing FOCA. Still, today's move is not encouraging - it's a clear indication of where his loyalties lie, and a reminder that he simply lied when he talked about wanting to reduce the number of abortions.

A word from the wise (i.e., not me)

2009-01-20T20:01:00.000-08:00

For those of you who've never heard of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, take a minute to read this brief biography before we go on. Quite the preacher, Spurgeon also wrote a series of devotionals - Morning and Evening. You can find this online here or here.

Tonight, I'm going to post his morning devotional from January 14 based on Isaiah 63:1, "mighty to save."

===============

By the words "to save" we understand the whole of the great work of salvation, from the first holy desire onward to complete sanctification. The words are multum in parvo [much in little]: indeed, here is all mercy in a word.

Indeed, here is all mercy in a word.

Christ is not only "mighty to save" those who repent, but He is able to make men repent. He will carry those to heaven who believe; but He is, moreover, mighty to give men new hearts and to work faith in them. He is mighty to make the man who hates holiness love it, and to constrain the despiser of His name to bend the knee before Him. And this is not all the meaning, for the divine power is equally seen in the after-work. The life of a believer is a series of miracles wrought by the Mighty God. The bush burns but is not consumed. He is mighty to keep His people holy after He has made them so, and to preserve them in His fear and love until He conusmmates their spiritual existence in heaven. Christ's power does not lie in making a believer and then leaving him to fend for himself; but He who begins the good work carries it on; He who imparts the first germ of life in the dead soul prolongs the divine existence and strengthens it until it breaks every bond of sin, and the soul leaps from the earth, perfected in glory. Believer, here is encouragement. Are you praying for some beloved one? Oh, do not give up praying, for Christ is 'mighty to save'. You are powerless to reclaim the rebel, but your Lord is Almighty. Lay hold on that mighty arm and rouse it to put forth its strength. Does your own case trouble you? Fear not, for His strength is sufficient for you. Whether to begin with others or to carry on the work in you, Jesus is "mighty to save," the best proof of which lies in the fact that He has saved you. What a thousand mercies that you have not found Him mighty to destroy!

===============

This is encouragement indeed! "He who began a good work will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:6) We know that He will sanctify us completely, and that we will be kept blameless at the coming of Jesus Christ - because He who calls us is faithful (1 Thess. 5:23-24). Even if "we are faithless, he remains faithful" (2 Tim. 2:13).

Brother or sister in Christ, take what Spurgeon reminds us about our God and be encouraged!

"Have you not read?" -- the importance of regular Bible reading

2009-01-18T10:42:00.000-08:00

Back in October, when I first started up this blog, I posted on Phil. 1:27-28. A conversation with a couple of my readers went on for a week over the next five posts. (They make for very interesting reading, if you've just joined us here recently.) I vividly recall one particular snippet from an early reply... a reader acknowledged, "I admit that I know very little scripture."

This is an unfortunate reality for many people today.

We live in a culture that refuses to accept that there are, in fact, ultimate truths.

We live in a culture that refuses to accept that there are, in fact, ultimate truths - or "true truth" as Francis Schaeffer called it. As a result, it's extremely difficult for that culture to accept a book that claims to consist of nothing but truth about a God who cannot lie or change.

A recent survey by the Barna Group reveals the following:

Around 45% of Americans claim to have read the Bible at least once in the previous week.
More disturbingly, only two out of three "born-again Christians" have read the Bible in the past seven days.
The younger the person, the less likely they are to read during a week: nearly 60% of those over 60 read once a week, but just over 30% of those under 25 will read the Bible once during a week.

Our collective knowledge of Scripture is even more embarassing, as other Barna Group surveys reveal:

49% of adults believe that the Bible teaches that money is the root of all evil.
75% believe that the Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves.
12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. (okay, this one's kinda funny!)

It is a sad fact that our culture, then, has chosen to become Biblically illiterate.

We who claim to follow Christ ought to be immersed in His word, reading it regularly and studying it diligently.

It's a tragedy of an altogether different nature, however, when professing Christians - like the reader quoted above - admit to a lack of knowledge of the very words of God! We who claim to follow Christ ought to be immersed in His word, reading it regularly and studying it diligently.

I searched for information on daily Bible reading, but couldn't find reliable information. Perhaps it's just as well I couldn't find statistics. After all, if a full one-third of professing Christians don't even read Scripture once a week, how few of us would be able to honestly say we read daily?

Jesus certainly expected people to have read and understood the Scriptures, as He often asked, "Have you not read...?" or "Do you not know...?"

So, it's with all this in mind that I want to encourage my readers to join me (and my wife, and many in our church) in reading through the Bible - cover to cover - during 2009. While it is also important to engage in regular study - where you dig in to a verse or short passage and consider its specific truths and applications - there are huge benefits to the 'big picture' view we get of God and the Bible by reading it this way.

Join me in reading through the Bible - cover to cover - during 2009.

We get a full-orbed understanding of God's character, we see Him working towards the completion of His redemptive plan, we catch glimpses of Christ throughout the OT, and we see God's hand throughout all of human history.

If you don't already have a Bible-in-a-year plan, jump in with us in the one we're using. You can even do it online with us if you'd like. I'll be posting mini-studies once a week or so on passages out of our daily readings, so you'll already be ahead of the game a little if you read with us.

Revisiting Election (the divine version), part 3

2009-01-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

Before diving in here, be sure to catch up with part 1 and part 2 of this discussion from earlier this week. And now, the concluding portion...

==================

After the questions we discussed earlier this week, my fellow blogger made a few comments that warrant brief responses. First:

"I can't grasp unconditional election. Maybe my Reformed friends can shed more light."

"I totally believe in foreknowledge and predestination. But not in the same definition that a Reformed believer does. God most definitely foreknows who will and who will not choose Him.... He was the one that created the way for man to be saved from his sin, it is a narrow gate, but man can choose that narrow way and be saved." (emphasis mine)

It's not an easy doctrine to grasp - not because it's intellectually challenging or anything along those lines. In fact, it takes far more intellectual gymnastics to hold the Arminian perspective because it involves ignoring or stretching entire chapters of Scripture (see the whole of Romans 9, for instance). The reason that it is so hard to lay hold of this doctrine is because doing so means we must recognize that we have nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation. The concept of God predestining those that He, in His foreknowledge knew would choose Him (classic Arminianism) means that, in the end, we are to be thanked and praised - at least in part - for our salvation. After all, it was our decision that saved us!!

Our human pride wants desperately to believe that we have done something special to deserve salvation, even something as simple as making a choice.

Our choice obligated God to save us; our decision to meet God's requirement means that God is now in our debt and must grant us eternal life! Do you see the problem with this thinking? Our human pride wants desperately to believe that we have done something special to deserve salvation, even something as simple as making a choice. But Scripture teaches otherwise - that it is God who chose us - Soli Deo gloria!

Note that we still respond with repentance and faith - but this response is itself a gift from God, and not something we generate on our own.

Next:

"I can't see the God I know, before the cosmos, the sun, the world, was created making a list of whom He wanted with Him and didn't want."

It's not an easy thing to consider, but take a look at Rev. 13:8 - "And all who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."

Or Rev. 21:27, where we are reminded that "only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life" will enter the New Jerusalem.

The blogger's comment seems to ascribe to God a wanton capriciousness - as though He were flipping a coin, or saying "eeny-meeny-miny-mo" in order to determine His elect. The Arminian charges God with injustice by saying that it is unfair that God elects some, but not others. But that is an odd way of defining justice. To give someone justice is to give someone what they are due. To withhold from a person that which he deserves is to act unjustly. But all humanity stands condemned before God - no evidence could overturn the verdict, no appeal is possible and we all await the just and righteous sentence of death. God is not obligated to save any, and would still be just if He condemned all.

None of us deserved to be saved. None of us warranted His mercy or His grace - instead, we all deserved His wrath. Remember, that we were "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" as Paul reminds us in Eph. 2:3. It is only because "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ." (Eph. 2:4-5.) Whatever reason God has, in His grace, to elect some from the mass of undeserving humanity to be saved is a mystery, but one that Scripture makes clear we must accept.

We ought not wonder at why some are saved and some are not. Instead, we ought to wonder that any are saved at all.

Rather than wondering about election, as Benjamin Warfield said:

"What really needs accounting for... is how the holy God could get the consent of His nature to save a single sinner. If we know what sin is, and what holiness is, and what salvation from sin to holiness is, this is what we shall face."

How many choices can you make when you're dead?

I'll close by taking a look at Ephesians 2 again to refute something that my fellow blogger said in an earlier quote: "man can choose that narrow way and be saved." But the reality is that we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) before "God, being rich in mercy... even when were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ." (2:4-5.)

Did Lazarus choose to be raised from the dead by Jesus?
Did Jesus say, "Lazarus - choose now whether you will come out and live, or stay in the tomb and be dead."?
How many choices can you make when you're dead?

====================

These are some challenging doctrines, especially because many of us were raised in churches that taught some form of self-determining, extra-Biblical salvation (e.g., "invite Jesus into your heart"). If that's you, and you're struggling with the concept of divine election, please post a comment - we want to hear your thoughts. If you just want to argue... well, I suppose that's fine, too - just keep it Biblical and follow the ground rules. Readers, thanks for your patience over these last few days - I hope that, as a result of this series, you have more reasons than ever to give God all the glory, honor and praise!!

Revisiting Election (the divine version), part 2

2009-01-12T09:30:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, we started diving into the doctrine of divine election. Today, we continue with a couple of interesting questions on the matter.

=================

The next question posed was two-fold:

"Why, if from the foundations of the world God chose who would and wouldn't be saved from wrath, would anyone that becomes a Christian need to do anything besides live however they wanted? Or for that fact, what about the ones that God chooses and they never become a Christan, yet they have been chosen already so they gotta go?"

This question proposes two scenarios that God has already, through His word, declared to be impossible. We'll take the second one first, not because it's easier - though we like easy here :-) - but because it rests on another Reformed doctrine.

The idea that God would elect people, but that these elect would never become Christians, is a Biblical (let alone logical) impossibility. I've already touched on it a bit in my answer to the first question on Saturday. That is, anyone whom God has called, or elected, will come to faith, because they will hear the gospel. Here's where another Reformed doctrine, namely the concept of "irresistible grace", comes into play. While this post is too limited in space to address this topic fully, let me at least give you some Scripture to back up this concept. In John 6:37, Jesus says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." And Paul reminds us in Romans 8:30 that "those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." By placing these verbs in the past tense, Paul is indicating that these things will, with absolute certainty, be accomplished, including our future glorification. It starts with God's election, followed by His calling (this is an effectual calling, not just an external calling), then His justification of us through Christ and our resulting glorification in Him. Note that at no point in this 'golden chain' is man the subject - instead, we are the object of God's actions.

At no point is man the subject - instead, we are the object of God's actions.

Thus, the second part of the question - proposing the existence of an elected individual who does not come to faith in Christ - simply does not fit within a Biblical understanding of election.

Now, back to the first scenario this question proposed. The answer is short, but not easy: repentance. Repentance, like faith, is a gift from God (see Acts 11:18) and comes at the same time as faith... they're two sides of the same God-given coin, really.

The point is not that we are sinless, but that we sin less.

The regenerate individual will desire to live for Christ. Note that this doesn't mean they won't struggle with sin - until we no longer live in this fallen flesh, we will continue to sin. The point is not that we are sinless, but that we sin less.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Romans 8:30 is insightful here - please bear with his early 1700s language:

"All that God hath from eternity foreknown with favour he hath predestinated to this conformity. It is not we that can conform ourselves to Christ. Our giving ourselves to Christ takes rise in God’s giving us to him; and, in giving us to him, he predestinated us to be conformable to his image. It is a mere cavil [trivial objection] therefore to call the doctrine of election a licentious doctrine, and to argue that it gives encouragement to sin, as if the end were separated from the way, and happiness from holiness. None can know their election but by their conformity to the image of Christ; for all that are chosen are chosen to sanctification...." (emphasis mine)

In this last point, he references 2 Thess. 2:13, where we are told that "God chose [us] as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

As to both of the scenarios posed in this question, God's sovereign plan - which includes the salvation of His elect - cannot fail. Isaiah 14:24 reminds us that, "The Lord of hosts has sworn: 'As I have planned it, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.'" See also Eph. 3:1-11, especially v.11b where we are reminded that God "works all things according to the counsel of his will."

God's sovereign plan - which includes the salvation of His elect - cannot fail.

Job reminds us in 42:2 that "no purpose of [God's] can be thwarted." Because His sovereign plan will succeed, those who are elect will come to faith in Christ, and they will become "a new creation" as 2 Cor. 5:17 tells us.

================

The final part of this post will be up soon, so stay tuned!

Revisiting Election (the divine version), part 1

2009-01-10T09:51:00.000-08:00

All week, I've been struggling with what to post as part of my resolution to provide Scripture-based teaching at least once a week. I've been working on a series about Paul in Athens in Acts 17, but it's really not ready for public consumption yet... maybe next week. I've been studying Galatians in my quiet times to start the year, so that may be what we spend the next few weeks going through.

But today... today we're going to revisit an issue that I briefly touched on a couple of months ago - my 'conversion', if you will, from the Arminian understanding of salvation to the Reformed perspective, specifically as it relates to the doctrine of Election. A fellow blogger had a few questions and comments on this issue, and I thought I'd share them - along with my answers - as a way to shed some light on this challenging doctrine. (Please note that because this is a lengthier post than usual, I'll be breaking this up over the next few days.)

His first question was this:

"Do Reformed believers only evangelize and believe in the great commission because they are not sure who and who aren't the elect, so they go out and reel in those that God already choose, so they can know a little bit about Him before they meet Him one day?"

As C.H. Spurgeon once purportedly said when asked why he didn't just preach to "the elect", "If you'll go around and pull up their shirttails so I can see if they have an 'E' stamped on their back, I will." My point here is that if God, in His grace, has decreed that a particular soul will one day believe in Jesus Christ, we may be certain that God has also decreed that the gospel will be presented to that person - through preaching, in print, or even the internet! The purposed end - God's decreed salvation - will not occur apart from the prescribed means - the preaching of the gospel, which is also decreed by God.

The purposed end - God's decreed salvation - will not occur apart from the prescribed means.

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10:14) This strong reminder that we must preach the gospel - for only those who hear it will be able to believe and call on Him - is given to us only one chapter after Paul has fully defended the sovereignty of God in election in Romans 9!

Let's look at another example of how this tension exists in Scripture, when Paul is in Corinth in Acts 18:9-11. "And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, 'Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.' And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." (emphasis mine.)

Paul might have said, "Hmmm... why don't I ask God for a list of the names of His elect, so that I can preach directly to them and ignore everyone else." Or he might have said, "Hey this is great news - now I can move on to another place, because if they're God's elect, they'll come to faith eventually one way or the other." No. Instead, he stayed for eighteen months (longer than any other city but Ephesus during his ministry), "teaching the word of God among them", faithfully preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Precisely because Paul knew that God had people in Corinth, he worked hard.

Nothing encourages our evangelism more than the assurance of success.

Nothing encourages our evangelism more than the assurance of success.

J.I. Packer, in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, has a great quote on this thought: "So far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility - indeed, the certainty - that evangelism will be fruitful. Apart from [God's grace], there is not even a possibility of evangelism being fruitful. Were it not for the sovereign grace of God, evangelism would be the most futile and useless enterprise that the world has ever seen...."

There's another instance of this tension in Acts that, while it doesn't resolve the issue, makes it clear that it's a tension we need to accept by being obedient to the command to preach while leaving the results to God. Let's start with Acts 14:1-3 which finds Paul and Barnabas in Iconium. The passage reads, in part: "They spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.... they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord...." (emphasis mine.)

(A quick aside: if you're thinking that the "speaking boldly" line sounds familiar, it does. And yes, that's the inspiration for the name of my blog, along with Acts 18:26 and Ephesians 6:20.)

So here they are, evangelizing effectively through their method of speaking. They spoke "in such a way" that many "believed." But if we back up a few verses to Acts 13:48, we'll see who's really at work here. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." It's absolutely crucial to note the order here - those who were appointed then believed. Note that it was not, "those who believed were then appointed."

It's absolutely crucial to note the order here - those who were appointed then believed.

When we come to the point of repentance and placing our faith in Christ, our belief is a fruit - a result, a consequence - of the divine appointment itself.

So yes, we evangelize because we don't know who God has elected. Therefore, we must obey His command to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19) and joyfully perform our duties as "ambassadors of Christ, God making his appeal through us... implor[ing all people] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20).

==================

Stay tuned for some more interesting questions and comments later in the week!

The gift of God's word

2009-01-03T20:00:00.000-08:00

I'd like to tell you a story about a couple of gifts I received this Christmas. To do the story justice, though, I have to provide a little background.

I've always been a gadget hound, a tech-head, an electronics junkie, a geek. When I was 8, I didn't want a G.I. Joe, I wanted an electronics kit like the one on the left. When I was 12, I didn't want a baseball bat or glove, I wanted an Atari 2600. When I was 16, I didn't want a skateboard or bicycle, I wanted a Commodore 64. When I went off to college, I wanted a car, but settled for an Amiga 500. During college, I worked at Circuit City and was the first person to be cross-trained in video and audio - on the cutting edge of what would become "home theater". Later, I refused to buy off-the-shelf PCs and built my own from parts for 12 years.

If it plugs in, has a screen, beeps or plays music, I'm interested.

Now, of course, I'm a Mac guy - so we've got three Macs in our home (along with a lonely PC), not to mention a PS3 and Xbox 360. I've had Palm Pilots, Blackberries and an iPhone, not to mention iPods of various shapes and sizes, dating back to the second generation. If it plugs in, has a screen, beeps or plays music, I'm interested.

So, if you had to hazard a guess, what would you think I usually want for Christmas?

Good answer!

Now, more background...

Though I've been a Christian throughout the 16+ years of my marriage, I've not always hungered for God's word. Don't get me wrong - I took my Bible to church, and would take part in Bible studies and small groups. But I wasn't passionate about it like I am now. And I (apparently) wasn't being much of a Biblical leader at home.

So, a few years back, my wife gave me a Bible for Christmas.

You'd have thought she'd knitted me a pink bunny suit!

I already had a couple of Bibles, of course - so it's not like I needed another one. Judging by my reaction, you'd have thought she'd knitted me a pink bunny suit like Ralphie had to wear in A Christmas Story.

Of course, it didn't help that she included a note saying, "I hope that you and God can work out your differences."

Still, that was then...

And this is now.

In the span of a few short years, I've gone from being disappointed with receiving a Bible for Christmas to asking for one as a gift this year. In fact, I only asked for two things this year: an ESV Study Bible (which I blogged about earlier) in calfskin leather, and Logos Bible Software, now that they've finally released a Mac version.

Fortunately, my wife is both patient and generous - and I got both the Bible and the software. Oh, I'm still a gadget guy - but thanks to the continued working of the Holy Spirit in my life, I now hunger for God's word more than I hunger for the latest cool gizmo. Soli Deo gloria!

Resolving Boldly

2009-01-03T13:06:00.000-08:00

As we start 2009, I thought I'd offer up a few resolutions I have for the blog for the new year. Earlier this week, I posted about the importance of right priorities in coming up with our resolutions - if you haven't had a chance to read it, take a few minutes to check it out, then come back.

Recognizing that I can do nothing apart from God, I humbly ask Him for the grace to keep these resolutions in accordance with His will and for the sake of His glory:

Resolved, to write this blog solely for God's glory and the advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not for an increased readership or the satisfaction of my own ego.
Resolved, to write at least one Bible-study blog entry each week, even if this means reducing the number of posts on other issues, in order to increase my readers' hunger for, and knowledge of, God's word.
Resolved, to show kindness and gentleness to those on the blog with whom I disagree, while at the same time never failing to defend the truth of God's word.
Resolved, to blog frequently and faithfully, but never so much as to prevent my obligation to love my wife and serve my local church body.
Resolved, to study God's word more diligently and more faithfully than ever before; both as a way to equip myself for this blog, and to defend myself against the attacks of the enemy.

Readers, what are some of your God-centered resolutions for 2009? Please share them with us on the comment thread so that we can keep you in prayer.

It really IS a wonderful life

2008-12-31T08:15:00.000-08:00

One of our newest holiday traditions - three years running now - is to attend a screening of Frank Capra's classic Christmas movie, It's a Wonderful Life on the silver screen at a local theatre. It's a short run - the movie is shown only once a day during the week before Christmas - but it's quite the experience to see it on the big screen as part of a movie audience.

I won't pretend that the movie is an accurate depiction of truths about angelic beings. After all, we don't become angels after our earthly demise, like Clarence does in the film (see Hebrews 2), nor would angels (cherubim, to be specific) have to earn their wings. Even if they did, it's highly doubtful our ringing bells would have anything to do with said wing-earning.

Tongue-in-cheek criticism aside, however, the film - intentionally or otherwise - makes a very important point that we as Christians would do well to remember, especially when we are experiencing struggles and trials.

The film makes a very important point that we would do well to remember.

The point is this: though we are not often given the chance to see the impact that we have on the lives of others, God nevertheless sovereignly works through us to accomplish His will.

You may think that your conversations with an acquaintance in high school about your youth group's Bible study had no impact, but it may very well have planted a seed that has only recently come to fruition. You might be tempted to doubt that your faithfulness and integrity in the workplace has had an impact on your co-workers or boss,

Every act, every word, can be, and often is, used by the sovereign ruler of all creation to His glory

but you can't know how God is working behind the scenes. Every act, every word, can be, and often is, used by the sovereign ruler of all creation to His glory and to the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. (Rom. 8:28)

Believer, you have been - or will be - used by God in someone's life, whether you know it or not. Why? C.S. Lewis has some insight on this that I find... well, insightful, I suppose:

For He seems to do nothing of Himself which He can possibly delegate to His creatures. He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what He could do perfectly and in the twinkling of an eye. He allows us to neglect what He would have us do, or to fail.

I cannot begin to understand the why? of this reality, but I can welcome it by not only passively allowing myself to be used by God, but by actively seeking out opportunities to serve and obey Him. When I do that, it truly is a wonderful life...

Resolved: God-centered resolutions

2008-12-30T22:06:00.000-08:00

Though I still find it hard to believe, 2009 is nearly upon us - and so is the time for New Year's Resolutions. Call it a hunch, but I'm thinking that the majority of resolutions will look something like these:

eat healthier
join a gym
improve time management
find a new job
make more money
be a better spouse/parent

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these, of course - but, as Christians, we ought to have better motives than mere self-improvement. As a young man, Jonathan Edwards - who would become one of the most influential churchmen in America - penned a now-famous set of resolutions. If you've never read them, you can read them here.

Some of Edwards' resolutions look much like our modern resolutions:

5. Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.

20. Resolved, To maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

70. Let there be something of benevolence in all that I speak.

Others seem to acknowledge Edwards' own struggles by allowing certain exceptions to the resolution:

16. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any one, so that it shall tend to his dishonour, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

36. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call to it.

66. Resolved, That I will endeavour always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking, in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.

Many are tremendous examples for us as Christians:

4. Resolved, Never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God...

19. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour before I should hear the last trump.

28. Resolved, To study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly, and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive, myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

43. Resolved, Never, henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God's...

56. Resolved, Never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

Edwards' resolutions are rightly famous - but many of us read them and ignore the words that Edwards penned before writing even the first of his resolutions. Read the following carefully:

Being sensible that I am unable to do any thing without God's help, I do humbly entreat him, by his grace, to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ's sake.

Now that you've read it... read it again.

The very first thing that Edwards acknowledges is his complete and total dependence upon God. This flies in the face of the typical New Year's Resolution which is all about pulling up your bootstraps and being a better you.

We have an unhealthy love affair with the self-made man.

As Americans, we have an unhealthy love affair with the self-made man (or woman). But as Christians, before we make any resolutions, we need to recognize that our very existence is dependent upon God, "since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." (Acts 17:25.) Our goals, no matter how noble or pure, will only succeed if He decrees it: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." (Job 42:2.) We ought to remember, as James encourages us, "to say, 'If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.'" To do otherwise is to "boast in [our] arrogance. All such boasting is evil." (James 4:15-16.)

Next, Edwards recognizes that God requires humility.

Edwards recognizes that God requires humility

Micah 6:8 tells us precisely what God requires of us: "to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God". We ought not come into God's presence with the arrogant expectation of His blessings simply because we have made resolutions. He may allow more trials or struggles, or He may even choose to discipline us - whatever the case, we must be seeking not the blessings, but the One who blesses.

Further, Edwards sees that any resolution, no matter how it may appear, must be in accordance with God's will. In a way, this goes hand-in-hand with the first point (dependence upon God), but it is still worthy of a separate mention. We can resolve to do anything we want - but if that resolution does not accord with what God has revealed about Himself and His will for our lives in Scripture, we'll quickly find ourselves alone in our attempt to live it out. It would do us well if, when making our resolutions, we searched God's word to make sure it conforms to His will.

Finally, Edwards states his purpose in making these resolutions... "for Christ's sake." In stark contrast, most of our modern resolutions are made for our own sake. We are at the center of our own universe, we are making and accomplishing these resolutions, we are the ones who benefit from them, and they are for our glory.

All that we do ought to be done for the glory of God.

As believers, though, all that we do ought to be done for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), for it is His name - not ours - that is worthy of glory (Ps. 115:1).

If you decide to put together a list of New Year's Resolutions for 2009, I hope you'll do so:

in complete dependence upon God
with humility
in accordance with God's will
for the sake of Christ and God's glory

Soli Deo gloria!

Fill in the blanks

2008-12-10T11:30:00.000-08:00

I keep thinking I'm going to finally get away from this subject. Then I see something like the following text on a billboard in San Diego regarding the passing of Proposition 8. Since I can't get away from it, let's make this a game... how about "fill in the blanks"?

__________ is _______ for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights and equality of so many in the name of God.

Any guesses?

Okay, time's up. A "church" (yes, picture me using "air quotes" here) in San Diego is sorry for the passage of Proposition 8. They are spending money to apologize to the "LGBT community and its supporters". Missiongathering says that their "hearts are with you" and reminds readers of "Christianity for all." Take a look:

They're "sorry" that we voted to uphold a Biblical definition of marriage?

Hmmmm. Really? They're "sorry" that Christians voted to uphold a Biblical definition of marriage (Matt. 19:4-6)? They apologize that we exercised our constitutional rights to restore the law that had previously already been passed? It would seem that their hearts, instead of being with their brothers and sisters in Christ (Phil. 1:27-28, 2:2, Eph. 4:1-6), really are with the homosexual activist community.

Here are some interesting quotes from Missiongathering's website.

God's love and grace is for ALL people, regardless of race, creed, sexual identity, or life circumstances. Jesus meets us right where we are.... God loves, cares, and accepts them just as they are.

While God's love and grace are available for all, "not wishing that any should perish" (2 Pet. 3:9), the implication that one could maintain a sinful "life circumstance" while walking in God's grace is utterly inconsistent with everything that Scripture tells us. And yes, Jesus meets us where we are - and, thankfully, He doesn't leave us there! We become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), reconciled to God only through Christ. God most certainly does not "accept them just as they are" - His acceptance hinges exclusively on our being in Christ.

With the passage of Proposition 8... the Church has successfully taken away the rights of a group [of] human beings.

First of all, let's remember that it was only a "right" because the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22. This "right" existed for less than six months! But now, it's been "taken away"? And how did the Church manage such a feat? Is Missiongathering suggesting that more than 50% of the population of California are conservative churchgoers?

We as a church feel called to be a new voice of Christianity.

Of course you do, Missiongathering. Because all the old voices have been wrong all this time.

Because all the old voices have been wrong all this time.

Like the apostle Paul (see Romans 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Or Jesus Himself (see Matt. 19:4-6). And just like the rest of the emerg*** movement, you feel called to do this. Once again, the subjective nature of things rears its undefinable head.

The word "actions" was used specifically because the act of voting yes on this measure was narrow-minded and judgmental.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended, Missiongathering). A Christian who believes that the Bible speaks clearly against homosexuality (as it does against other sin, of course) goes to the polls and votes his conscience (guided by the Holy Spirit, presumably) and votes yes on Proposition 8. Such a believer is "narrow-minded and judgmental"?

It's interesting to note that, if you check out their page on this issue, you won't find a single Scripture referenced. Just a thought...

I think Missiongathering may be forgetting about the Biblical injunction to "test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil" in 1 Thess. 5:21-22. They may also have forgotten that we are to avoid being "children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Eph. 4:14)

It would seem that Missiongathering has more missing than just a spacebar.

Questions for my readers:

How do you respond to a brother or sister in Christ who seems to be more enamored with the world than with God or His word?
Have you ever had to lovingly confront a fellow Christian regarding beliefs that are inconsistent with Scripture, "snatching them out of the fire" (Jude 23), so to speak?

Planned Parenthood sweeps child rape under the pro-abortion rug

2008-12-09T18:51:00.000-08:00

Folks, this next story really shouldn't come as much of a surprise - after all, Planned Parenthood has a long and notorious record of doing whatever it takes to encourage abortions. But the following story reveals just how far they'll go in order to maintain their raison d'être.

In the video that follows, a young woman named Lila Rose - the president of a university pro-life group - posed as a 13-year-old girl named Brianna and entered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana. She tells the nurse that she is pregnant - by her 31-year-old boyfriend! - and the nurse protests, "I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age." You see, in Indiana - and most states, as far as I know - sex between a 31-year-old and a 13-year-old is a felony... and the law requires health care providers to file a report on the matter.

Why, you might ask, would Planned Parenthood want to avoid filing the legally-required report? Easy - here's a young girl being sexually abused by a grown man... she's good for at least another half-dozen abortions. Why stop her now?? Just give her what she wants and then send her back to the child predator!

But the nurse still can't do exactly that because, thankfully, Indiana has parental-consent laws. (Slightly off-topic: President-Elect Obama has already pledged his strong support of FOCA - which would eliminate state laws restricting abortions, like parental-consent laws. See my Oct 27 post for more information.) So the nurse shows Brianna a piece of paper with other clinics, including one in Illinois - where the parental-consent law is not enforced. The nurse then coaches Brianna to tell the Illinois clinic that the father is a 14-year-old boy.

"Here, little girl - just ask your sexual predator boyfriend to drive you across the border to another Planned Parenthood clinic. Lie about the age of the father of your baby, and we'll kill your baby for you. Then you can go right back to the arms of your abuser."

Here... watch it for yourself.

For their part, Indiana authorities are not investigating the nurse's failure to report the incident even though the failure to do so is a misdemeanor subject to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. No, instead they have "stepped up patrols around the area" to protect the clinic from any backlash. While that's a fine move (there are crazies out there, after all), it certainly reflects the priorities of our culture.

In case you think this was an isolated incident, think again:

Last month, Students for Life of America released a video of another college student posing as a 15-year-old girl asking about emergency contraception because of sex with her mother's 30-something live-in boyfriend. The staffers acknowledge this as statutory rape, but a Public Records Request filed by the student organization revealed that no report had been filed by Planned Parenthood, even though the law requires a report.
Last year, Live Action Films had students pose as racists to tape phone calls in which several Planned Parenthood chapters accepted donations on the condition that the money be used to abort black babies only. No chapter turned down the money.
Also last year, Rose videotaped a California PP staffer telling her to lie about her age so that the staffer wouldn't have to report anything under the statutory rape laws here. She was posing as a 15-year-old pregnant by her 23-year-old boyfriend. "You could say 16", the worker suggests. "And I don't know anything." Planned Parenthood responded by threatening a lawsuit against Rose.

Reminder: Planned Parenthood is a tax-exempt nonprofit group that receives nearly $350 million a year in government funding.

Questions for my readers:

Why do you think Planned Parenthood would encourage young girls to lie about the age of the men that are (statutorily, at least) raping them?
Do you think that Planned Parenthood is likely to receive more or less government funding under an Obama administration?
Why did I have to find this story somewhere other than the networks or CNN?

Can't find good help these days...

2008-12-09T18:25:00.000-08:00

It's closing in on two weeks since the last time I blogged... I started to go through withdrawals about this time last week, but I'm feeling much better now.

{silence}

Yeah... thanks for asking.

Anyway, I'll be posting at least once more this evening and hope to get a couple more up before the end of the week. Figure on new content three or four times a week going forward. Remember, the best way to keep up is to subscribe to my RSS feed or, if you're a Blogger user, 'follow' the blog.

Thanks for your patience, and I hope to hear you all pipe in on a few of the upcoming blogs.

Which one of you is Lord?

2008-11-28T15:30:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow may be the real holiday, but that doesn't mean I can't give you a little something special today, right? The following post is something I read earlier this month on one of my favorite blogs - I'd been meaning to discuss it ever since. Rather than distill it down to its basic elements, I'm going to re-post the whole thing here.

The whole thing? Yes. It's that important. So read it.

(Keep in mind that the following are the words of Dan Phillips; though they are not my own, he echoes my sentiments on this subject entirely.)

================

"Everything old is new again," and the saying certainly holds true when it comes to heresy, false doctrine and plain old unbiblical nuttiness.

For instance, back in the anti-establishment 60s and 70s, Christianoid kids would verbally trash the "organized church." Didn't need to go to a building, they'd say; they were the church. The real Bible scholars among them (relatively speaking) might yank 1 Corinthians 6:19 out of context and waterboard it a bit, until it said what they wanted to hear.

You're not the church. You're part of the church.

But no, Trevor, you're not the church. You're part of the church. The word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) means "assembly," and no, you're really not an assembly. Doesn't matter how many chins you have, you still aren't an assembly.

What you are (you tell me) is a Christian. If you're a Christian, you claim Jesus as your Lord.

Where's your Lord today? He depicts Himself as walking among local assemblies (Revelation 1:12-13, 20), holding their pastors in His right hand (vv. 16, 20). What do you think the message is, there? Why is He not watching a lovely sunset, or fishing, or walking the dog, or riding a comet? Why among churches, among assemblies, cherishing their pastors?

Because that's where Jesus is. That's where His great heart is. Do you know better than He? Which one of you is "Lord," again?

That's the church, that local assembly of believers where pastors lead, the Word is preached, the ordinances are observed, and discipline is carried out. Christ loved it and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). He died for it.

But you won't walk into one of them, and stay there? Which one of you is "Lord," again?

Before He died, Jesus prayed for the church, all of it (John 17). Even (especially!) with what He was facing, the church was on His heart.

But you won't attach yourself to one, to join it and work in it and pray for it? Which one of you is "Lord," again?

Who is your pastor? Are you fool enough to say "Jesus is my pastor"? Nonsense. When He ascended, He gave pastors to the church (Ephesians 4:11). If He gave them, then He isn't them. Which one is your pastor, your toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball pastor?

Your "Lord" charged pastors with the care of souls. That means Jesus — your Lord, so you say — thinks your soul needs watching over (Hebrews 13:7, 17). Which individual flesh and bones living pastor is watching over your soul, in person, individually?

Which one of you is "Lord," again?

If "none," how is it that you decided you are smarter than Jesus? You know, Jesus. Your "Lord." Which one of you is "Lord," again?

Jesus, your Lord, also called you to know, show respect for, esteem highly in love, and submit to the leadership of your flesh-and-blood in-person pastor (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13:17). Which pastor is it that sees you come regularly to be discipled and led, and sees you loving and trusting God enough to yield him the love and submission to which God calls you?

If you bristle at the thought of embracing what Jesus calls you to — which one of you is "Lord," again?

I don't care what complex, high-sounding Dagwood sandwich of excuses you can slap together.

And if you fall into unrepentant sin, which assembly will even know of it, let alone discipline you? Jesus says you need that, too (Matthew 18:13-20). I don't care what complex, high-sounding Dagwood sandwich of excuses you can slap together. If you say you don't need to be in a local assembly, you say you're smarter than Jesus, and are sufficient.

Fool!

And remember, that Jesus you say is your "Lord" said that the second most important thing in the world is to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:39). He moved Paul to tell you your fellow-church-member is your premier neighbor (Galatians 6:10). That's where you take all that rich doctrine (Ephesians 1—3), and live it out in community (Ephesians 4—6). That's where you do all those dozens of "one anothers."

And if you tell yourself that your spouse or children are all the "one anothers" you need, God already said "No." If you insist, you put your judgment over God's.

Meaning that, whatever your mouth professes, your choices say you find God's judgment deficient, and yours superior.

Meaning you're a fool and a de facto blasphemer — whether you intend to be or not.

And you thereby bring harm on your spouse and children, by preaching and living a lie to them.

That's for starters.

So, Jesus — your "Lord" — says you need to be in a local church. You say you don't?

Which one to believe? You? Or Jesus? You? Or Jesus? Hmm.

Here's the problem, I think. I've said a word thirteen times: Lord. The confession of Jesus as Lord is fundamental to Christian faith (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11). In repentant faith, we bow the knee to Christ's Lordship.

I think the problem with a lot of these late-blooming hippies is, at root, authority. They don't like to have to sit still and listen while someone else talks. They don't like someone else being in charge. They don't like being encouraged to join, commit, join in, be with, commit themselves, be accountable, be answerable.

Our race was bitten with an anti-authority bug when great-grandma bought the "You shall be as gods" line, and great-granddad followed her lead. But conversion — real conversion — deals with that bug.

It all really comes back to Jesus, the Lord. You may not like the idea of being accountable to a man, or a group of men. You'd rather sit home, watching TV or listening to tapes. Whenever you want, wherever you want.

It all really comes back to Jesus, the Lord.

No yucky people to be patient with; don't have to listen to all their whiny problems and needs. No need to adjust to different accents, different ways of thinking, different cultures. Just you, you, you.

But Jesus — the Lord — commands you to go to church, join in church, participate in church, and submit to the God-ordained human leadership of the church.

That's your issue. Is Jesus your Lord in reality, or in theory alone? When convenient, or no? Are your ego and control-issues the boundary of His Lordship?

See you in church.

=================

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks again to Dan Phillips over at Team Pyro for this amazing post.

Questions for my readers:

Are you a fully-committed participant or member at your local church?
If not, why not?
Do you know someone that you need to encourage to become a fully-committed participant or member?

Thanksgiving: the will of God

2008-11-27T07:50:00.000-08:00

Interesting blog title, no? Of course, I'm not referring to the Thanksgiving holiday that I'll be celebrating today... or the one I wish for you and your family. That is, not the one where we stuff ourselves with far too much food, loosen our belts to give ourselves breathing room, and watch more football than we ought.

No, I'm thinking of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18:

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

How often do we struggle, trying to determine God's will for our lives? We search the Scriptures and earnestly pray, asking the Holy Spirit to give us direction, guidance, clarity as to what to do in a particular situation. And we're sure that we'd obey if only we knew what His will was!

But do we already obey His clearly-stated will?

Are we "always" rejoicing? Or do we often lament our circumstances?
Are we consistently and constantly praying? Or are there times that we'd prefer God not be in our conversation?
Do we give thanks in all circumstances? Or do we gripe and complain because we don't have what we want?

On a personal note this holiday, I am truly thankful to God for the many blessings He's given me:

I'm thankful that He gave me a loving, godly wife to stand at my side during good times and trials.
I'm grateful that He placed me in a family (natural, step, and in-law) that seeks to love and serve Him faithfully.
I'm also grateful that He's placed me in a church family that does the same.
I thank God for the challenges that He's put before me over the last ten years or so; through them, He has grown my faith, my obedience and my love for His word.
I'm thankful that I have a place to live, clothes to wear and food to eat; though I sometimes struggle with wanting more than I have, I know He has given me enough.
I thank God for giving me the burden to strive for the faith of the gospel and the truth of His word.
And finally, I thank Him for you... my readers. 200+ of you, from more than half of the states in the USA and from a half-dozen countries overseas! I never would have expected so many, but I am grateful for each and every one of you. Whether you know it or not, you are a blessing to me - and I certainly pray that my blog blesses you in return by encouraging and challenging you to remain faithful to God Almighty and to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Today, as we celebrate Thanksgiving with our loved ones, let's remember to give thanks in all circumstances as we walk in "the will of God in Christ Jesus"!

The subject that just won't go away...

2008-11-26T16:30:00.000-08:00

Just so you know, I'd prefer if I could avoid the subject entirely, but since it seems to be the cause célèbre of the day, that just isn't the case.

Last week, Tony Jones - a leading voice in the emergent/emerging church movement - made some very interesting statements in his blog at beliefnet.com regarding homosexuality and the church. Since this has been a topic of discussion here recently, I thought I'd let you see what he had to say on the issue.

When it came to what I thought about homosexuality as a [young] Christian, I pretty much walked the middle of the road. I've always thought that all persons should be afforded the same rights and no one should be discriminated against. But I also knew that the biblical prohibitions to homosexual sex should be taken seriously.
...
I always responded, "I'm holding that issue in abeyance. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I'm in no hurry to. Homosexuality," I would say, "[is] one issue that I don't want to get wrong."
...
And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am....

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Notice carefully, how he gives so much authority to his own feelings on the issue - and how little authority he gives to God's word on the matter.

His 'finding' appears to be based solely on his feelings and personal beliefs.

In fact, in the lengthy blog entry on this subject, Jones does not claim or demonstrate to have the support of Scripture for his position. His 'finding' appears to be based solely on his feelings and personal beliefs.

Also observe the careful inclusion of some truth in order to extrapolate an unjustified conclusion. He correctly points out, "gay persons are fully human persons" but then extends that truth to mean that they should be "afforded all... ecclesial benefits".

Both of these rhetorical mechanisms are typical of the emerg*** movement (I'm tired of typing "emergent/emerging", so "emerg***" will have to suffice), but especially the former. There seems to be such a heavy reliance on feelings and subjective experience over and against the clear statements and objective truths contained in God's word.

I will not take the time or space here to review what Scripture says on this issue. If you're interested, or if you plan on commenting in response to this post, please see this post first - in particular, see the comments after the post for a more in-depth discussion.

Questions for my readers:

If you agree with Jones, can you provide a basis for your argument that is consistent with Scripture?
Whether you agree with Jones or not, what do you think is the reason why he - and others like him - rely on subjective feelings in determining truth? Is there danger in doing this?

Jump in, the water's warm...

2008-11-26T11:00:00.000-08:00

Until this past Monday's post, recent blog entries have been more theological in nature. We've discussed repentance, studying other faiths, the nature of God's saving grace, the new emerg*** Bible, and the responsibility of being a teacher, willing or no.

I'm going to start asking discussion questions at the end of my posts; I hope these will prompt you to weigh in.

As a result of stepping away from the socio-political issues of the day, though, it would seem that many of you have lost interest - based on traffic and the number of comments, at least. So I'm going to start asking discussion questions at the end of my posts; I hope these will prompt you to weigh in, as I really do want to hear from my readers.

Finally, I'm going to re-enable anonymous posting - but I'll ask those of you who take advantage of this to follow two simple ground rules. First, give us your name... it doesn't have to be your real name, but I don't want to confuse one anonymous poster with another. Second, don't post anonymously unless you just don't have a choice.

I thought Prop 8 wasn't about our schools...

2008-11-25T21:30:00.000-08:00

Do you remember, before the election earlier this month, when California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell claimed that "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids"? On a merely technical level, of course, he was correct - since nothing in Proposition 8 directly addressed the public ~~brainwashing~~... ~~indoctrination~~... education system in California. Of course, in reality he was wrong - just review my October 26 post on this issue for more details.

One [incident] hit most everyone's radar.

Before the election, two incidents reminded us how important this issue really was. One hit most everyone's radar: San Francisco public school first-graders taken on a field trip to City Hall to watch their teacher marry her lesbian partner. The students took a bus...

and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.

"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.

But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

"Well within the parameters", huh? Sadly, she was correct - legally speaking, anyway. Since the California Education code requires that school districts "teach respect for marriage" if they offer comprehensive health education, she was within the parameters... the pre-Proposition 8 parameters.

At least in this case, because it was an off-campus field trip, parents had to grant their permission. In the other incident, which missed the media's radar, parents weren't as fortunate...

In October, when a Sacramento mother asked her 5-year old daughter what she was learning at school, her daughter answered, "We're learning to be allies." Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, was celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" in

The school also had the kindergartners sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

October and was also observing "Ally Week". The school also had the kindergartners sign "pledge cards" in support of gays. Later that month, they celebrated "Coming Out Day", which had not been listed on their official school calendar.

All of this was done without providing notice to parents or allowing them to opt their children out of this indoctrination.

[This has been a Public Service Reminder regarding the truth behind the political rhetoric of the homosexual activist agenda.]

If you can't beat 'em, capitulate.

2008-11-24T06:45:00.000-08:00

When Christians cater to the world, they ought not be surprised when the world bites back.

Last week, as part of an out-of-court settlement, online dating service eHarmony agreed to create a new website catering to gays and lesbians. To many, especially those in various evangelical circles, this has come as both a profound surprise and a disappointment.

To me, it's just a disappointment.

The founder of eHarmony may have started out marketing his matchmaking services to the Christian website community, claiming that eHarmony was based on "the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren." But Warren (no relation to Rick Warren of Saddleback fame) quickly saw that real money was to be had by pitching his services to the world.

Warren quickly saw that real money was to be had by pitching his services to the world.

In 2005, he severed ties with Focus on the Family and even bought back the rights to the three books that FoF had published, so that he could remove their name from the covers. According to a May 2005 interview with USA Today, Warren says:

"We're trying to reach the whole world — people of all spiritual orientations, all political philosophies, all racial backgrounds. And if indeed, we have Focus on the Family on the top of our books, it is a killer. Because people do recognize them as occupying a very precise political position in this society and a very precise spiritual position."

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not a big fan of Dobson (that's another post) - but Warren's statement of three years ago indicates the direction in which he's chosen to go. And with many of the 7.5 million people who've taken his compatibility test paying $50 a month for the high-tech matchmaking services, that direction is where the (very substantial) green is. A month later, in an interview with salon.com, Warren made his intentions even more clear with this statement, minimizing the Biblical concerns regarding the nature of our God-given sexuality:

"Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong. On the other hand, in the Old Testament if you work on the Sabbath day and you're guilty then you should be shot."

Later in the same interview, Warren cites two primary reasons for not providing matchmaking services to gays:

There doesn't appear to be a moral, let alone Biblical basis to this decision, just a practical one... and it's big and green.

there's not enough research on same-sex compatibility, and they want to create lasting marriages... since gay marriage isn't broadly available, they're not yet interested. Certainly, there doesn't appear to be a moral, let alone Biblical, basis to this decision - just a practical one... and it's big and green. And rhymes with "holler".

Warren even praised his friend's daughter, a lesbian who is raising children with her partner:

"She's a dear person to us, and a very strong spiritual person. [See my earlier post about our 'spiritual, but not religious' culture.] And when I start seeing things like that, I think we've got to start to think about that maybe this can work."

So with his position clearly spelled out more than three years ago, on what grounds can the evangelical Christian community (in all the breadth that the term encompasses) claim to be surprised or shocked?

I'll wrap this post up with a verse that my wife and I read last night in our Bible-in-a-year program: "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

A scary reminder...

2008-11-23T23:54:00.000-08:00

Two nights ago, in our devotional reading (For the Love of God by D.A. Carson - mentioned in a previous post), my wife and I read through James 3. I was struck by a verse that, until recently, I had never really considered... because, until recently, I didn't think it applied.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

Umm, God... yeah, listen... about this whole blog thing... maybe I'll just stick to spouting my opinions on social and political, because I'm not so sure I want to be a teacher.

I'm not so sure I want to be a teacher.

The Greek word for "teacher" here, didaskalos, is usually used in the New Testament to describe either Jesus Himself (Matt.26:18, Luke 18:18), His apostles (1 Tim. 2:7), or those gifted by God as teachers in the church (1 Cor. 12:28-29, Eph. 4:11).

So just when I think I've dodged a bullet - clearly being neither of the first two, and nearly as clearly not the third, along comes Hebrews 5:12-14 which uses didaskalos in a way that includes... well, all of us, ideally.

"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, (13) for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. (14) But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."

It seems we ought to strive to be teachers, then. But about that whole "judging with greater strictness" thing? Sorry, that's how it works. Just knowing God's word means He has higher expectations of us. See Luke 12:48 and Romans 2:17-24 for more reminders.

Along those lines, I'm going to break the unspoken blogging rule and ask for your prayers.

I'm going to break the unspoken blogging rule and ask for your prayers.

As someone who has become a reluctant didaskalos, I know that God expects better from me than I frequently choose to give Him. Pray that I would "pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness" (1 Tim. 6:11) and that I would do my "best to present [myself] to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

File under "inevitable": an emergent 'Bible'

2008-11-23T19:45:00.000-08:00

It really was just a matter of time, when you think about it. After all, the emergent/emerging church has, as one of its primary raisons d'etre, a rejection of much of what stands at the core of (true) evangelical Christianity.

It really was just a matter of time, when you think about it.

One of those central pillars is, of course, the word of God - Scripture, the Bible, the Old and New Testaments.

Unsatisfied with the plethora of existing translations and paraphrases - even The Message apparently has too many hard edges for them - they have chosen to create their own ~~translation~~... ~~paraphrase~~... "custom" scriptures. Enigmatically titled The Voice, it was written by "a group of writers, poets, scholars, pastors, and storytellers" whose purpose is to avoid reducing Scripture "to articulating truth statements" or a "system of irrefutable fact[s]" and who instead intend to "bring the Scriptures to life in a way that celebrates both beauty and truth." The group of authors includes several well-known participants in the emerging/emergent church movement, such as Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Leonard Sweet and Andrew Jones. According to their website,

The result is a retelling of the Scriptures: The Voice, not of words, but of meaning and experience.

Never mind that God used words to express His will in Scripture.

Never mind that God used words to express His will in Scripture.

Never mind that even Jesus Himself is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). Never mind that the Scriptures don't need "retelling", just translating.

Instead, this translation* intends its readers to use the subjective nature of experience to determine the objective nature of what God really meant. The rest of us have been getting it wrong all these years, it would seem.

* - "Translation" is really far too generous a word. So, actually, is "paraphrase". The word I would prefer to use is a bit strong for a family-friendly blog, so I'll keep using "translation" for the sake of simplicity. Just so long as we all know this isn't actually a translation.

Let's get something straight here first. For the most part, Christianity holds the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is inerrant in the original manuscripts. The perfection inspiration, the inerrancy, is only attached to the original manuscripts. Therefore, the best Bible translations seek to give us the most accurate understanding possible of the Hebrew and Greek words originally used by the 40 human authors of the 66 books of the Bible. The further we get from the original manuscripts,

The further we get from the original manuscripts, the less likely we are to truly understand what God has actually said.

the more we deviate from the words written in Hebrew and Greek, the less likely we are to truly understand what God has actually said.

And that is the point, after all. Or is it?

In the preface to The Voice, we are told that this translation was written "for and by a church in great transition," a church that is in ongoing discussions regarding worship, culture, theology and the nature of truth. "In fact," we are even told, "we are struggling with what is truth." Sounds like the authors of The Voice would get along quite well with Pilate, who famously asked Jesus "What is truth?" in John 18:38.

Again, according to the preface, there are four words that "describe the vision" of The Voice: holistic, beautiful, sensitive and balanced. Well, I suppose it's easier to meet your visionary goals when they are nebulous and subjective.

Well, I suppose it's easier to meet your visionary goals when they are nebulous and subjective.

Notice what's missing from this list: accuracy.

So, how bad is it? Let's take a look at a passage in the gospel of John (available as a free download) from The Voice and compare it with the ESV.

John 1:10-11:

The Voice: "He does not call out from a distant place but draws near. He enters our world, a world He made and speaks clearly, yet His creation did not recognize Him. (11) Though the Voice utters only truth, His own people, who have heard the Voice before, rebuff this inner calling and refuse to listen."
ESV: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. (11) He came to his own, and those who were his own did not receive him."

First, I should point out that the use of italics in the text of The Voice is not my attempt to emphasize anything - it is part of the original. According to the authors, the use of italics "indicates words not directly tied to a dynamic translation of the original language." Hmmph - that much was clear, even to me. However, they also claim that italicized text "contain[s] information that would have been obvious to those originally addressed in the Gospel or letter." With that claim in mind, let's take a look...

According to my rudimentary understanding of Greek - that is, with the use of online tools like an Interlinear Bible in conjunction with a Greek lexicon - there is no support for the use of the phrases "call out" and "speaks clearly" in verse 10. Of course, these phrases are italicized, so we know the authors understand the lack of support. But there isn't even so much as an implication, so how could these phrases have been "obvious" to the original readers? On what basis do the authors make the claim this is "obvious"?

Verse 11, sadly, is even worse. Christ's speaking to us is reduced to an "inner calling".

The Voice turns Jesus' incarnation into a "truth-speaking inner calling" that people "rebuff".

This text, which is not italicized by the authors, is certainly not in the original Greek text and completely weakens the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. The Voice turns Jesus' incarnation into a "truth-speaking inner calling" that people "rebuff", instead of the real point of this passage - the Word made flesh came to His own creation and those who He created did not receive Him.

If we proceed in this passage to vv.12-13, we see the following:

The Voice: "But those who hear and trust the beckoning of the Divine Voice and embrace Him, they shall be reborn as Children of God; (13) He bestows this birthright not by human power or initiative but by God's Will. Because we are born of this world, we can only be reborn to God by accepting His call."
ESV: "But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name, (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Never mind that this sounds like some sort of Deepak Chopra mysticism ("embrace the beckoning of the Divine Voice"?), I'm more concerned with a very significant error introduced in this passage. The (real) text of verse 13 makes it abundantly clear that becoming a child of God - the new birth - is not a result of our "accepting His call" or any other decision we make: "nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man." Instead, it is an entirely monergistic effort - "but of God." In adding the italicized text at the end of verse 13, the authors of The Voice introduce a bit of Pelagianism - the heretical notion that, even in our fallen state, we are capable of choosing a spiritual good on our own!

And this was just a survey of four verses in the first chapter!

There are other serious issues: the fact that John is called "the Immerser" rather than "the Baptist" and that his baptism is called "ritual cleansing". The in-text notes that put words in the mouth of John the Baptist. Or 15:22, where "now they have no excuse for their sin" becomes "now they have no excuse for ignoring My voice." Or 16:33b where "take heart; I have overcome the world" becomes the not-so-subtle political "you need not fear; I have triumped over this corrupt world order."

Then there is the deeply-disturbing, yet unsurprising change in 17:17 where "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth" becomes "Immerse them in the truth, the truth Your voice speaks." Well, since we've already seen in 1:11 that God speaks in a voice that is nothing more than an "inner calling", this modification makes the subjectivity of truth something not only approved of, but defined by, the re-written emerging "bible".

Dear readers, please be aware of this dangerous new "translation" and stand ready to help any of your friends or loved ones who fall prey to this redefinition of God's truth.

Confessions of a former Nazarene

2008-11-18T20:19:00.000-08:00

Even though this post is more about me than my usual entries, I promise to try to make it interesting anyway...

I was raised in a Christian family; though I don't recall the denomination of the church I attended as a small child, I can say that from the time I was 11 or 12 all the way through college, I attended Nazarene churches. I even attended a Nazarene college for my undergraduate work.

My parents are wonderful, godly believers who - despite my best efforts to the contrary as a teenager - helped me understand and appreciate God's word. So I sincerely hope I won't offend them when I say that I couldn't be a Nazarene again under any circumstances.

You see, I left the Nazarene church fifteen years ago when my wife and I moved to Orange County - not for any well-reasoned theological issues, mind you. No, there just wasn't one nearby... that made it easy. We settled in a Baptist church for a number of years, then bounced among a few non-denominational churches before settling in our current - and, as far as I'm concerned, permanent - church home.

During a very challenging time that I briefly discuss here, I really began to dig deep. What do I believe? Why do I believe it?

What do I believe? Why do I believe it?

And most importantly, does Scripture support my understanding of core issues like salvation?

It was during this process that I realized that a belief I'd held all my life... was {gulp}... wrong. As my wife will tell you, I find being wrong mildly disturbing. In this case, though, it was downright frightening because, though I didn't know it at the time, I was inadvertently claiming a portion of God's glory!

It was downright frightening because... I was inadvertently claiming a portion of God's glory!

I believed all the basics: God as creator, holy and just. My sin alienates me from God and I stand condemned. Christ died for my sins. (Coming up is where I went wrong - see if you catch it.) So I decide to invite Christ into my heart, thus receiving salvation. Did you catch it? Ah, man... did the italics give it away??

You see, I thought my decision was what made me a Christian. In my understanding, God set the condition for salvation - belief in Christ - and I met the condition, thus earning my place in heaven.

God set the condition for salvation... and I met the condition.

This is the classic Arminian understanding of salvation - and one which I, thanks to God's grace, no longer believe. Instead, I believe that Scripture clearly supports the Calvinist understanding of this doctrine.

A full discussion of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism would fill several books - and, in fact, it has - so I'll stay away from most of the particulars. (My total lack of qualification makes it easy to keep clear, too.) Instead, I'll focus on one thing - the grace of God - and how it leads me to believe what I do. The following are some characteristics of divine grace that helped me reject my former understanding...

The existence of God's grace presupposes both sin and guilt. Grace only has significance when we see ourselves as fallen and justly subject to God's wrath. When Paul tells us that we are saved "by grace", what makes this so poignant is what he said earlier - that we "were dead in the trespasses and sins" and that we "were by nature children of wrath". (Eph. 2:1-10) We are like Lazarus - dead! - and are utterly unable to respond to any 'offer' of grace. Instead, God's grace in saving us is completely one-sided; the only thing I contribute to my salvation is the sin from which I need to be saved!
Grace is best understood when we see ourselves not just as undeserving, but as ill-deserving. It might be easy to admit that we've done nothing special that deserves God's favor. But this doesn't go nearly far enough. It's not just that we don't deserve grace, it's that we do deserve hell! Remember, we were not neutral to God, we "were enemies" before we were reconciled (Rom. 5:10).
Grace is utterly independent of the deserving nature of those to whom grace is given. It's not a matter of treating someone greater or less than they deserve - it's treating someone without reference to what they deserve at all!
Grace stands apart from works in justification, but is the source of works in sanctification. We are saved by grace, for good works (Eph. 2:8-10).
Grace is free. This is one of those 'duh' moments, of course, but a glorious one! Simply put, if it weren't free, it would cease to be grace.
Grace is sovereign. This was the hardest for me to grasp, because it goes against my human concept of 'fairness'. Simply put, though, God is not obligated to be gracious - the giving of His grace is completely optional. If He were obligated at any point, it would (again) cease to be grace and would instead by payment of a debt incurred.

When I finally understood all this, I saw the obvious conclusion: for God to choose people because they believe means God is obliged... He must give me what I've earned by my decision.

Instead, I realized that God - in His wonderful and glorious grace - chose me for no reason other than His own sovereign pleasure, to demonstrate His mercy.

God chose me for no reason other than His own sovereign pleasure.

In so doing, he gave me the gift of faith and repentance, and I can never lose that gift - Soli Deo gloria!

I read a good blog today...

2008-11-17T21:42:00.000-08:00

You won't often find me linking you to other blogs here in my main posts - that's what my "Truthlinks" section is for... there, in the right-hand column.

But tonight, I wanted to draw your attention to this particular blog. Yes, I know the author - I happen to be married to her - but that doesn't change the importance of the subject she addressed tonight. Check it out...

Studying other faiths

2008-11-17T21:05:00.000-08:00

Last month, I wrote a short post about how we're all theologians. In the comments, one of our regular visitors asked a really good question about studying other religious writings. In response, I mentioned that it could be useful - so long as we understood that the Bible is our one and only 'measuring stick' as it relates to truth. Picking up the thread recently, she commented again:

Isn't [studying other religions] the point? No one is going to listen to your point of view if all you can come up with is 'because the Bible says so'.

I wouldn't want Christians to accept that sort of broad overstatement - I would hope that a believer would want some specificity. It follows that I wouldn't expect a non-believer to accept that sort of simplistic, overly-vague and generic claim to authority. If someone "doesn't care what the Bible has to say", I clearly have to start elsewhere...

But I wouldn't start the discussion from the basis of other religions. Two big reasons:

doing so would give other religions a perceived status of legitimacy or even equality with Biblical Christianity, and...
it only serves to confuse the non-Christian.

If the non-Christian is an active believer in another faith, however, then I would use what I know of their religion to help lead them to Christianity. But most non-Christians we run into today in America are simply "spiritual, but not religious" people... essentially humanist pagans. Studying Buddhism isn't going to help me with most of the people I run into here in Orange County.

So, if I don't start with other religions or writings, where do I start?

So, if I don't start with other religions or writings, where do I start?

Well, I look to the example of Paul in Athens. Take a few minutes and look at what he did in Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, he was talking to people who didn't know the OT Scriptures, folks who had their own worldview and religious understandings that were utterly incompatible with Christianity. So Paul pointed out truths that were true - without referring to Scripture (which, at the time, would have only been the OT). So that's what I'd do. (And that's also going to be a future blog post...)

For another example of what we might discuss with a non-Christian, see Romans 1:19-20.

The point is that I don't need to have an in-depth understanding of other religions in order to discuss the truths of Christianity with someone who isn't a believer. Of course, if I'm faced with someone who is an adherent to another faith and I have to overcome certain intellectual or spiritual hurdles, I can do some research and find some answers...

but until then, my time is better spent studying and understanding God's word

but until then, my time is better spent studying and understanding God's word so that I can clearly share it with others. Until you know God's word well enough to understand both the fact and the reasons that other religions are false, I would advise you to do the same.

Our guest (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is a member of my extended family) went on to say that...

it's really sad to believe in a religion and not know why you don't believe in others

Really? No, really?? If you'd left the sentence as, "It's really sad to believe in a religion and not know why", I would have agreed with you. After all, we should know why we believe what we believe. But the rest of the sentence makes this a pluralistic stew of confusion. Follow me on this...

I live in Southern California and I want to drive to Las Vegas. I believe I can get there by taking Interstate 15. You tell me, "it's really sad that you believe you can get to Las Vegas by taking the 15 and not know why you don't believe that you can get there by taking the 405 or the 10." The simple fact is that I know I can't get to Vegas via either of those two freeways (unless I get on the 15 eventually)... because I-15 is the only way to Vegas! (Bear with me - I realize there are backroads, etc., but for the sake of argument, let's say it's the only road into town.)

Similarly, once we know that Christianity is the only true religion (by that, I mean the entirety of Christianity is true - I'm not saying that other religions do not have at least some modicum of truth in them), I have no need to study other faiths in order to determine why I don't believe them. The fact is I cannot believe them if I believe Christianity to be true - and neither can you.

Jesus makes this abundantly clear in John 14:6 when He says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In case that wasn't clear enough, in Acts 4:12, Peter explains to the elders in Jerusalem that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Christianity is completely and utterly exclusive, whether we like it or not

Christianity is completely and utterly exclusive, whether we like it or not; if I accept the Biblical claims as true (and I do), then, by definition, all other religions are false and not worth studying for the purpose of determining why I don't believe them. (Note: they are worth studying for reasons described earlier - to help those who are enmeshed in false religions find freedom and forgiveness in Christ.)

Next, we see the ubiquitous claim that to believe exclusively is "very prejudiced and narrow minded." To this, I plead guilty and say "Amen!" To do otherwise would demonstrate the wrong kind of humility - we, as Christians, ought to be humble in our persons, but confident in the truth of Scripture. Too often, the postmodern worldview causes Christians to be confident in their persons, but "humble" in their doubt of Scripture.

She wraps up the comment by making the claim that...

All religions have simliar "truths" to them. Half the stuff they teach in the Bible is in other texts as well.

As I've said before, I don't deny that other religions have some truth in them. After all, Romans 1:19-20 remind us that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." We would rightfully expect that other faiths would include some truth about God. But look at the rest of that chapter (vv.21-32) carefully - though they cannot help but be aware of God's presence and essential character (eternality and divinity), "they did not honor him as God". As I pointed out in a recent post, this leads to futile thinking and foolishness. Hence, the rest of what is contained in other religions is foolishness.

As for that last line, I'll assume you didn't mean that literally "half" of the the truths of Scripture are found in other writings. Whatever amount of truth is found elsewhere, the point is this: the gospel is found only in the Bible. The gospel - that which the Old Testament points toward and the New Testament explains, confirms and preaches - is the very heart of Scripture... and it is found in no other world religion or text. Wisdom and morality can be found in other faiths, sure, but what good will that do us when we stand before God Almighty?

Who, me repent? But it's not a sin.

2008-11-14T12:35:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, I posted a piece about protesters at Saddleback Church that included this fascinating quote:

But for Sally "Sal" Landers, 52, a Saddleback Church member from Lake Forest, her participation in the protest was a deeply personal matter. Landers and her female partner of three years plan to marry and adopt children. When she received an e-mail from Warren urging a "yes" vote on Proposition 8, she said, "I felt like I was kicked in the stomach by someone who loves unconditionally."

So on Sunday, Landers joined the protesters outside the church rather than the parishioners inside. "We really love him and respect his opinion," Landers said of Warren. "I need some reassurance that I'm welcome here as a gay American citizen."

Assuming Sal is really a member at Saddleback, I sincerely hope that a pastor is willing to confront her regarding this matter. It's one thing to be in sin and simply attending church - it's another thing entirely for that church to accept, as a member, someone who is continuing in open, unrepentant sin and expects that the church will offer "reassurance" that she is welcome as an unrepentant sinner. A quick aside: as a result of this story, I'm working on a post - or series of posts, most likely - on church discipline. It simply confounds me that a church would be willing to proudly wear a stained gown to their wedding with Christ (Eph. 5:25-27).

Before I get any deeper into this, let me just say I'd be equally frustrated if the story were about a man who just wanted "reassurance" that he's welcome as a Saddleback member, despite his open, continuing adulterous affair with another man's wife. Or a woman who wanted "reassurance" that she's welcome as a Saddleback member, despite her sexual relationship with a neighbor's teenage son.

My concern is with the unrepentant nature of this particular sin.

Despite my vocal support of Proposition 8 in recent weeks, my concern tonight has nothing to do with the sexual nature of this particular sin. Instead, it is with the unrepentant nature of the sin. And, if I'm being honest, with the expected non-response of Saddleback Church.

Let's face facts, shall we? We're all sinners (Rom. 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10), whether we're believers or not. The question is this: are we repentant or not? Have we "turned to God from idols", including ourselves (1 Thess. 1:9) and confessed our sins before God (1 John 1:9)? Have we chosen to "repent therefore, and turn again, that [our] sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19)?

Ah, but here's the rub. Unrepentant sinners don't frequently choose to rebel against God by acknowledging their sinful nature and then openly defying God, in essence saying - "Yeah, I 'sin', but who cares?" No, instead they rebel against the Lord by

After all, if it's not sin, why repent?

choosing to believe that their actions and attitudes aren't sinful in the first place. After all, if it's not sin, why repent?

Let's take a look tonight at Romans 1:18-22...

vv. 19-20: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

The power and holiness of God are so obviously evident in creation, this passage tells us, that everyone is without excuse, at least as to this basic understanding of God's nature. They may not be held to the standards of the Mosaic law, but they have a conscience that "bears witness" and "conflicting thoughts [that] accuse or even excuse them" even though they do not have the law (Rom. 2:12-15).

But, 1:21a tells us, "although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him..."

In other words, though they were aware of the fundamental character of God - His power and His holiness, His "otherness" - they did not praise or extol Him as God. The word translated "honor" here is the Greek word doxazo which is more frequently interpreted as "glorified" or other variants on "glory". Though they comprehend His existence and His basic character, they refuse to give Him the glory that He is due.

So, the passage continues, "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." (Rom.1:21b-22)

How often do we say things like, "go with your gut", or "trust your instincts", or "your first choice is usually right"? This verse makes it exceedingly clear that your own 'wisdom' is the last thing you should trust.

Outside of Christ, your thinking is futile and wisdom is beyond all reach.

Outside of Christ, your thinking is futile and wisdom is beyond all reach. Yet this is precisely what we see in our culture today - people relying on their own futile thinking to determine everything for themselves, including the dangerous attempt to determine right and wrong.

When this happens, we inevitably "discover" that our pet sins aren't really sins after all, as Ms. Landers has so aptly demonstrated.

Instead of relying on our own foolishness, we ought to be looking to God and His word to determine whether an attitude or action is sinful.

We ought to be looking to God and His word.

Otherwise, we run the risk of being "given over" to our lusts (v.24), dishonorable passions (v.26) and a debased mind (v.28). Read the rest of Romans 1 and 2 to see the tragic results...

Update regarding one-way tolerance

2008-11-12T12:32:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, I posted a story regarding an elderly woman who was verbally and physically assaulted at a "peaceful candlelight vigil" held by gay-marriage proponents in Palm Springs last Friday.

Today, I happened to find video of portions of the incident on YouTube. You will likely find the following local news broadcast disturbing:

I want to commend Ms. Burgen for never losing her temper and for handling this appalling behavior with class and dignity. She showed kindness and love and was rewarded with this vitriolic reaction from the crowd. My hands are still shaking with anger as I type this rare mid-day blog entry. I have to remind myself that God is omnipresent, omniscient and just - and that one day, justice will be done and will be seen to be done.

9:30 p.m. EDIT
===========
I wanted to take a moment to remind you - and myself, if I'm being honest - that as angry as this might make you, we are commanded by our Lord not to respond in kind. Yes, we should be angry - Proverbs 29:27 tells us that "The righteous detest the dishonest" and 1 Cor 13:6 reminds us that "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth." That said, however, we must make room for God's wrath (Romans 12:19) and we are not to return evil for evil (Romans 12:21). Instead, I want to encourage you to pray for these people (Matt. 5:43-48). Love does not require that we sit silently and allow them free reign over society's standards, but godly love does require that we respond peacefully and lovingly.

Taking 'seeker-sensitive' to new heights

2008-11-10T21:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I commented on a news item regarding a Christian-bashing incident that took place at a "peaceful" candlelight vigil held by homosexual activists in Palm Springs last week. In the comments that followed, I was reminded that Ahh-nold, our beloved Governator, is hoping that "we will again maybe undo [the ban on gay marriage], if the court is willing to do that."

My reader pointed me to an LA Times article, for which I am truly appreciative. Not because of the Ahh-nold quote, though those are always entertaining in their own unique way.

This is a good thing, as it just might help me get this blog back on point.

No, the interesting thing in this story is, ironically, not political in nature - but instead has to do with the church. This is a good thing, as it just might help me get this blog back on point.

Much of the protesting against the passage of Proposition 8 here in Orange County was targeted at Saddleback Church. A blurb from the story:

Hundreds of Proposition 8 protesters in Orange County gathered down the hill from Saddleback Church in Lake Forest as several thousand congregants attended services inside the sprawling religious campus.

Martijn Hostetler, 30, of West Hollywood held a sign that read "Purpose Driven Hate," a dig at the church's celebrity Pastor Rick Warren, author of the bestseller "The Purpose-Driven Life,"who backed the ballot measure. "I don't think Jesus would approve of a gay-marriage ban," he said. "I don't think God discriminates."

Oh, Martijn. Wouldn't it be nice if only what we thought about Jesus were true? If Jesus were a god made in our own image? I know that's a common belief these days; after all, "Jesus was such a nice man" and "he taught us to love each other"... which means, according to the prevailing worldview,

Like we've got a heavenly Grandpa and a nice Jewish boy.

that He wouldn't disapprove of anything that makes me happy. Like we've got a heavenly Grandpa and a nice Jewish boy.

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reminds us that God "made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'."

Jesus absolutely does tell us what marriage is supposed to look like.

So even though Jesus isn't directly asked about a gay-marriage ban (since that wasn't likely on the agenda in the 1st century), He absolutely does tell us what marriage is supposed to look like.

Beyond that, of course, we need only look at Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Leviticus 20:13 for what God has to say about His "discrimination" against homosexuals and other sinners.

Martijn would be well-advised to remember that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and that Jesus is God (John 8:57-59, 10:30-33, 14:6-9); therefore all Scripture reflects what Jesus thinks... including on the issues of homosexuality and marriage.

But the real blurb of interest in this story is this little gem:

But for Sally "Sal" Landers, 52, a Saddleback Church member from Lake Forest, her participation in the protest was a deeply personal matter. Landers and her female partner of three years plan to marry and adopt children. When she received an e-mail from Warren urging a "yes" vote on Proposition 8, she said, "I felt like I was kicked in the stomach by someone who loves unconditionally."

So on Sunday, Landers joined the protesters outside the church rather than the parishioners inside. "We really love him and respect his opinion," Landers said of Warren. "I need some reassurance that I'm welcome here as a gay American citizen."

Wow. I mean... really... wow. Did you catch that she's a member at Saddleback? Yeah, that's going to have to be its own blog topic... stay tuned for a study on sin and church discipline.

You know, there was a time when I thought that perhaps I'd been a bit vitriolic in my blogger profile - specifically where I relabel the 'seeker-sensitive' movement as the sin-coddling movement. Now I'm fairly sure I was right.

Here's an interesting factoid - Saddleback has a list of Bible Q&As regarding everything from heavy theological issues like "Is Jesus the only way to salvation?" and "Can you explain the trinity?" to less-vital questions like "What color were Jesus' eyes?" and "Will our pets be in heaven?" Some of the questions are on tough subjects - divorce, suicide - but not one of the 39 questions addresses homosexuality. I've got to wonder why that is, especially in light of Ms. Landers' continued membership at Saddleback... though here's a thought as to why that may be:

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Picture the scene

2008-11-10T18:05:00.000-08:00

---- alert: the following is a hypothetical situation... you have been warned ----

Fast-forward eight years to 2016.

Obama, the first African-American to serve as President, has occupied the White House for eight years. A rising young star in the Republican party, the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, is running against the Democrat, Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Kaine, riding the wave of liberal support, wins and takes the White House.

Later that week, in a church in the south, a white pastor goes to his pulpit the Sunday after Kaine, who is white, defeated the Indian-American Jindal. He offers a prayer of thanks for the election of Kaine, at the risk of getting his flock "more excited over this than you do over the word."

"God has vindicated the white folk", the pastor jubilantly proclaims. A member of his congregation waves the Stars-and-Stripes and another marches among the pews blowing a ram's horn. "He has vindicated us, hallelujah! When I look toward Washington, D.C., we got a new family coming in. We got a new family coming in. And you know what? They look like us. Amen, amen. They look like us."

How do you feel about this pastor right now?

Does his blatant racism offend you?

Would you feel awkward or uncomfortable sitting under the pastoral leadership of someone who would use their pulpit to issue statements such as these, that are based on the skin color of a candidate?

I thought you would. I know I certainly would.

---- end of hypothetical situation ----

But apparently, the members of Mount Calvary Word of Faith Church in Raleigh, North Carolina don't have a problem with such a proclamation coming from their pulpit. Just change "white folk" to "black folk", and you've got exactly what Grammy-winning gospel singer - and (ahem!) pastor - Shirley Caesar-Williams said this past Sunday.

No longer content with violating Scriptural standards merely when it comes to women in the pastorate, the Mount Calvary Word of Faith Church is also okay with blatant racism preached from the pulpit. Sad, really. Oh, and I wonder - where are the 'separation of church and state' folks on this? Isn't there a tax-exempt status that could be at jeopardy here? Or does that only apply to churches that advocate for a pro-life candidate?

This sort of racist comment (don't tell me it's not racist - you already agreed it was racist if it came from a white pastor's pulpit, didn't you?) won't be pointed out by the media - but I thought you ought to know.

Tolerance is a one-way street

2008-11-09T19:49:00.000-08:00

Screams of "Go home, Nazi!"

... ... ...

A woman carrying a cross made of Styrofoam.

... ... ...

Pushing, shoving, knocked to the ground.

... ... ...

The cross ripped from her hands, thrown to the ground and stomped to pieces.

... ... ...

You may be thinking that this story took place far around the world; perhaps in a nation where Christianity is not tolerated and believers are genuinely persecuted. You could be forgiven for thinking this, but you'd still be wrong - it happened right here.

On Friday night, more than 500 protesters gathered in Palm Springs to hold a candlelight vigil in opposition to Proposition 8 which passed with more than 52% of the vote last Tuesday. (A quick aside: even if every McCain voter also cast their ballot for Prop 8, we're left with the fact that 1.6 million Obama supporters - nearly 30% of those who voted for him - would have also had to vote for Prop 8 for it to pass by this margin.)

However, when Phyllis Burgen, a Palm Springs resident who supported Proposition 8 walked peacefully by the gathering of activists, she found herself verbally - and then physically - assaulted by gay and lesbians and their supporters. Even though she was knocked to the ground and bruised in the exchange, she has already stated she will not be filing charges.

This activity comes from the same group of people who want us to display tolerance toward their lifestyle, and behavior. We ought not to push our morality on them, don't you know.

It's perfectly alright, haven't you heard, for homosexual activists to tell us Christians that we're "nazis", "full of hate", "homophobic", "bigoted", or even "barbaric". But let us speak a word in opposition to their continuing rebellion against God and we are "intolerant".

Yes, tolerance is clearly a one-way street. And it might even have those little spikey things to pop your tires if you drive the wrong way. Just ask Phyllis.

Devaluing the incarnation

2008-11-07T21:48:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me - or who have read the "about the blog" page - know that at this time last year, I was thanking God that he was finally letting me leave our former church. (One ought not leave a church lightly - thus, the process took over six months.) Now, this blog is most definitely not the place to rehash that battle, but I recently encountered something that made me think of one of the problems I ran into there...

The recent situation: I was at a Christian bookstore that shall remain nameless, and spied a book by a prominent individual in the emergent church movement. I'd say "leader", but you know how much the EC despises 'structure' and 'authority'...

(An aside: this is where I should warn you that the emerging/emergent/emer-whatever church is going to be a common whipping-boy here at Speaking Boldly - they are a prime example of believers [if one can give them that much credit] who have so thoroughly bought into the post-modern worldview that they have allowed it to modify the gospel so much so that it is no longer recognizable. And we know what Galatians 1:6-9 says about that.)

(Back on point...)

My wife looked at me, shook her head, and said, "This just makes you angry." She was right.

As I usually do, I picked it up to look at the dust jacket and read about the latest drivel. My wife looked at me, shook her head, and said, "This just makes you angry." She was right, of course - she usually is.

One word jumped out at me because of my previous experience - the word was "incarnational". As in, "we should be more incarnational in our ministry." Let me say I really don't like using this word to describe a church or its ministry. I mean, I certainly understand and appreciate the desire to see that we put on and live out our faith. But, as I'm fond of saying - words actually mean things. Surprise!

The term "incarnation", while not itself a Biblical term, is a Biblical concept - somewhat like the word "trinity", in that sense. It is a word that refers to a single, once-in-all-of-time historic event: God becoming man.

There are good reasons to preserve the uniqueness of the term in our vocabulary.

There are good reasons to preserve the uniqueness of the term in our vocabulary.

First of all, comparing what the Son did in becoming Jesus the God-man with what we do when we imitate Him significantly downplays the tremendous wonder of that unique event. It could even be argued (and I'm arguing it... so there!) that equating the two by using the same terminology attempts to make the Son a little smaller... and us a little bigger.

More importantly, though, we need to look at the purpose of the unique incarnation. Scripture tells us that God sent the Son "to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). Jesus came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45), "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10), and to do "the will of Him who sent me", which is "that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life" (John 6:38-40). Jesus came "as light into the world" (John 12:46), "to bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37) and to "destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8).

Can we do these things? Can we, to use another phrase that the EC movement likes to use, "be Jesus" to people?

Can we do these things? Can we be Jesus to people?

Simply put, no. We can - and should - be like Jesus... and we should certainly tell people of Jesus. But when we use the word "incarnational" to describe our ministry, we attempt to make the historical incarnation primarily about something else - something we can emulate in our own lives - thus shifting the focus away from Christ's amazing work of taking God's wrath upon Himself. As Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:21, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Let's not water down the most amazing and unique historical event by using the same terminology to describe ourselves or our ministries.

A few more thoughts...

2008-11-07T21:08:00.000-08:00

I wanted to clarify, or at least expand on, some of the thoughts that I discussed in my post on Wednesday. One could easily read the last few entries on this blog and think that I'd radically changed my position between last week and last night - nothing could be further from the truth.

I've already showed how it's not our obligation, as Christians, to re-shape society.

This world is not our home.

Beyond the three reasons I gave for that in my last post (God's sovereignty, the loss of focus on our mission, and the clear example of Jesus' earthly ministry), there's one other: this world is not our home. We are to "set []our minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth," (Col. 3:2), remembering that "our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil. 3:20), and that we are "sojourners and exiles" in this world (1 Pet. 2:11).

Note that this does not mean that we ignore the sin, and resulting pain and strife, of this world. We do not want to become "so heavenly minded that we are of no earthly good", as the old saying goes. But it does mean that we keep the events and circumstances of this world in perspective... and when that perspective includes eternity? Well, that does make things a little different, doesn't it?

So why the emphasis on the political issues if it's not our Biblical obligation? Let's take another look at the first obligation that Romans 13:1-7 laid out for us: being subject to the governing authorities. Here in America, our governing authorities happen to be in the form of a representative democracy. This means that, if we are to be fully subject to them, we are supposed to take part in the process... to vote. That's an obligation to our governing authorities.

Now we come back to Scripture. "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor. 10:31b) We are to remember that we represent Christ and the gospel - we are, in fact, "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20). If you were the United States ambassador to China, would you choose to say and do things that grossly misrepresented the United States' position on key issues? If you did, you'd find yourself quickly brought back home, wouldn't you?

We are ambassadors; we must represent the interests of our "home country".

While we are not citizens of this world, we are ambassadors - and this means that we must represent the interests of our "home country" to the best of our ability.

If, in living out our obligation to 'be subject to the governing authorities', we are to take part in the representative process by voting, then our vote ought - like everything else in our lives - to be cast "to the glory of God". That, my friends, is why it is not an insignificant matter when issues like abortion or homosexual marriage play a key role in a particular election. And that is why we do not stay silent regarding the issues.

The challenge, of course, is in finding the right balance - the Biblical balance - between living as true citizens of heaven and temporary citizens of the United States.

In the aftermath...

2008-11-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

I have to be honest with you, my dear readers... I expected the results of last night's presidential election. That's why I didn't watch a single minute of news coverage; why bother, after all? Now, please don't get me wrong - I'm not moping about it, really. It's simply a recognition of the political realities that were at work in this election.

This will, of course, take us to Romans 13:1-7... eventually.

So tonight, I want to talk about the obligation that we, as Christians, have to our government. This will, of course, take us to Romans 13:1-7 along with a few other passages. Eventually.

But first, I want to talk about what our obligations aren't.

But first, I want to talk about what our obligations aren't.

Given the strength of my opinions on the political matters that have been discussed here over the last few posts, you could be forgiven for imagining that I align myself with some of the more theocratically-inclined elements on the political right of the evangelical church. (In fact, some of the comments would suggest that you do, in fact, think this.) While I may share many political convictions with them, I do not share their conviction that it is the task of Christians to radically re-shape government. Why not?

1. God is sovereign. (Isaiah 14:24, Ps. 22:8) He does not need me to lobby Congress on behalf of His church, His people or His causes. The church has survived far worse in the last 2,000 years. In fact, we know that the very "gates of hell" cannot prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18), so I really don't need to fear.

2. We lose sight of our primary mission. (Matt. 28:19) This is true of both the political left in the church (social work, poverty, the environment) as well as the political right (abortion, homosexuality). While we as individuals are certainly free to voice - and vote - our opinions, when the church becomes obsessed with politics (plenty of examples on both sides, so no finger-pointing), it is ultimately ignoring its calling: to bring the gospel message of eternal salvation to people otherwise destined to face God's wrath.

3. We ignore the example of Jesus. I touched on this in my blog yesterday, but only briefly. Jesus came into a world dominated by many oppressive political realities. Slavery comes to mind: slaves constituted as much as one-third of the population in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. The Caesars ruled with total one-man authority, as did their puppet kings like Herod. Taxes were exorbitantly high and the system was rife with extortion. (See Zaccheus' acknowledgment of this in Luke 19:8.) The Jews were poor, oppressed and had no voice in government, despite their heavy tax burden. But what did Jesus do? He appealed to the hearts of individuals, He preached the gospel of salvation. He wasn't interested in a new social order, but a new spiritual order. When we are tempted to think otherwise, we would do well to remember that one of the reasons the Jews were so upset with Jesus was because they hoped He was the political Messiah that they expected.

Well, then... if I believe all this, then why did I spend so much time and effort on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage? Please remember that my primary purpose here was not to lobby for either of these two causes (though I am quite passionate about them). My purpose here was to help Christians shake off the relativistic worldview and engage political matters with a Biblical worldview in mind. That's why I was - and am still - convinced that a Christian who is pro-life cannot possibly justify a vote for Obama, given his record and his campaign promises to the pro-abortion wing of his party. Nevertheless, I'm not trying to change the world here - I'm simply trying to ensure that Christians who engage their world do so in a manner consistent with Scripture in order to ensure the accuracy of their witness.

Okay, so now that we've seen what our obligation isn't, let's take a look at Romans 13:1-7 where we are clearly told what our obligation is:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 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. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Nowhere else is in the New Testament is this issue addressed as thoroughly as Paul handles it here, though he touches on it again in Titus 3:1-2, and Peter talks about it in 1 Peter 2:13-15. While the Romans passage includes several verses to explain why this is so, we are called to do only these things:

Be subject to the governing authorities
Pay our taxes
Respect and honor our leaders

Being subject to the authorities means to obey them; God has appointed them. Scripture even tells us that He appointed the evil authorities (Exodus 9:16, Isaiah 10:5-6). (Don't get all riled up, folks - I'm not calling Obama "evil" here.) It's not whether the authority or the law is just or unjust; it's the authority that God has put in place and we are to be subject to it.

Is there an exception to our obligation to be subject to the authorities? Yes, there is.

In Acts 4:13, the synagogue leaders "saw the boldness of Peter and John" and held a meeting to discuss what to do about these two who were preaching the gospel. This takes us to Acts 4:16-18:

'What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.' So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

These are the "governing authorities", so what are Peter and John to do? Well, Acts 4:19 tells us exactly how they responded: "But Peter and John answered them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge..."

You see, now there's a direct conflict between the authority of the synagogue leaders and the Authority of Jesus' command to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20). After this conversation,

It should be clear whom they decided to obey!

Peter and John went back to the other believers and prayed. Read the whole passage (Acts 4:23-31), but look especially at 4:29 where the believers prayed, "And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness..." It should be clear whom they decided to obey!

Therefore, the one situation where we have a right - or even a duty - to disobey the authorities is when they command us to do something God has told us not to do, or when they command us not to do something God has told us to do. An example of the former would be if the government tried to force us to honor a homosexual marriage. As obedient Christians, we could not do so and would therefore be justified in not submitting to authority on this matter. As for the latter, if the government tells us that we cannot preach the gospel or share our faith with co-workers or fellow students, we are justified in not submitting to their authority because to do so would be to disobey God's word. Other than circumstances where obeying worldly authority would bring us into disobedience of God's authority, we are to follow the mandates of Romans 13.

Finally, there is one other thing that I believe is important to address before I wrap this up. In 1 Timothy 2:1-3, Paul "urge[s] that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." This adds yet another obligation, then - that of praying for the leaders of our nation. I would ask my readers to please take the time to consistently pray for our leaders, regardless of political affiliation or policy positions. This is not a time for insults or disrespectful statements; we may not have to be sycophants, like many in the press have become, but we ought to "speak evil of no one", remembering that we were once foolish and disobedient (Titus 3:1-3).

Policy change

2008-11-04T12:08:00.000-08:00

I'm turning off the ability to post anonymously. If you still wish to remain unknown, then create a Blogger ID that doesn't include your name, and leave your comment under that profile.

I'm not making this change because I want to know who people are - I'm making this change so that I don't confuse one anonymous poster with another. (Frankly, this may have already happened - but I'd like to avoid it in the future.)

Thanks for understanding.

A response to the 'open challenge'

2008-11-04T12:01:00.000-08:00

I'd frankly hoped to get a coherent, logical and Scripture-based response to my challenge... consider me a bit disappointed as this is what I got:

I don't consider myself a Christian, I AM a Christian. I am Pro-Life, but not for a Pro-Life government. I will vote for Obama this year and here is why. God gave us the greatest gift all all time through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ. A gift. Something we can chose to accept or chose to reject. We are NOT a Christian Nation, we never have been, never will be. God has a nation already, its His nation serving through this world. God has His chosen people, they are throughout the world. We ARE a nation that just so happens to have accepted many, but not all, Judeo Christian values. Our nation (our secular government) is not there to push a religious agenda. Maybe one day, but IF you believe in Revelation then you know that there is only ONE nation under God and it doesn't belong to our egotistical, existentialist USA. Because we have a FREE government and a God that has given us freedom to chose Him, my command is very simple: LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS. Until I can do that with perfection, I CANNOT point the speck out in someone's eye. Rather, I would love a nation where dialogue can be had over gray subjects such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, Poverty, etc... in a Nation that is FREE FOR ALL TO CHOSE with a government that PROVIDES EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Furthermore, until WE as a Christian Nation start tithing our 10% and more (giving until it hurts), loving our enemies (Wow, novel thought to let God judge), and taking care of every single baby that will now be born that wasn't "aborted" then the Church (religious sense) has no legs to stand on. I know that I am selfish. I know that I won't always give until it hurts. Republican economics DON'T WORK BIBLICALLY. Why? B/C the church doesn't support its neighbors. And B/C we don't hold ourselves accountable anymore (I still believe poverty, the number one issue JC did talk about in the NT, is an issue here in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD), I am OK with a government that will help my neighbor out. Until then, actions speak LOUDER than words: so what do YOUR actions say about you??? Are you ready to love your neighbor? Or dictate their action by criminal prosecution. Are you ready to love your enemies? Or bomb them because they believe differently? I believe abortion is wrong. I am against gay marriage but I don't support a SECULAR law in a SECULAR country that discriminates against the same people it seeks to protect. There is a reason there was a Constitution and not a set of Commandments... (PS forgive me for spelling mistakes, and by the way, regardless of who gets elected we are to PRAY for our leaders b/c God has put them there for a reason...)

Wow. The hardest thing about responding to this... this rambling, scattered, often-off-topic, often-illogical comment filled with the internet equivalent of screaming (see my Ground Rules for posting) is simply determining where to begin.

My challenge was simple: use Scripture, or at the very least a Biblical worldview, to indicate why you, as a professing pro-life Christian, support Obama for President. Easy, right?

My challenge was simple.

But this rambling bit of vitriol references no Scripture and displays a worldview that is only remotely Biblical, and that at points few and far between. Additionally, the commenter went completely off-topic almost immediately and remained there for the rest of the post.

Ah, but I'll bite. Let's address a few of these comments as best we can, shall we?

I don't consider myself a Christian, I AM a Christian.

Fair enough. I didn't imply otherwise.

I am Pro-Life, but not for a Pro-Life government.

Well, this makes no sense whatsoever. Let's rephrase this more accurately - "I'm against the unjust killing of human beings - but I'm not for a government that is against the unjust killing of human beings." That's the amplified version of your statement - do you still stand by it?

Do you believe that an unborn child is a human being? If it is your position that an unborn child is not a human being, I would suggest studying your Bible more thoroughly. You'll find plenty of evidence that an unborn child is a person made in the image of God at conception. Just as importantly, you'll find no evidence that suggests anything to the contrary.

Or do you believe that the killing of a human being is, in the case of abortion, perfectly just? If this is your position - that it is just and appropriate to kill a human being for the sake of convenience or preference... well, then I am left with the conclusion that your claim to be pro-life is false.

I am left with the conclusion that your claim to be pro-life is false.

If, however, you believe - as I do - that an unborn child is, in fact, a human being and that the killing of that human being is unjust, then you are pro-life. If, on the other hand, you can differentiate between murder and abortion... well, then you're not pro-life at all... and your response to my open challenge is not worthy of a reply.

To be honest, the rest of your response is so fragmented, directionless and full of vitriol, I don't plan on responding to most of it. Instead, I will offer you the opportunity to restate your case in the context of the original question and in light of the statements I've just made. Stay on-topic, support your points with Scripture, and remain civil.

In the meantime, I'll respond to a few things I've managed to glean from your comment...

...my command is very simple: LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS.

If that is all you understand Christianity to be, then for heaven's sake, please stop wasting your time commenting on my blog and study your Bible. While these are the two "greatest commandments" (Matt 22:36-40), they are far from all that we are called to be and do as followers of Christ. (And to use our imperfection at these two commands as justification to avoid any others is utterly ridiculous.)

Here's a question for you: how are you demonstrating love for the unborn "others" by voting for a presidential candidate who would make it even easier to kill them? Please answer this if you decide to respond.

I would love a nation where dialogue can be had over gray subjects such as Abortion, Gay Marriage...

Gray subjects?!? How are these two issues less than clear in Scripture? Can you point me to verses that provide a contradictory viewpoint to the one already established by the passages quoted in previous blog entries?

What do you find confusing or unclear in the Bible as it relates to either the shedding of innocent blood, or homosexuality?

What do you find confusing or unclear in the Bible as it relates to either the shedding of innocent blood, or homosexuality?

These issues are only 'gray' to you, my anonymous friend, because you have clearly adopted the world's view on these issues. An truly Biblical worldview would lead you to the conclusion that neither of these issues is 'gray'. (Note that this does not mean we treat people badly simply because they sin - I'm not justifying 'gay-bashing' or hating on women who've had abortions. We forgive those who repent, just as Christ does.)

Furthermore, until WE as a Christian Nation start tithing our 10% and more (giving until it hurts), loving our enemies (Wow, novel thought to let God judge), and taking care of every single baby that will now be born that wasn't "aborted" then the Church (religious sense) has no legs to stand on.

Your rant here is simply invalid. While the church ought to be obedient in all things, we don't need your "legs to stand on". The church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14-15, NIV) regardless of whether we meet your particular standard of obedience.

(I still believe poverty, the number one issue JC did talk about in the NT, is an issue here in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD)

Where is the Scriptural support for your claim that poverty was the number one issue that Jesus discussed in the New Testament? Though he often mentioned poverty, much of the time He was talking about poverty of spirit, not financial hardship. Jesus came into a world that was dominated by an oppressive government, saturated with slavery, and much of the population was economically disadvantaged (as we'd call it today). Yet He did not seek to alter man's political, social or economic status. Why not? Because in our fallen world, the externals will not change much - at least not until Christ's return.

Of course, if it is still an issue here in America, it's not for our lack of effort.

But really, this is just another red herring - you still haven't answered the original question.

As a nation, we've spent $9 trillion dollars over 40 years. This total doesn't include the vast amounts of monies donated through charities (over $200 billion a year in recent years).

But really, this is just another red herring - you still haven't answered the original question.

I am OK with a government that will help my neighbor out.

Now we get to it. So you're not "for a Pro-Life government", but you are for a government that will "help your neighbor out". Do you see the complete contradiction here? What about a government that will help your unborn neighbor out?

so what do YOUR actions say about you??? Are you ready to love your neighbor? Or dictate their action by criminal prosecution. Are you ready to love your enemies? Or bomb them because they believe differently?

The vitriol reaches new lows here. You strongly suggest that I do not love my neighbor or my enemies... and there's an even more insidious implication that I would be willing to employ criminal acts of violence to achieve certain ends.

Since I allowed anonymous posts, I suppose this is what I get.

It's this type of comment that violates the Ground Rules and would ordinarily lead to a warning or deletion... but since I allowed anonymous posts, I suppose this is what I get.

Let me remind you that, as a society, we use "criminal prosecution" to dictate the actions of everyone to a large extent. We cannot "choose" to assault someone or kill someone without being subject to "criminal prosecution". We can't even "choose" to drive 10 mph over the speed limit, for that matter! The existence of such laws is not evidence of a lack of love - your lack of common sense and logic here simply astounds me!

The existence of such laws is not evidence of a lack of love.

By this shockingly faulty reasoning, if we truly love our neighbors, we should have no criminal laws whatsoever... because to have laws and prosecute people as criminals would be unloving. In what universe does this make sense? And - getting back to the original challenge - how is this consistent with a Biblical worldview?

I am against gay marriage but I don't support a SECULAR law in a SECULAR country that discriminates against the same people it seeks to protect.

So you oppose a law that would protect the sanctity of marriage, and you oppose a law that would protect the sanctity of life, but you're okay with a "government that will help my neighbor out"? Seems your priorities might be a little skewed... why one, and not the others? Especially since you seem to think that solving poverty is a "Christian" issue.

by the way, regardless of who gets elected we are to PRAY for our leaders b/c God has put them there for a reason.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Fasten your seat belts...

2008-11-03T17:26:00.000-08:00

Really, I should have known better. It's one thing to offer an open challenge, but it was a mistake for me to honestly expect that I'd receive even one logical, well-thought-out argument based on Scripture.

It was a mistake for me to expect a logical argument based on Scripture.

Instead, I received two comments this afternoon - one on a previous blog entry on the issue, and one on my open challenge issued earlier today.

Though they were both posted by 'anonymous', there are enough similarities in the two comments - the absence of any Scripture to support their points, strong indications of a non-Biblical understanding of God's nature, and the inexplicable tendency to address our Lord Jesus Christ as "JC" - that I'm led to believe there's a strong likelihood they were both written by the same individual. Whatever the case, I have an obligation to respond - not to them, but to the rest of my readers.

==========================

Here was this person's first comment, in its entirety:

Why don't you quote from the new testament? Are you Jewish? Do you follow Jewish law and customs? Do you read things within the context they were written, and written to, and written when? Or do you just pick and choose to support your position on an issue? The OT also shows us that God is not for one side or another, but rather for His side. Furthermore, JC is a choice. God is a choice. That is the power of His love for us. He gives us the choice to love Him, serve Him, worship Him. If we don't, as individuals, then we will reap what we sow. When did JC ever push a "law of man" over that of others? The fact is anyone, whether they are a believer or not, can twist and manipulate the Word of God like it is an answer book but it is plainly not. It was never meant to be used like a hammer to hit in nails. It is a story, a never ending story of God's love for us and His people. If God so loved us that He would sacrifice His son so that we might have life, can't we love our neighbor enough to give them the same choice and then, right or wrong, continue to love them b/c that is what JC calls us to, and that is what made JC so revolutionary/counter culture. PS See Boaz and his actions in Ruth.

Whew. Let me catch my breath. You see, I'm used to making a point, ending the paragraph, and moving on, so I found this stream of consciousness, pseudo-random comment a little hard to read. Nevertheless, I'll try to parse this and respond to the best of my ability.

Why don't you quote from the new testament?

First of all, it's the New Testament. Second, very well. Paul tells us, in Galatians 1:15, that God "set me apart before I was born". In Romans 9:11-12, we see that Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals (for whom God had distinct plans) before they were born. Luke, in his gospel, tells us that John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the womb (Luke 1:35-36, 39-44). Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth before John was born - thus, Elizabeth was in her third trimester and Mary in her first. Yet John recognized Jesus even then! These passages - along with the ones from the OT cited previously - remind us that an unborn child is a person created in God's image.

Of course, if you're really pro-life, you'd already know that.

Are you Jewish?

No. Your point?

Do you follow Jewish law and customs?

No. Again, what's the relevance?

Alright, let me try to read your mind here. Are you saying that, because I quoted from the OT, my point is applicable only to Jews and is moot for Christians? Do me a favor - take a look at your Bible...

Dust off your Bible and open it.

Dust it off and open it. Is it just the New Testament? Or does it include the rest of God's word? Do you somehow think that the entire OT has been rendered pointless by Christ and the NT? If so, let me remind you that Jesus himself, in Matthew 5:17-19, made it quite clear that He came "not to abolish the Law or the Prophets... but to fulfill them" and that the law will not go away until "all is accomplished".

Do you read things within the context they were written, and written to, and written when? Or do you just pick and choose to support your position on an issue?

Absolutely, I study Scripture in its context - the surrounding passages, the historical and cultural context and the whole of Scripture - in order to determine the meaning. I use a "then, always, now" method (in case you were wondering). And no, I don't just "pick and choose" - I believe a careful analysis of this blog as a whole will make that abundantly clear.

By the way, do you study Scripture at all? I don't see any references to passages that might support your points and many of your thoughts appear to be in direct contradiction of Scripture. Or do you just pick and choose secular philosophies to support your position on an issue?

The OT also shows us that God is not for one side or another, but rather for His side.

Well, His side is certainly "one side". And it never changes, because God Himself is immutable (Malachi 3:6a, Numbers 23:19 and James 1:17). And I would hope that we who follow Christ would strive to be on that "side", whatever the issue.

Furthermore, JC is a choice. God is a choice.

Jesus Christ is not a "choice" - Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or - precisely, God the Son. God Himself is not a choice. He is the source of the existence of all things (Acts 17:24-28); He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13). God is sovereign (Isaiah 14:24, 1 Tim. 6:15), omniscient (Ps. 139:1-6, Rom. 11:33-36), omnipotent (Jer. 32:17, Eph. 1:19-21), omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-12, Heb. 4:13), eternal (Ps. 90:2, John 8:57-58) and immutable (Heb. 13:8 in addition to the verses referenced earlier). He is also holy (1 Sam. 2:2, Rev. 4:8, John 6:68-69), just (Ps. 97:2, Job 34:12, Rev. 19:11-13), loving (1 John 4:8, Romans 5:8), faithful (Ps. 89:2, 2 Tim. 2:13), jealous (Ex. 34:14, James 4:4-5), and patient (Ex. 34:6, 2 Pet. 3:9). But He is most assuredly not a choice. This is an example of why I question whether you study your Bible at all.

He gives us the choice to love Him, serve Him, worship Him. If we don't, as individuals, then we will reap what we sow.

Perhaps you meant to say "following Jesus Christ is a choice. Following God is a choice." I'll concede this: we are certainly presented with the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ in

How we respond to that truth determines everything else.

Scripture - it's how we respond to that truth that determines everything else in our lives... and after them, as well. Of course, the Biblical concept of sowing & reaping goes a lot further than what you suggest here, but that's a topic for another blog.

When did JC ever push a "law of man" over that of others?

I'm not sure what you mean here. What "law of man" are you referring to? Would laws against abortion be considered "laws of man"? What about laws against murder? Rape? Laws, as enacted by civil society, are part of how God governs the earth (Romans 13:1-17), so long as they are moral and just laws.

The fact is anyone, whether they are a believer or not, can twist and manipulate the Word of God like it is an answer book but it is plainly not. It was never meant to be used like a hammer to hit in nails.

Certainly. I've seen people bend and twist Scripture in order to justify all sorts of immoral conduct. Are you suggesting that's what I'm doing here? If so, I would advise you to make your allegation more clear - and then indicate how I've misinterpreted or misapplied Scripture.

If you're going to accuse me, do so clearly and with evidence.

If you're going to accuse me, do so clearly and with evidence. Alternatively, you can cease using vague implications against me. Choose wisely.

However, you've overstated your case in making this point. Scripture is not an "instruction manual" or "answer book", but it does have both instructions and answers. The propositional content in Scripture is vital - without it, we simply have a narrative that we can only observe and not enter into. We are given plenty of instructions... and plenty of answers.

It is a story, a never ending story of God's love for us and His people.

Never-ending?? Are you implying that the Word of God is still being written? On what basis do you make this nonsensical claim? (Yet another reason I have a hard time believing you actually study the Bible.) Scripture is complete. Don't misunderstand me - not everything that Scripture tells us has been completed; that will occur in His time. But Scripture is self-contained, and it is not a "never-ending story".

If God so loved us that He would sacrifice His son so that we might have life, can't we love our neighbor enough to give them the same choice...

This is utterly insane. Are you trying to draw an analogy between God sacrificing the Son and our neighbor "sacrificing" their unborn child?!?

Talk about 'twisting and manipulating passages of Scripture'!

I can't even comprehend the thinking that goes on here, if that's your point. Talk about "twisting and manipulating" passages of Scripture - you've toyed with John 3:16 like it was Gumby!

With all that said: I love my unborn neighbor enough to give them a choice to follow Jesus Christ.

and then, right or wrong, continue to love them b/c that is what JC calls us to...

Let me make something very clear. I've never suggested, implied, stated or claimed that Scripture tells us that we are not to love our neighbor.

My unborn neighbor is just as much my neighbor as the mother of that unborn child.

The commandment to love is clear (Matt. 5:43-48, Mark 12:29-31) and unavoidable. I will continue to love my neighbor even when they sin because that is what I am called to do. However, this does not mean that I sit quietly on the sidelines - after all, my unborn neighbor is just as much my neighbor as the mother of that unborn child. I am called to love both; and sometimes love means saying the truth, even if someone doesn't want to hear it.

that is what made JC so revolutionary/counter culture.

No. What made Jesus Christ unique (or "revolutionary", as you put it) was that He was God in human form. Utterly unique, once in all of time, God-made-man come to earth to pay the penalty for our sins. His command to love was not 'revolutionary' except in the sense that most people never followed the law in the first place. But even as far back as Leviticus 19:18, God had commanded His people to "love your neighbor as yourself."

PS See Boaz and his actions in Ruth.

I have. In fact, I just did (it's a short read) and I fail to see the significance of that in relation to the issue of abortion. Can you enlighten us?

==========================

Wow, that was longer than I thought. Which is a problem, given that the other comment will require even more response. Tell you what... I'm going to post this one on its own for now, so you all have something interesting to read about while I prepare a response to the other comment.

An open challenge

2008-11-03T12:19:00.000-08:00

I've got a very short and simple post for you today - it's an open challenge to any of you who consider yourselves to be Christian and pro-life, but are supporting (or leaning towards) Barack Obama for President.

The challenge is simple: using Scripture - or, at the very least, a Biblical worldview - tell me how a vote for Obama is justified, given the evidence that I reviewed in two previous blog entries.

Remember, this challenge is for those who consider themselves Christians and pro-life. If you have somehow managed to distort Biblical Christianity so far that you consider yourself pro-abortion - or, as I'm sure you'd prefer me to call it, pro-choice {cough} - then this challenge isn't for you...

Keep in mind that the ground rules here mean that you will be treated with respect - both by me and anyone in the comment thread. If you still feel that you'll catch too much flak, then post anonymously - I've turned off the login requirement for now, just for this purpose.

Now... get to it.

New blog features

2008-11-02T20:56:00.001-08:00

It might not be as exciting as new content - and, after all, that's what this blog should be about - but I added a few new elements to the blog today.

You'll notice a row of buttons across the top - between the header and the first post on the page. Don't ask how I managed to get these buttons here in a blogger template... that was a bit more challenging than I expected! These buttons are fairly self-explanatory, but will take you to pages that tell you about the background and purpose of this blog, a little about myself, and the ground rules for participating in the dialog here.

I'll eventually add some more links in this section - creating a resources page, for example, along with a page that will lead you to articles that I'll be writing in the future. In the meantime, take a few minutes to explore these three links and you can look forward to new (substantive) content tomorrow morning!

Sincerity only counts with the Great Pumpkin

2008-11-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

One of the annual fall traditions in our home is watching "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" together on October 31. There's something sadly reassuring about watching poor Charlie have the ball pulled out just as he's about to kick it... and if he ever got anything other than rocks in his bag, I'd wonder where the world went wrong. Not that good ol' Charles deserves to have a jack-o'-lantern face drawn on the back of his bald little head - it's just that I find a little schadenfreude in the experience. Isn't that why we watch?

But last night, I watched it with a different mindset. You see, I've had some recent run-ins with people who are truly sincere in their beliefs - but just as truly incorrect in those beliefs. So when I watched the following dialog play out, my mind started working:

Linus: He'll come here because I have the most sincere pumpkin patch and he respects sincerity.
Sally: Do you really think he will come?
Linus: Tonight, the Great Pumpkin will rise out of the pumpkin patch. He flies through the air and brings toys to all the children of the world!
Sally: That's a good story.
Linus: You don't believe the story of the Great Pumpkin?

Or, even better:

Linus: The Great Pumpkin always picks the most sincere pumpkin patch to rise out of. He's just gotta pick this pumpkin patch. He's just gotta! Look around - you can see that there's not a sign of hypocrisy anywhere. Nothing but sincerity reaching out as far as the eye can see.

How often have you heard the argument - either directly stated or indirectly implied - that God cares more about the sincerity of our beliefs, rather than the accuracy of our beliefs? It's as though we picture God as the ideal (but totally non-existent) school teacher - the one who grades on apparent effort. "Johnny, I know you can't read and you're still convinced that 2+2=5, but you've tried so hard that I'm giving you an 'A' anyway!"

Even then, it's not as though these folks make any apparent effort to please God - they want the teacher to give them an 'A' because that's the grade they want, it's "fair"... and besides, aren't they nicer than the kid in the back row?

Sincerity isn't an indication of accuracy; it's an indication of the level to which someone is convinced - or has convinced themselves. There's nothing inherently correct - or incorrect, for that matter - about sincerity. What really matters is whether what we believe so sincerely happens to be true.

Speaking Quickly

2008-10-31T09:32:00.000-07:00

It's possible that I've scared off a few readers with my long, sometimes even multi-part, posts. To them (and to the rest of us), I offer bite-sized nuggets of interesting stories in a new - and regularly-appearing - feature of the Speaking Boldly blog, entitled Speaking Quickly.

At least once a week, I'll post links to articles, news stories or other happenings, along with my short take on the matter. Today, it's five pieces of golden-brown, deep-fried nuggets of interest. Feel free to jump in and comment!

==============================================

Happy Reformation Day!
Challies has a great post on Reformation Day
As do the Pyromaniacs

Even though I grew up in a Protestant denomination, I never even knew about Reformation Day until much later in life. (Maybe it's because I grew up in an Arminian denomination that wasn't too fond of Luther - who knows?) Today, instead of honoring the "tradition" of dressing oddly and begging for candy, let's remember the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg... reminding us of the power of the gospel of Christ.

==============================================

Father Peter Dresser, please turn in your clerical collar.

You've probably not heard about this, because it's happening about as far away as possible - in Brisbane, Australia - but it's sadly not a surprise. A Catholic priest has released a book in which he insists that Jesus was not God, and that Jesus didn't ever claim to be God. (Apparently, John 14:5-14 isn't in Father Dresser's copy of the Bible.) The priest, who prefers to be known as Peter (I prefer to call him an entirely different set of names), says:

"This whole matter regarding Jesus being God... not only does violence to my own intelligence, but must be a sticking point for millions of people trying to make some kind of sense of the Christian religion. No human being can ever be God and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that."

He also claims that Mary was not an actual virgin, Joseph was the father of Jesus, and the bodily resurrection of Christ is not to be taken literally. (Hmm. Apparently, 1 Cor. 15:12-19 aren't in his copy of the Bible, either. He might want to buy a new one.) And somehow, despite his claims, he is actually "dismayed that this has caused controversy", claiming that his comments have been "taken out of context". Big surprise.

==============================================

In my previous posts related to politics (Proposition 8 here in California, as well as the abortion issue as it relates to the Presidential election), I'd neglected to mention Proposition 4.

This one should be a clear no-brainer. Prop 4 would require a doctor to notify at least one adult family member before performing an abortion on a girl under the age of 18. There are safeguards in place in case of abuse or incest, as well as medical emergencies - so even "pro-choice" people can honestly support this. The fact is that a teenage girl can't get a tan at a salon, or an aspirin from the school nurse without parental knowledge and consent. This simply requires knowledge and is a way to protect teenage girls from abuse by older boyfriends or even predators.

==============================================

In other political news, USA Today released an article clearly reinforcing the point I made in my blog on Tuesday.

From the article:

Only a bare five-justice majority appears ready to reaffirm [Roe v. Wade]. That is a change from national election cycles in the last decade-and-a-half when at least six justices, including now-retired Sandra Day O'Connor, supported abortion rights. A single court appointee could decide whether abortion laws become more restrictive or more permissive and whether Roe v. Wade remains the law.

This is why it is absolutely vital for those who consider themselves pro-life to vote for the candidate who has clearly stated and proved his pro-life record and has confirmed his intention to appoint Justices to SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution strictly and accurately.

Even the pro-abortion crowd gets it: "They see it with John McCain, who has been far more specific about the overturning of Roe than George Bush was," says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL.

On another note, I saw a bumper sticker recently that we've all seen before: "Against abortion? Don't have one." Oooh. So pithy. Soundbite-ish, even. But I wonder what those same people would think about a bumper sticker like this: "Against slavery? Then don't own one." Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

==============================================

And finally, in the category of "big surprises" comes this nugget of Obama goodness.

Three major newspapers - The Washington Times, the New York Post, and The Dallas Morning News - that have covered Barack Obama since the start of his campaign have been removed from Obama's campaign plane for the final few days of the race.

What's the common thread? What possible thing could these journalists have done to offend the "post-political, post-racial" Obama? Why would any of the mainstream media be denied the opportunity to help anoint our next president? Simple - all three newspapers have recently endorsed John McCain for President.

And they've been removed for reporters from two black magazines, Essence and Jet.

Well. Knock me over with a wealth-spreading feather.

Crash course on the President, SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade

2008-10-28T21:12:00.001-07:00

Last night, I promised that I'd blog on the role of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court when it comes to the issue of abortion. It seems that there's a great deal of confusion when it comes to exactly how we, as Christian voters can help stop the national bloody disgrace that is abortion.

Recently, on another blog or comment thread somewhere, I read the following (this is a paraphrase):

"President Bush, the most conservative Republican President we've had, and the majority Republican Senate didn't overturn abortion in the 8 years he's been in office."

Before I discuss the role that each of the branches of government plays in the abortion debacle, I need to point out a couple of factual issues with this statement:

If anyone thinks President Bush is "the most conservative" president we've had, I would honestly suggest picking up - and reading - a history book. As much as I respect George W. Bush, I would hardly call him "conservative". Even "moderate" may be too kind a term, as he has created more programs with more spending than any Republican President in my lifetime. Let me point you to the great Ronaldus Magnus - a.k.a., Ronald Reagan - if you want a real conservative.
In the eight years (four terms of Congress) that President Bush has been in office, the Republicans have only had a functional majority in the Senate for two years. For the first two years, it was a 50-50 split. From '03 to '05, it was 51-49 - a technical majority, but not an effective one. Only from '05 to '07 when the GOP had a 55-45 majority could you say the Republicans had any semblance of "control" - but, as you will see later in this blog, even this number is not sufficient for the task. Finally, since January of '07, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress.

The main error in the comment above, however, is the unspoken assumption that a President - particularly if he has his own party in the majority - can 'overturn abortion'.

The main error is the unspoken assumption that a President can 'overturn' abortion.

This seems to be a very common misconception - one that I intend to dispel for you here.

The infamous Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in 1973 found that abortion is a "fundamental right" and that, as such, any state law restricting access to abortion be held to "strict scrutiny". It also arbitrarily determined what restrictions could be placed on abortions, based on the trimester of the pregnancy.

Since Roe v. Wade, nearly 50 million unborn children have been killed in this country.

(Wait... if you are even considering voting for Barack Obama, please re-read the last sentence. Twice.)

Because it's a Supreme Court decision based on the United States Constitution, there are only two possible ways for Roe v. Wade to be overturned:

Amend the Constitution so that unborn children receive the same rights and protections as those of us fortunate enough to have been born, OR
SCOTUS can recognize that they were wrong in 1973 and reverse their decision.

That's it - there are no other means of changing course. The first of these two options is about as unlikely as anything you can possibly imagine. First, two-thirds of both the House and the Senate would have to propose the amendment - we can't get two-thirds of Congress to agree on what color the sky is! Even if it did get out of Congress, legislatures in 38 out of 50 states would have to sign on - most of them with two-thirds majorities as well.

As to the second option... while the President cannot directly "overturn" abortion any more than you or I could, the President can do the one thing that no one else can in shaping the future of this debate: appoint Supreme Court Justices. As justices retire or pass away, they are replaced by nominations made by the current President. (Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.) To his credit, one of George W. Bush's greatest accomplishments as President was the appointment of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

With Roberts and Alito joining Antonin Scalia (appointed by Ronald Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (appointed by the elder President Bush) on the bench, we are only one Justice away from true justice - a majority that would

We are only one Justice away from true justice.

overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity.

By next spring, John Paul Stevens will be 89 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 76 - if either (or both) of them retire, the next President will appoint their replacements. This is not the time to abandon the cause. If you consider yourself pro-life, you simply must vote for the Presidential candidate who has a proven pro-life track record and has promised to nominate Justices who are 'strict constructionists'; i.e., who will overturn Roe v. Wade. To do otherwise

To do otherwise will irreparably harm pro-life progress.

will irreparably harm the progress that the pro-life movement has made since 1973.

----------------------------

Speaking of the progress that the pro-life movement has made, let's take a look at some facts. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the last 14 years and the total number of abortions per year has declined by 21% since 1990. (These numbers come from the Alan Guttmacher Institute - a pro-abortion organization. This isn't some fringe group I'm citing here.)

Why the decline? Pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 80s and at the state level in the 90s have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. Let's take a look:

In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws. By 2000, 27 states had such laws in effect.
In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion. By 2000, 12 states had bans or restrictions in effect.
In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes. By 2000, 32 other states were enforcing these laws.

(To answer your question: these numbers come from a publication called "Who Decides" put out by NARAL - a virulently pro-abortion group.)

These laws have all had a direct impact on the number of abortions in this country. Abortion data from both the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and the officially-neutral Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that informed consent laws reduce the incidence of abortion. There are many studies, including one in The New England Journal of Medicine, that demonstrates that pro-life parental involvement laws reduce the in-state abortion rate for minors anywhere from 13 to 19 percent. While the overall abortion rate dropped by 14 percent between 1992 and 2000, the states that were enacting pro-life legislation during the 90s experienced a larger drop than the average.

Mississippi: enacted an informed consent law, the most protective parental involvement law in the country, a partial-birth abortion ban and a "conscience clause" allowing medical professionals to opt out of taking part in an abortion. Results: a 52% decline in abortions.
South Carolina: passed a partial-birth abortion ban, a parental consent law, and an informed consent law. Results: 34% decline in abortions.
Pennsylvania: passed the laws that were challenged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which, though it did not overturn Roe v. Wade, significantly weakened it). Result: 24% decline in abortions.
Michigan: enacted a partial-birth abortion ban, an informed consent law, parental consent law and a ban on public funding. Results: 21% reduction in abortions.

We ARE making progress - but to elect Obama is to throw all of it away. I'll talk more about Obama's record on this issue - as well as what the "Freedom of Choice Act" that he's promised to enact would do - in tomorrow's blog.

Don't call me a single-issue voter...

2008-10-27T18:03:00.001-07:00

But at the same time, make no mistake that the most important issue facing us this election - and one that is receiving little, if any, discussion - is that most polarizing of issues: abortion.

(I fully realize that I will likely offend some people with the following blog. If you are one of those people, please keep in mind that whatever 'offense' you suffer is far less than that suffered by an unborn child.)

Before we take a look at the politics of the issue, let's remind ourselves what Scripture has to say about the issue. Please - don't just glance over this, thinking you already know it.

Let's remind ourselves what Scripture has to say about the issue.

Take your time and remember that these are God's word to us:

Job 31:15 reminds us that "he who made me in the womb" also made others in the same fashion.
In Ps. 22:9-10, the psalmist acknowledges that "from my mother's womb you have been my God."
God tells us through the prophet that "I have upheld [you] since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth" in Isaiah 46:3-4, NIV
And David praises God in Psalm 139:13-16, acknowledging that "you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.... [I was] intricately woven...."

Now that we are reminded that God knows us from conception and that He is our God from the time we are in the womb, let's give

Let's give ourselves a brief reminder of God's justice.

ourselves a brief reminder of God's justice:

The Psalmist reminds us that God calls on us to "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed." (Psalm 82:3-4) (I'd say that pre-born children are "oppressed" if they're killed because they're inconvenient... just my thought on the matter.)
Solomon gives us wisdom when he tells us to "Rescue those being led away to death." He also reminds us of the price we will pay if we don't: "If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this', does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Prov. 24:11-12)
Ezekiel gives us something frankly terrifying to ponder when he tells us that God "will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)
Leviticus 20:1-5 is just one of many examples throughout the Old Testament regarding the sacrifice of children to Molech. Even a cursory review of the passages related to Molech seem to indicate that this particular idolatry is even worse than all the other types.

Just as on other matters, every believer should take what the Scriptures say about this seriously. Is a pre-born child "innocent blood"? (See Prov. 6:16-19 and 2 Kings 24:2-4.) If you claim to be pro-life, your answer must be "yes". Is abortion, therefore, the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of a human life created in the image of God? Again, if you say you are pro-life, then your answer has to be "yes".
Still, I've heard Christians - dedicated, genuine believers - question whether we should vote for or against a presidential candidate based solely on their position on the issue of abortion. "After all," they say, "there are so many other important issues." And I agree: there are other, very significant issues. But the Biblical clarity on this issue means that we, as those who belong to Christ, must consider this a primary concern when making our decision next week.

A single issue cannot make a president, but it can certainly break him.

A single issue cannot make a president, but it can certainly break him - and today that means that Barack Obama should not receive the vote of a single pro-life Christian on the basis of this issue alone.

"But don't you care about the poor? Or racial equality?" Of course I do - and if John McCain were advocating the killing of the poor or racial minorities, I'd be using this blog to tear him down, too.

Look, there were "other issues" in the presidential election of 1860, but Douglas wanted slavery to remain legal and Lincoln did not. Were the 'other issues' important? Certainly - but none as important as slavery. Were there 'other issues' in Nazi Germany besides the systematic slaughter of Jews and other "undesirables"? I imagine there were -

Were there 'other issues' in Nazi Germany besides the systematic slaughter of Jews?

but don't you think that any other issues were trumped by this one?

So yes, there are "other issues" in this election. But even if you added up all the differences between McCain and Obama on the issues and piled them all up together, they wouldn't compare to the legalized and systematic murder of pre-born human beings created in the image of a holy God.

Randy Alcorn puts it this way:

"But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?

If neither candidate were committed to the legalized killing of people, any people, then I would say, by all means weigh and measure those other important issues and make your choice. But can you seriously argue that these other issues trump the killing of millions of innocent children, not just now, but in the decades to come under a proabortion Supreme Court that could have been a prolife Supreme Court?"

I've talked to a few Christians who claim to be pro-life but are supporting Obama and they say that Obama's not "pro-abortion", just "pro-choice". This is not only simply untrue (as we'll get to shortly), but it's a distinction without a difference. Let's accurately change the word (now that we understand the pre-born child to be alive) and then follow the argument...

What if a politician said, "I'm not pro-abortionmurder, I'm just pro-choice regarding abortionmurder. While I would never choose to abortmurder, I believe that everyone should be free to abortmurder if that is his or her personal choice." Then, what if that politician promised to sign legislation that would immediately invalidate all state laws regarding abortionmurder?

"Wait!", I hear you say. "Are you saying that Obama has promised to sign legislation that would immediately invalidate state laws restricting abortions?" That is precisely what I'm saying. Over the past 15 years - since the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey - states have been able to pass laws that have restricted (though, sadly, not eliminated) access to abortions. Parental notification laws for minors, 24-hour waiting periods, presentation of other choices like adoption, and prohibitions on partial-birth abortions have all helped reduce the number of abortions over 20% since 1990. But you can toss ALL that gain that pro-lifers have acheived out the window if Barack Obama is elected next week. Why? Because Obama has promised to sign the innocently-named "Freedom of Choice Act" or FOCA.

If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself - in Obama's own words:

If you really want to vote for Obama, don't let me stop you. But don't you dare claim the mantle of "Christian" and "pro-life" and then flatly contradict both those claims by saying you support a candidate who is completely committed to not only maintaining the status quo on the abortion issue, but has promised to reverse all pro-life state laws passed in the last thirty years.

Don't you dare claim the mantle of "Christian" and "pro-life" and then flatly contradict both those claims by supporting Obama.

Just admit you're pro-choice, tell me the Bible isn't pro-life, and be done with it.

Tomorrow, I'll re-visit the issue by discussing some of the legal concepts surrounding this issue and the misunderstandings that many people have regarding the role of the President, the Supreme Court and the Congress on the issue of abortion.

I thought I could avoid politics, but...

2008-10-26T17:06:00.000-07:00

I just can't.

I tried, really I did.

But this is one of those times when the conflict between God's truth and our culture's worldview directly enters the political arena. While I'll do my best to stay away from partisan politics, I can't avoid politics altogether if I'm going to remain faithful to the mission of this blog.

Eight years ago, Californians passed Proposition 22 which legally defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Surprisingly to many, it passed with more than 61% of the vote - this in a traditionally "blue" state that voted for Al Gore 54-41 over George W. Bush in the same year.

Proposition 22 passed with more than 61% of the vote.

Even if every single person who voted for Bush supported Prop 22, more than 37% of Gore's supporters would have had to support it as well in order to achieve such a strong and clear majority.

But that's not the end of the story. Oh, no. After a series of events - including San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsome issuing marriage licenses in direct violation of state law - the matter found its way to the California Supreme Court. By the narrowest of margins, earlier this year the state's highest court determined that Proposition 22's definition of marriage was unconstitutional. That brings us to where we are today - with Proposition 8 on the ballot to amend the state's constitution to say the same thing.

It's a fairly simple concept - but one that seems to be causing a great deal of confusion as both sides ramp up their election-time rhetoric. One of the questions receiving a lot of airtime recently is whether or not same-sex marriage will or will not be taught in our public schools. Supporters of Prop 8 claim that homosexuality will be taught (that is, it will be given equal respect to traditional marriage) in our schools if Prop 8 loses and same-sex marriage remains legal.

Will same-sex marriage be taught in our public schools? Who do we believe?

At the same time, opponents of Prop 8 deny that this will take place. So - who do we believe?

The facts are clear: California Education Code section 51890 requires that, if a school offers "comprehensive health education", part of that process must include "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage. Technically, such education is "voluntary" on a district-by-district basis. But unless your particular school district has opted out entirely from teaching "comprehensive health education", your child will be taught that same-sex marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage.

We also need to consider the source of the denials of this fact.

We also need to consider the source of the denials of this fact.

Many of the groups claiming that your children will not be taught about same-sex marriages are the exact same groups who successfully demanded that it be taught in Massachusetts, regardless of the parents' wishes.

American Civil Liberties Union: "The parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override... the school with respect to the inclusion... of the age-appropriate children's book 'King and King'". (514 F.3d 87, Amicus Brief, p.9)
Human Rights Campaign: "Some children... have two mothers or fathers who are married to each other. [The school] is correct to include this information, even if [it] may make some people extremely uncomfortable." (514 F.3d 87, Amicus Brief, p.27)
National Center for Lesbian Rights: "So long as these programs do not include sexually explicit content, parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out." (LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys, NCLR.)

These three organizations alone have raised nearly 4.5 million dollars to oppose Proposition 8.

The ACLU, HRC and NCLR have raised nearly $4.5 million to oppose Proposition 8.

Are we supposed to naively assume that they won't make the same legal demands in California that they've already made in Massachusetts?

Are you willing to take that chance?

Other very serious concerns that we need to consider:

Churches can be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriages if their religious buildings are considered "open to the public".
Ministers who preach against same-sex marriage could be sued for "hate speech". A recent 9th-circuit court decision held that a city employee who used the words "marriage", "natural family", and "family values" could be terminated on the grounds that such language constitutes "hate speech". So there is precedent.
Religious agencies that assist in adoptions will no longer have the right to place children in homes with one mother and one father.
Private religious colleges that offer on-campus housing for married couples will have to allow same-sex couples into that housing, or lose federal loan and grant monies.
Lawsuits, lawsuits and more lawsuits. Doctors who don't want to artificially inseminate a same-sex couple... photographers who don't want to photograph a same-sex wedding...

And this is all before I get to the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality.

One final thing: our state Attorney General (and former governor) Jerry Brown made his position on the issue clear when he changed the official ballot language on Proposition 22 from:

"Limit on Marriage: Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

to...

"Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative: Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage beween a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

This from our state's Attorney General who, by law, was supposed to defend the statute created by Proposition 22. Instead, allowing his personal beliefs to trump his professional responsibility, he put up no real argument against the lawsuits that resulted in the overturning of Proposition 22. Am I surprised? No.

That's it for today, folks. I know this was a bit of a change from my usual posts which are heavy in references to the Bible, but I figured it was important enough to get the information out there.

One thing - if you're reading this, and are truly a Bible-believing Christian, but find yourself either opposed to Proposition 8 or still undecided, please respond and tell us why...

You're not a theologian. Or are you?

2008-10-25T21:22:00.000-07:00

Theology: "the field of study relating to God and God's attributes; study of divine things or religious truth", from the Greek theos, "god" and logos, "treatment or study of".

Whether you're conscious of it or not, you have a theology. Everyone does. Even my dog has a theology; he thinks I'm God. (In the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually have a dog - I was just making a point.)

You think about God. You think He exists. Or you think that He doesn't. You think that He's a big cosmic Santa Claus waiting to give presents to the good little girls and boys. Or flaming lumps of coal to the bad ones.

God's a kindly grandfather who only wants us all to be happy.

(An aside: isn't it interesting that those who think of God in this way always think they're good enough?) Or maybe you think that God's a kindly grandfather who only wants us all to be happy. The point is, though, that you do. think. about God.

Given this, would it not be beneficial to make sure we think correctly about God?

Consider: if I asked you to tell me what you know of me, what would you say? On what would you base your opinion? If you know me personally, you'd base it on what I do and what I say. But if you live in a different place (or time), you'd have to base your thinking about me on my words in this blog. You'd think it was ludicrous to assume stuff about me that was in direct contradiction to what I say here.

You'd think it was ludicrous to assume stuff about me.

Let's consider a specific example. I'm a huge Oakland Raiders fan, and have been for nearly 30 years. (I know, I know... just feel sorry for me and go on with the example.) Now, let's fast-forward to a year from now... I've told you all about the Silver & Black, their three Super Bowls in years past and how they're going to get better in the future. A friend asks you about me and you tell him, "Sure - I know that guy. He's a big football fan... likes the Broncos and Chargers."

Huh?? Would that make any sense at all?

But this is precisely what the world does with God. They think about God what they wish to think about Him, instead of what He's actually said! They have an I-centered view of God instead of a God-centered view of God.

They think about God what they wish to think about Him.

As a result, they ignore God's word and do whatever they want - content in the belief that their "god" approves, when "the God who is there" has clearly said otherwise.

If we really want to know God, to think accurately about Him, start with what He's already said.

Cool new blog feature!

2008-10-23T23:29:00.000-07:00

If you've been visiting here since the first couple of days, you've no doubt seen a number of changes to the format of the blog. Recently, several changes have been made - the custom header, the addition of "pullquotes" (like the one to the right),

the addition of 'pullquotes' like this

and some other modifications to improve readability.

But by far the coolest feature is one that I just added a moment ago - RefTagger. This powerful little script means that now when you just mouse over a Scripture reference - like 2 Cor. 5:20-21 - you should see a window pop up on your screen displaying the first verse or two of the passage! As usual, you can click through to see longer passages or to compare with other versions, but this will make reading some of my longer and more detailed posts a bit easier to read. (By the way, if you don't see a pop-up, it's because you've probably disabled javascript in your browser - check your settings.)

Ain't technology grand when we use it to God's glory?

Pardon our dust...

2008-10-22T21:54:00.000-07:00

For the next 48 hours or so - until late Friday night, most likely - this blog will be under a little bit of 're-modeling'. I'm working on layout, visual elements, and the header - so please be patient. You will still be able to view the blog and leave comments - it's just going to look a little funny in the meantime!

Thanks for your patience!

Not lost in translation - the ESV Study Bible

2008-10-20T17:59:00.001-07:00

Trick question: do you have a good Bible? I mean, do you have a Bible that is accurate in its translation and is useful for studying and memorizing God's word?

My Bible had a sheep and a very friendly-looking Jesus on the cover!

I don't know about you, but I think I held onto my old Children's Living Bible well into high school - though I managed to use a grocery sack as a book cover to prevent my peers from being able to see that my Bible had a sheep and a very friendly-looking Jesus on the cover! Fortunately, my parents got me a Bible for high-school graduation, so I could go off to college with a 'sophisticated' new translation. But do you still have a Bible that is unreadable, or - on the other hand - tries to be too "modern" in its translation?

If you don't have a readable and reliable translation of the Bible, get one! Don't rely solely, or even primarily, on paraphrases like The Message or The Living Bible for your study, as these don't accurately translate word-for-word or even thought-for-thought. With an emphasis on readability over accuracy, these are really only useful as an additional means of insight, if at all. On the other hand, an older translation like the King James Version - while written in beautiful 16th-century English - can make it extremely difficult (unnecessarily so) to get at the meaning of particular verse or passage.

So what's a "good" translation? Personally, I prefer a word-for-word translation like the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Bible, but many of the thought-for-thought translations are commendable as well - including the ever-popular New International Version.

So what's a good translation?

(I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to encourage you to stay away from the more recent Today's NIV, as it has been thoroughly discredited by many Biblical scholars and theologians for very good reason.) Now, if you're really interested in this issue, there are a lot of resources on the internet to help you "go deep", like this comparison of Romans 8:26-39 in over 40 different translations!

Finally, if you really want to get into God's word, you might want to consider a study Bible - these have extensive notes to give you insight into history, context, etc. as well as cross-references that will help you as you study a particular issue in Scripture. I've been using the Reformation Study Bible for a year now and really like it; though I have to admit that I purchased it because it was the only Study Bible available in the ESV. Until now, that is.

The new ESV Study Bible was recently released to many glowing reviews and I wholeheartedly recommend it if you're looking to be "full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another" (Romans 15:14). Regardless of the translation that you have, be encouraged to spend more time in God's word today!

Are Christians just more gullible?

2008-10-19T21:49:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does it seem that Christians fall all over themselves the minute that someone in Hollywood or the music industry claims a belief in God - or, better yet, actually claims to be a Christian? Whether it's the po-mo fascination with Bono (I didn't intend for that to rhyme, but what a great irony), or Christians thinking that "one of their own" became an American Idol (before he came out of the closet), it appears that we are some of the most gullible people around!

I belive this comes from our sinful desire for the approval of man (Galatians 1:10) and the friendship with the world (James 4:4).

When a person of moderate fame says they "thank God", we automatically assume they're a Christian.

We so desperately want to be accepted, to be "cool"; as a result, when a person of moderate fame says they "thank God" for their golden statue or their championship trophy, we automatically assume they are a fellow brother or sister in Christ and feel "better" about our own faith.

(A quick aside: if we respond with joy because someone's confession of faith brings glory to God, that's great... I'm talking here only of the feelings of tacit worldly approval we allow ourselves to feel when we see a public figure claim faith in God or Jesus.)

Okay, before I keep going and get myself in trouble (which will likely happen eventually regardless of my efforts), let me make one thing perfectly clear - I am only able to base my opinion regarding people in the public spotlight by their words and actions. I am not in a position to judge their heart. With that said, however, a few Scriptural reminders:

"A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:18-20, emphasis mine)
"Bear fruits in keeping with repentance." (Luke 3:8a, but see 3:7-9 for more context)
"Now the works of the flesh are evident.... those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:19a, 24, but please see the whole passage of 5:19-24 really grasp this)
"[W]alk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work...." (Col. 1:10, but see 1:9-11 for more context)

Okay, so can we agree that we can at least make an educated guess as to whether or not someone belongs to Christ based on their "fruit"? Good, because...

We can at least make an educated guess as to whether or not someone belongs to Christ.

Country music star Reba McEntire is a woman who has long claimed more than just a generic belief in (an equally generic) god; she has often referred to her Christian faith in television and magazine interviews. But, on Friday, she said that she believes she's been reincarnated. I'll let her words speak for herself:

"I believe in reincarnation," she told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in advance of her Friday concert at the Mellon Arena. "I believe I've gone both ways — that I have been here before as a man."

McEntire, who has sold 55 million records and enjoyed success on the stage and big and small screens, know her beliefs may irk some of her fans.

"I will get flak from Christians who will say I can't be a Christian if I believe this. That's true, and I'm sorry, but this is how I live my life, this is what I believe," she told the paper. "I believe I have spent time with my son Shelby before. I believe I have spent time with other people in my life before."

She not only acknowledges that she'll "get flak" from Christians, she even acknowledges that we're right when we say she "can't be a Christian if [she] believe[s] this." I'll give her this much - at least she knows that her beliefs are utterly incompatible with Christianity. After all, "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27, but see 9:25-28)

Should we have "seen this coming?" Unlike so many other cases, I can honestly say "no". But it serves as a reminder that we ought not to be looking at Hollywood, Nashville, the movie screen, or the baseball diamond for "famous" people who claim to belong to Jesus Christ in order to make ourselves feel more accepted by the world. Instead, we should earnestly pray for those who make public confessions of faith - that they would "bear fruit in keeping with repentance" and "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord."

At the end of her comments, McEntire said:

"Who knows? Maybe I'm part Buddhist."

Maybe she is. But whatever the other part is, it sadly isn't Christian.

More on "opponents"...

2008-10-17T13:54:00.000-07:00

Setting aside for now the debate that's taken center-stage here for the last few days, I want to highlight another interesting comment I received on my post from last Friday.

Dan, an old friend from my college days with whom I've reconnected on facebook, read my post and sent me this in an e-mail and has kindly given me permission to post it here and discuss:

"Our opponents aren't those that don't believe on Jesus Christ. Our opponents are not of flesh and blood they are Satan and his demons. We are engaged in a spiritual battle for our souls, those of our friends and those that we don't even know. The passage you've written on is key to defeating that opponent. We must be of like mind and live worthy of the Gospel so others are attracted to that which is different in us. We do battle on their behalf by praying protection over them, by binding Satan and his followers from their lives in the power of Jesus name and by loving them regardless of whatever they may chose to do in response to Jesus. We are indeed in a battle and it's a matter of life and death."

First of all, I want to thank Dan for basing his position on Scriptural authority, since that's the common ground on which discussions or debates on this blog should be based.

Now, while I agree with the heartfelt core of Dan's comments, I think we need to take a closer look at his thoughts and compare them with what Scripture actually says.

Our opponents aren't those that don't believe on Jesus Christ. Our opponents are not of flesh and blood they are Satan and his demons.

I would willingly agree that our primary foes are the enemy and his minions. Satan "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). But let's take a closer look at the passage that Dan's indirectly referencing here when he describes our opponents as "not of flesh and blood."

Ephesians 6:10-20 describes our putting on the armor of God, and acknowledges that our biggest struggle is against "the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." This recognition, however, is in the context of the previous two chapters in which Paul was instructing the church in Ephesus how to live as Christians. See especially Ephesians 4:1-17, 17-32, 5:1-33 and 6:1-9. It is in our struggles to be obedient, in our fight against the sinful nature of our flesh, in the daily attempts to "no longer walk as the Gentiles do" and to "put off our old self" (Eph. 4:17-24)... it is in these struggles that we "do not struggle against flesh and blood."

It is in these struggles that we 'do not struggle against flesh and blood.'

This verse doesn't mean that we do not have any opponents who are made of flesh and blood. If that were so, we'd be faced with deciding on which of two occasions Paul was in error - his letter to the Ephesians or his letter to the Philippians.

Fortunately, we are not left with such a dilemma. The word that is translated "opponent" in Philippians 1:28 is the word antikeimai and is used in several other NT passages:

Luke 13:17 - Jesus has just healed a crippled woman (on the Sabbath, as was often His wont), and the synagogue rulers were giving Him grief for it (as was often their wont). He put the verbal smack down on them, and "all his opponents were humiliated".
Luke 21:15 - Jesus is telling His followers about the end of days and the persecution that His followers will endure. He tells us not to worry about what to say, because He will "give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict."
1 Corinthians 16:9 - Paul is telling the Corinthian church of his plans to visit them, after he stays at Ephesus until Pentecost "because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me."
1 Timothy 1:8-11 - Here, Paul is talking about the usefulness of the law and how it is "laid down... for the lawless and disobedient." He then provides a list of sinful behaviors that are "contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel" that Paul preached.

The word is also used to describe the adversarial nature of the relationship between the spirit and the flesh (Galatians 5:17), and what the "man of lawlessness" will do (2 Thess. 2:3-4). Finally, it is used of the ultimate enemy (1 Timothy 5:14-15).

In the two instances where Jesus used antikeimai, He was describing "flesh and blood" opponents. In two of the instances where Paul uses this term - in 1 Corinthians 16:9 and in Philippians 1:28 - he is also referring to "flesh and blood" opponents. The biggest logical nail in this coffin-shaped fallacy is the fact that Jesus commanded us to "love our enemies" (Matthew 5:43-45, Luke 6:27-31) Such a command logically presupposes the existence of said enemies! Now Jesus uses a different word here (echthros), one that adds a level of hostility even beyond that of just an opponent (antikeimai), but it clearly includes the concept of opposition. Now, if our only enemies were Satan and his demons, and not fellow "flesh and blood" humans, I suspect we would not be commanded to love them.

Clearly, one would have to ignore many, many passages in the New Testament to reach the conclusion that our only opponents are Satan and his demons. Such a position is simply not supported by the whole of Scripture. However, with that said, let me return to my initial point on this - the enemy is our primary enemy and we can never forget that he is the motivating power behind any opposition that we face in "flesh and blood" - see Ephesians 2:1-3 where we are reminded that Satan is "now at work in the sons of disobedience."

We are engaged in a spiritual battle for our souls, those of our friends and those that we don't even know.

Amen, brother! And that battle will be fought most effectively by sharing the gospel with our friends and those that we don't even know - for God has "entrust[ed] to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us" (2 Corinthians 5:18-21, for context).

The passage you've written on is key to defeating that opponent. We must be of like mind and live worthy of the Gospel...

Absolutely!

so others are attracted to that which is different in us

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Back the missiological truck up, will you? I presume you're referring to 1 Peter 2:12 where the pagans "will see [our] good deeds and glorify God". It would seem that you're merging this with 1 Peter 3:14-17 where we are told to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks [us] for the reason of the hope that is in" us, and the result is a "strategy" of passive lifestyle evangelism by itself. While our conduct is certainly important - we are commanded to live holy lives among the pagans - it does not replace the necessity, the urgency with which we have been instructed to proclaim the gospel.

Let me take a quick look at the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) for a moment... let's see, Jesus says "we are to be good people and that some of the people in the world might be attracted to Him in us as a result. If they are, great... if not, oh well." Oh wait a second... that's not the Bible I'm reading... that's the church's post-evangelical, post-modern approach to the Great Commission. But Jesus' words are far more clear - and they are definitely active, not passive: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

These are not passive tasks that He has commanded us to undertake.

These are not passive tasks that He has commanded us to undertake.

Even in the passage I initially blogged on (Philippians 1:27-28), the result of being of like mind and living worthy of the gospel is to be "striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." This is not merely passive, but a shared struggle (sunathleo).

Finally (on this point at least), such an approach ignores the references in Scripture to the gospel being a stumbling block and a folly (1 Cor. 1:23) and the cross being an offense (Gal. 5:11). To many, we "are a fragrance from death to death" (2 Cor. 2:15-17). Since the Bible makes it clear that we, as Christians are not attractive to the world, we cannot simply live holy lives and wait for the pagans to "be attracted". While we should certainly strive to live in a Christ-like manner, to rely on this as our sole method of evangelism is simply not obedient to the whole of Scripture.

We do battle on their behalf by praying protection over them

This certainly sounds good... but I can't find any Scriptural support for this as it relates to our non-Christian friends. Can you help point me in the right direction? (Seriously - I'm not being sarcastic here; I'd love to find something along these lines.)

by binding Satan and his followers from their lives in the power of Jesus name

I presume you're referring to Matthew 16:17-19, where Jesus gives Peter authority regarding "binding and loosing"? This same concept of binding and loosing also appears in Matthew 18:15-20, where it is clear on its face that the concept is in the narrower context of church discipline. After studying this passage and reviewing a few commentaries, it seems clear that this passage, too, is referring to the authority that Peter is being given in his role as the leader of the fledgling church. (See this insightful IVP commentary.) It's difficult, and perhaps not appropriate, to build a key element of your evangelistic strategy around one verse that is not clearly applicable to the context of evangelism.

and by loving them regardless of whatever they may chose to do in response to Jesus

Well, of course. Hopefully, no one would argue otherwise, since we are commanded to love. However, I would argue that we best show that love by reminding them of the gospel and not giving up. We do it gently and with respect (1 Peter 3:15), but we do it nonetheless.

We are indeed in a battle and it's a matter of life and death

If I'm in a battle, and I have a chance to persuade my opponent that they're on the wrong side, I'm going to take it. It is irresponsible to do less.

Dan, thanks again for your comment. While it may seem that I've done nothing but tear it apart, I want you to know I honestly respect and appreciate the godly heart that lies underneath. You clearly care a great deal - as we all should - for the lost (those we know and those we don't know) among whom we live and work. You're 100% right when you remind us that we're in a battle for the eternal souls of all men, but it is precisely because of the importance of this battle that we cannot afford to ignore the orders of our Commanding Officer when He tells us how to fight this battle.

More housekeeping...

2008-10-16T13:46:00.000-07:00

It's come to my attention that I might have a few readers who are relatively new to the world of the blogosphere. So, for these folks - and maybe a few others - I'd like to provide a few tips...

First, blogs are different than most websites in that the most recent content is always at the top of the page. This means that if you start reading at the top, you'll be working your way backwards, chronologically speaking, as you read down the page. It can get a bit confusing if you jump into the middle of a series of articles (like my recent discussion regarding my October 10 post), but I'll often remember to include links to earlier, relevant, blog entries.

Here's an interesting article written for you blog-reading rookies out there; it's helpful in learning the 'vocabulary' as well.

One of the things that makes a blog interesting is the conversations that it starts. Please, please feel free to comment on any of the blog posts. "But how do I do that?", I hear you ask. At the bottom of every one of my posts will be a line that says "Posted by TruthMatters at [time]. 0 comments." Just click where it says "comments" and you'll be halfway there!

What's the other half? You'll need to have some sort of online ID in order to leave a comment, as I don't allow completely anonymous comments. The following logins are supported, so if you already have one, you're in. Otherwise, click on one of the links below to get set up for free.

Google or Blogger (I recommend a Google ID because it's easy and you get a great e-mail account as well.)
OpenID
LiveJournal
WordPress
TypePad
AIM (AOL Instant Messenger)

If you want to make it really easy to keep up with this blog, then subscribe to it. Just click on one of the subscription links at the top of the right-hand column - this activates a pull-down menu that will enable you to utilize this blog's RSS feed with any of the listed sites.

Add to Google will give you the option of including it on your Google home page or the very cool and useful Google Reader. (Another good reason to have a Google ID!)
Bloglines
netvibes
newsgator
My Yahoo! will add it to your Yahoo! homepage, assuming you have one set up for your account.
Or you can access the RSS feed directly with Atom. (Some e-mail applications can read this directly, though Outlook will need a third-party plugin.)

Then again, you could just come back every day... :)

Finally, all the links that are in my posts are set to open in a new window (or tab, if you're using tab-enabled browsers). This means you'll be able to follow the link without losing where you are in my blog! I want my readers to take advantage of this - especially since most of the links are to the text of whatever Scripture I happen to be quoting or referencing.

Well, that just about does it for the housekeeping issues today. Keep checking back for new content, and for an entirely new graphic look very soon!

We like Jesus, just not the Jesus in the Bible.

2008-10-15T08:34:00.000-07:00

Over the last couple of days, I've posted the first and second parts of a lengthy reply to a comment thread originally started on October 10. If you're just joining us, take a moment to acquaint yourselves with the conversation by reading:

Once you've read all that, you'll be up to speed to finish the conversation with us.

=========================

"And my analogy is fine. I don't understand your reasoning on why it's false whatsoever."

Again, begging the question (see above). Just because you don't understand the three significant flaws in your analogy doesn't make it any less false. I don't understand how the stock market works, but that doesn't make the recent economic woes any less true. Please feel free to address each individual element of my attack on your analogy - I'd like to see how you deal with the reasoning I presented.

"And I never said Jesus doesn’t judge. But God is the only judge that counts."

Okay, now I'm really confused. Are you trying to say that Jesus and God aren't one? I don't have time or space to get side-tracked into a conversation about the eternal triune nature of God, so I assume that I've misunderstood you here. But yes, He is certainly the only judge whose opinion matters... and it matters more than you might know.

"'Non-judgmental peace' is exactly that. People flocked to Jesus because they felt His peace."

This proves once again that your admission was well-founded; you admit that you know very little Scripture, and then you prove it again. The Bible repeatedly shows that people "flocked" to Jesus for three primary reasons. One - they thought He could heal them (which He often did, but not always) or do something else (physical or material) for them. Two - they thought He was a political Messiah who would overthrow the Roman government and restore the literal throne of David. Three - they were His opponents and sought to trick Him in various scenarios related to Jewish law. The twelve people who genuinely "flocked" to Him were called by Him... and even they didn't always "feel His peace", as He often rebuked them.

"People don’t feel peace from Christianity anymore."

That's because they're not looking to the real Christ - they're looking to their made-up, edited-for-television, altered, re-imagined, kinder-gentler, stuffed-teddy-bear Jesus who has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. Remember, there is no peace for those who reject Christ's offer of salvation. You can't have the "nice" Jesus while still remaining unrepentant in your sin. And that is why so many people in our culture don't "feel peace."

"Look at how the Christian church treats homosexuality. The Bible says all sins are equal, but then the church treats being gay like it’s such a greater sin than the sins we do every day."

(Side note: Where, precisely, does the Bible say "all sins are equal"? All sins result in the same thing - separation from God, condemnation and punishment outside of Christ - but Scripture frequently indicates that all sins are not equal.)

Back to the main point - first, I will not allow myself to get too sidetracked on this issue. However, you're simply wrong in your analysis of the church's response to homosexuality. The church certainly understands that all sin is sin, and that we are separated from God as a result. The problem with the gay community is that they want to remain unrepentant in their sin... they want the freedom to still be gay and somehow still be called a Christian. I don't care what sin it is - if you will not repent of it, you have no place in Christ.

The problem isn't the nature of the sin itself, but the unrepentant nature of the sin.

Unrepentant adulterer? Unrepentant gossip? Unrepentant abusive husband? Unrepentant homosexual? They're all the same according to Scripture - and according to the church. The problem isn't the sin itself, it's the unrepentant nature of the sin. You can see the difference, right?

One other point on this issue. The church is active in voicing its disapproval of homosexuality because it is becoming (or, in many places, has become) a socially-acceptable sin. You don't see the church making a big deal of murder, assault, robbery or other sins like these - but that's because the church and society agree... they're bad things. But when the world says something God defines as sinful is okay - like homosexuality - and tries to enforce acceptance of this 'lifestyle' on the rest of us, the church stands up and fights for what God says. The church has done - and continues to do - the very same thing on other sins that the world no longer sees as wrong... including pre- and extra-marital sex, as well as abortion. To give you a historical example, the church was a very vocal advocate against the slave trade - at a time when the world thought it was okay. It's the conflict between what the world says is okay, and what the church knows to be wrong.

"Now they want nothing to do with Christianity at all and I don’t blame them."

If I were an unrepentant homosexual, I wouldn't want anything to do with a Christ who calls on me to repent of my sin and change the way I live. Give up my physical pleasure for God? Never! That's the unrepentant attitude that causes them to want nothing to do with Christianity. Look, they're more than welcome at our church (as is any sinner, because we're all sinners) if they own up to their sin and repent... just as the rest of us have of our sins. The problem is, many of them don't want to admit it's a sin.

Let me wrap up my response by reminding you of what I suggested earlier - spend time in God's word to find out what He's really said. I understand that you won't take my word for it, but will you take His?

===================================

This will be the final time that this conversation is put out on the main page of the blog. There are two reasons for this:

The first reason is simple; I have other things I want to blog about, and I don't want to become sidetracked debating with one individual. I'll continue my conversation with her in e-mail if she wishes, but I will no longer spend blog space on it.
The second reason is equally simple; the commenter has clearly indicated that she does not believe Scripture to be God's authoritative word. As the Bible is the sole authority on which my arguments are based, we therefore have no common ground on which to discuss the matter. This saddens me, but it is my hope that she will dig into God's word with a renewed vigor to find - and believe - the truth.

For those of you who've been reading this ongoing conversation, thank you for your prayers and encouragement.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled blog...