Success and Faithfulness

Carl Trueman writes "What if Life was Complex?" and talks about a fictional "Evangelical Industrial Complex". Or is it fictional at all?

I thought I would use this column to indulge in a little thought experiment. What, I wonder, if the conservative evangelical church world came to be dominated by a symbiotic network of high profile and charismatic leaders (think more Weber than Wimber), media organisations, and big conferences? What if leadership, doctrine, and policy were no longer rooted in the primacy of biblical polity and the local church? What if, in other words, all of this became a function of an Evangelical Industrial Complex?

A world where charisma and clamor overcomes character, criticism, and orthodoxy. Read it. Scary stuff.

One of Trueman's points is really telling. He suggests in this "thought experiment" that in a world where celebrity overcomes other considerations, there is a key question. Does the ethic of success supplant the principle of faithfulness? Here's the idea. Instead of standing on what God says, we begin to stand on "what works", "what they like", "what is acceptable to the culture", "what brings people in" -- success. We'd keep the language of "faithfulness to the Word of God" but redefine the terms enough so that the meaning changes to correspond with the image of success.

The current BSA crisis is a fine example. The Boy Scouts of America are to meet today to decide whether the hard-earned and very expensive victories won in court and the strongly principled stance they've taken as late as last July will remain. The Supreme Court held that if the Boy Scouts believed that the exclusion of homosexuals from their group was a core conviction, an "expressive message", then they had the right to exclude them. And the Scouts claimed it was.

But that stance was expensive. They have been assaulted and boycotted, vilified and castigated, and a whole bunch of other mean-sounding words. When they sought, earlier this year, to renege on this "expressive message", the outrage made them pull that option back. So they surveyed the parents to figure out what to do. And now it looks like their plan is to keep openly-gay adults out while accepting openly-homosexual boys.

Remember, the point here is not whether or not BSA is right. The question is between success and faithfulness. The Boy Scouts of America have seen the "success" of their organization decline. They have been attacked and insulted and boycotted. That is not "success". To return to a "successful" condition, they simply need to stop being faithful to their principles. Give up their stance on morality, their "expressive message", and they can return to "success".

You see, you don't determine morality or your "expressive message" by survey and popular opinion. And the BSA has already caved to popular opinion simply by asking parents what they wanted. Thus, the BSA has defined "success" as something other than faithfulness to principles, something other than an underlying moral code. They have put principle up for a vote, which now will require all BSA principles to be in question and flux. And that doesn't seem much like success to me.

Well, they were just an example, current events to illustrate the point. Just look around at your local churches. I'm sure you can find your own current illustrations of the point. We're redefining "success" from what God defines as "success" and moving away from "faithfulness to the Word of God" in order to be more popular, more "seeker friendly", more acceptable to the world. And if that last phrase doesn't raise any alarms in your head, you ought to read your Bible more.

Making Evil Good

Theodicy is the defense of God in the face of evil. The question of the skeptic is how a good God can allow evil. The accusation is that He is either not powerful enough or not loving enough to fix that problem. Open Theists try to excuse God by saying that He doesn't know what Free Will Humans will do and, so, can only respond to them, not prevent them. Others argue only slightly less offensively that God has limited His Sovereignty to Man's Free Will and is "forced" (they would never use that term) to let them sin. The Bible has a different response to the problem.

What we have today as the New Testament is largely a product ... of evil. Many of our New Testament books were letters written by Apostles for the purpose of correcting heresies. The Corinthians suffered from licentiousness and an over-emphasis on sensuality. The Galatians had a problem with legalism. The Colossians were battling Gnosticism. Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy condemned heretical teachings and teachers. Peter, John, and Jude warned against false teachers and their "destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1). The Revelation's letters to the churches addressed many heresies already present in churches. Now, there is no doubt that heresy is evil. And before the end of the writing of the New Testament, there was a lot of evil already present.

But that's a good thing, you see. Not the evil, but what God did with it. He produced, from all that evil, our Bible today. From the necessity of addressing all that error God brought forth the Word of God that teaches us today His will and His thoughts and His commands. And that's a good thing.

In Genesis, Joseph's brothers sought to kill him, then opted instead to sell him into slavery. It went bad for Joseph from there. Falsely accused of rape, imprisoned and forgotten, it all looked bad. And it could not be described as less than evil.

The outcome, however, was not. When Joseph reflected on it, he told his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." This affirms that it was evil and was intended to be evil. On the other hand, it affirms both that God intended for it all to happen (He wasn't just a passenger along for the ride hoping to make something good out of Human Free Will) and brought about good because of it. Evil is evil; God used genuine evil to produce good.

"Yeah, yeah, but what about the real evil -- people going to Hel?. How can eternal punishment be classified as good?" Funny thing. That one, a very popular complaint to be sure, is not regarding evil. It is regarding justice. First problem there, then, is that we (not God) fail to comprehend the magnitude of sin. Okay, fine. But, still, we're talking about eternal torment. How can that be good? Paul said that it was God's will that He would "demonstrate His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Obviously, as a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction", that wouldn't seem good, but from the perspective that God is the Number One value in the universe, displaying His power and wrath would definitely be classified as "good". Indeed, without human sin, all sorts of attributes in God's character would be invisible. Power and wrath would start the list, but other important characteristics like holiness, justice, mercy, and grace would never be seen if there was no need for them.

In all these things, there is evil. Evil remains evil. It is the intent of the enemies of God. It isn't accidental and it isn't good. In all these things, God used the evil of His enemies to produce good. The Word, the salvation of Israel, the display of His character, these are just a few examples. In all of them there is the clear intent of sinners for evil and the clear intent of God for good. The title, "Making Evil Good", is misleading. Evil cannot be made good. But in all cases God does produce good from evil. How do you defend a God who allows evil to continue? If He is producing good with it, it's kind of unnecessary to defend Him, isn't it? And when you face evil, remember God. He works all things together for good. Even the evil you face.

Be Fruitful and Subtract

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28)

Welcome to the First Command. This is the very first instruction God gave to Man. Well, to Adam. Whose name, of course, means "Man". God created male and female in His own image and then you have this prime directive, so to speak.

There are many today who would argue that it is not our directive. It is not an imperative that relates to modern man. This would mean that contraception is a great idea and any couples who aim to never "be fruitful and multiply" for whatever reason they choose are perfectly fine in doing so. "Back off! That was a command to Adam, not to everyone!" Or so. Well, not quite. It was a command to Noah (Gen 9:1) when they exited the ark. And it was a command to Jacob (Gen 35:11) when God changed his name to Israel and sealed His covenant with Israel. But, look, that's just three guys in the history of the world. No longer applicable. Set that aside.

I'm having a real hard time with that. For multiple reasons.

First, there is the content of the first command. It isn't, as it turns out, only to be fruitful and multiply. The command has an "and". Along with filling the earth, Man (Adam) was commanded to subdue the earth. It was, in fact, part of God's design. "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule ...'" (Gen 1:26). It was the plan before it was the command. And it was part of God's first command to humans. Rule the earth. If, however, we are willing to set aside the "be fruitful and multiply" command, we would also need to set aside the "rule the earth" command as well. They were given in tandem and connected to each other.

Second, the repetition of the command when given to Noah was part of a covenant. It was part of God's covenant with Man following the Flood. That covenant included the command not to eat blood, carried over in the New Testament (Acts 15:29). It included the command to execute murderers, carried over into the New Testament (Rom 13:4). In both the Adamic and Noahic versions, then, there are components of the command that are 1) tied to the command and 2) still in effect. Trying to set one part aside seems to be arbitrary.

Third, the Bible doesn't seem to change its view on the topic at any point. Nowhere do we find the suggestion, say, in the New Testament, that this is no longer an issue. What we do find is a repeated command (three times) and things like this:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate. (Psa 127:3-5)

Today's generations are suggesting precisely the opposite. Children are a burden -- an unnecessary burden -- and really ought not be thought of as anything really positive. "I mean, sure, if you want them go ahead, but don't try to tell us that there is anything fundamentally good about having children. We're just not buying it. Not when we can be so much better off without them." God seems to disagree.

There is the other consideration from Church history. All of Christendom prior to the 20th century or so agreed that this command remained in effect. They viewed marriage as aimed at offspring and sex as primarily reproductive. They saw no reason to suggest it was no longer in effect. This new view that it is not valid today is just that, a new view. Seems strange, as in so many other cases, that it took Christianity 2000 years to figure out what we know today when Jesus promised His Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth. Well, maybe, but it takes a really long time.

There are all sorts of problems with continuity and rationality if we discard this command. What others are not applicable? Take, for instance, that broad command given to Jesus's disciples: "Go, therefore, and make disciples ..." Now, that was actually given to Jesus's 12 disciples. (Okay, they were down to 11 by then.) Why would we assume it relates to us? Paul indicated that the Gospel had already been taken to the whole world in his day (Rom 1:8). Mission accomplished. Why make it our problem, too? And if you say it is, on what basis? And now we're going to have to pick through every single command and think, "Is that one in? Is that one out? Can I get away with this now?" Gets a bit messy. On the other hand, if we understand it to have been given not to Adam, but to Man, not to Noah, but to Man, not to Jacob, but to God's people, and we understand that God commends it, it would seem that we would do well to continue to pursue it without having to pick and choose what other commands to jettison because it wasn't given to me. There are indeed reasons to say that some of the Old Testament commands are no longer in effect today. The primary reason would be that specific New Testament commands or statements remove an Old Testament command. (An example would be about "clean foods", specifically addressed by both Jesus and God to Peter.) Since there is no biblical indication that this command was just for Adam or Noah or Jacob and there is no later passage that rescinds it, I have a problem.

Some things to clear up. First, commands apply only to people to whom they apply. For instance, a "eunuch" (Matt 19:12) must not have children because they are perpetually unmarried. Nor would the command apply to people who cannot have children. Hannah desperately wanted to have children. The Bible is quite clear that God prevented it (1 Sam 1:5-6). In Gen 29:31 God opened Leah's womb and in Gen 30:22 He opened Rachel's womb. God opens and closes the womb, so the inability to have children doesn't constitute a failure to obey such a command. Second, it says "Be fruitful and multiply" and goes on to indicate that "multiply" means "a minimum of 2.5 children per couple" ... right? No, of course not. There is no command regarding numbers. If it is in effect, it simply says to try. It speaks to willingness, not ability. Beyond this, a married couple can be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps it's by natural birth. Perhaps it's by adoption. But it is possible. And all Christians -- even the single ones -- can be fruitful and multiply by making disciples. Certainly neither Jesus nor Paul had offspring, but I cannot begin to classify them as not being fruitful and multiplying, even if it wasn't physical children. It doesn't have to be limited. But I can't bring myself to suggest that it is no longer applicable. Because then I can wonder, "Well, look, that whole 'Man was made in the image of God' thing was given to Noah and I don't see any reason I shouldn't be allowed to murder now. Can you?" Ridiculous? Of course. But hard to argue against once you start that way. And I won't recommend expelling couples who refuse to have children, but I can't seem to find a reasonable argument to agree with the view that this Prime Directive is no longer applicable. So, I'll stick to it and recommend others to do the same.

The Argument Sketch

Have you ever seen Monty Python's classic Argument Sketch? A customer comes in for an argument. "I'd like to have an argument, please." He mistakenly walks into the wrong room and is yelled at, but then clears it up. "I came here for an argument!!" "Oh, I'm sorry! This is abuse." And he finally ends up in the right room for an argument.

Most of the argument is a back and forth where one or the other makes a claim and the opponent denies it. "Yes it is". "No, it isn't." "Yes it is". "No, it isn't." Finally the customer complains. "This isn't an argument ... It's just contradiction!" He asserts, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." ("No, it isn't." "Yes it is". "No, it isn't.") The customer goes on to say, "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." It is a short and humorous routine. Not as good as the Dead Parrot routine, of course, but it makes me laugh.

I shouldn't, of course. That's because it's too close to home. How many times does it happen in real life? A lot.

"You know, the Bible says that it's a sin for a man to lie with a man as with a woman." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does."

"I read in my Bible that husbands and wives have different commands and roles to play." "No, they don't." "Yes, they do."

"All references in Scripture to marriage are always in terms of male and female without exception." "No, they're not." "Yes, they are."

And then it seems to go in reverse.

They will say something like, "It may look like it says what you think it says, but it actually means something different." And I'll answer, "But, my position lines up with the text, the context, and the history of the Church's understanding of the passage in question." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does."

You get the idea. Much like that Monty Python skit, they rarely offer any genuine evidence for their contradiction (using the Monty Python definition for "contradiction"). They don't address the questions raised or answer the problems their suggestions require. Then, they assume that the argument is settled. They've made their point. Argument concluded. Now ... how can you possibly hold your position in an irrational manner like that when we've already settled that it's wrong?

You know, I really begin to wonder exactly what a "compelling argument" really looks like.

Telling the Story

What goes into the standard "story"? Well, you have main characters, of course. And you have a storyline, of course. That is, the story has a beginning and an end and a point, a purpose, a reason for being told. There is, inherent in all good stories, another component -- crisis.

What story worth reading, seeing, or hearing have you ever encountered that didn't have a crisis? There is the initial set up with introduction of characters and circumstances. There is the build up where we learn to identify and love the protagonist(s) or despise the antagonist(s). And then, almost without exception, you encounter a crisis. Something goes wrong. Sometimes very wrong. It looks bad for our hero. Will he make it? Will she survive? How can they get through this? And then you have the denouement, the outcome, the resolution of plot intricacies and dramatic conditions. The crisis is resolved and, true or not, stated or not, our main characters can live happily ever after.

We are, as Christians, commanded to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). As the hymn says, "We've a story to tell to the nations." We do it in the way we live. We do it in our daily interactions and conversations. And we do it quite clearly in our Sunday worship. Are we including the story we're supposed to include?

Often in churches I've seen and heard we don't want to tell the story. We want to feel that rush of "Ah, it is resolved!" without hearing what was resolved. We want the "happily ever after" feeling without a noting the reason that it was ever in question. Our worship is often sadly lacking in "bad news" in our rush to share the "good news".

Good news is not good news on its own. It is only good in contrast to something else. Telling you, "Good news, you lost your left hand" would make no sense on its own. "That's not good news! What's wrong with you?" It would only make sense if, for instance, the other three people in the party lost both hands. Now there is a comparison point, a contrast. One of my favorite examples is the fellow who was asked to housesit while his friends went on a trip. He picks them up from the airport on their return and tells them, "Good news! Your house is still standing!" "Ummm, well, it should be standing, shouldn't it? How is that good news?" "Oh, I forgot to tell you, there was a fire and the neighborhood burned down, but your house wasn't touched. Your house is still standing." See, in contrast to the loss, the ambivalent news becomes good news.

When we fail, on Sunday morning, to share the bad news in our worship and our preaching, we are not telling the story. We are not properly presenting the good news. We are not sharing the gospel. Only in contrast to the depths of our depravity and the horror of sin and God's righteous wrath can we find good news in salvation. "Good news! You can be right with God!!" "Ummm, well, why shouldn't I be?" See? Without the bad news, the good news doesn't mean much. And in our living, sharing, and worship, we need to be including the whole story in order to properly "proclaim the gospel to the whole creation."

True to Form

Some time ago he was walking into a store and noticed a woman coming in behind him. He was raised to be a gentleman, so he held the door for her. She was miffed. He got an ear full. "You men are all alike. Thinking we can't open our own doors. Thinking you're so superior. Thinking you're better than we are. You're just a male chauvinist pig!" She didn't even stand around to hear his humble response. "I'm sorry. No respect intended."

But he's had her harangue in his head ever since. It stuck with him. And lately he's started to identify with the whole "pig" idea. I mean, he's American, so you know he eats too much. That's a pig, isn't it? And he is happy about law enforcement which closely identifies him with those euphemistically referred to as "pigs" in the police force. He's not always neat, and everyone knows that's indicative of a pig. And he does try to open doors for women (and men, but let's not get bogged down here) and show respect to women and all that, which, after all, seems to be the definition of "male chauvinist pig". He's realizing, now, that he's a pig trapped in a human body.

So he's doing his research. They tell him that pig flesh is the closest thing to human flesh, so perhaps it won't be a difficult procedure. But he's happiest as a pig, so he thinks the right thing to do is to see if he can be changed into pig form. He is, after all, a pig inside, so no one should complain if he changes outside. He has to follow his heart, you know, and not be stuck in a overly rigid cultural mold that says, "If you're born a human, you have to stay a human." And in the meantime, he supposes he can start to live like one. It is how he feels, so it should be the right and moral thing to do ...

Ain't No Slippery Slope

I know, two in one day, but I had to put this out there when I saw it.

From an article on Monday from Slate by Jillian Keenan, we find this conclusion:

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

Remember, a slippery-slope argument is only a fallacy if it's not a slippery slope. When the slope actually begins to slip, it's an accurate and logical argument. So when mainstream voices are calling for the legalization of polygamy and polyamory on the basis of "marriage equity" from redefining (and note that she clearly recognizes that the definition is changing -- "The definition of marriage is plastic.") marriage to include same-sex couples, don't let them tell you yours is a "slippery slope argument" to be ignored. It is, in fact, the actual argument they are offering. And if "the definition of marriage is plastic", remember what we do when we no longer need our plastic. We cut it up and get rid of it. Many have suggested that this is the end game. And there really is no reason to doubt it.

That which must not be asked

There is, in a popular book and movie series, a character referred to as "He who must not be named." (Believe it or not, they actually made a documentary of the same name about the character. I mean, seriously, folks, it's a fictional character.) I've been mulling over "that which must not be asked."

In Christian circles we are encouraged to explore tough questions. What does the Bible say about sex? What has the Church historically believed about, say, homosexuality or marriage? What is the godly view of race relations? Questions that, in a politically-correct charged culture, might be considered inflammatory. But we can hunt down answers to these questions because "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." If your aim, then, is the truth, you can't go wrong, right? Sometimes the answers to these questions can cause tension or contention. Actually discovering what the Bible says, for instance, about divorce or corporal punishment or sex outside marriage will likely land you outside the current cultural norm. But it's all good because we want to see things from God's perspective, not just our world's or our own.

There is, however, a question often classified as "that which must not be asked". You typically won't hear it in polite company. You will not likely hear it among family members. You will almost never hear it asked face to face. It is just not a question that polite Christians ask. What is this horror? "Are you sure you're a Christian?"

That's right. Never question that. Don't ask it. Don't even think it. Don't question your own salvation. That's called "doubt" and we all know that "one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed." And never ever ask it about people close to you. You know, your wife, your husband, a child, a beloved family member, a dear friend. If they name it, they claim it. It is wrong to ask. It is beyond rude; it is offensive. Bringing up a question like that is an assault on the character of that loved one and you're wrong for doing it. Oh, sure, question the salvation of a heretic or an opponent, but never that of someone near and dear to you.

And, to be honest, I don't really get it. Someone told me, in hushed tones, "I don't really tell anyone this, but I'm not really sure if my son is saved." As if it was a secret concern that was really wrong to consider. But why is it? What could be more important? What could be more serious, more worthy of consideration? If there is evidence of a problem there, I would think that any loving Christian would feel compelled to ask the question. I mean, it's not like there is the fear of a fashion faux pas or something. "No, dear, that shirt doesn't go with those pants." No, if this isn't right, it is an eternal problem. And if you love someone, how could you not be concerned about their eternal condition?

It feels like insanity. You know, it's like you're dear husband is showing signs of chest pains and arm numbness and you don't want to be offensive and ask, "Are you okay?" Ask! It could be a heart attack! Your doctor finds symptoms of a fatal disease that is treatable but doesn't tell you because it might hurt your feelings. That's not genuine concern. That's stupidity. Considering the seriousness of the question, I would think it would be mandatory for someone who loves another and sees reasons to question their spiritual condition to explore the question.

But it's not just me. It's not just my feelings and thinking on the subject. The Bible repeatedly says the same thing. On those who doubt as well as the seriousness of the question, Jude writes, "Have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 22-23). James warns that faith by itself is not saving faith (James 2:14, 17). Paul was careful to ask about himself often "lest, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). And to the rest of us he warned, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (2 Cor 13:5).

It is possible to be self-deceived, to believe you are "in the faith" when you are not, to believe you are "qualified" when you are not. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. The god of this world is willing to blind us to the truth. And we are commanded to examine ourselves, to have mercy on those who doubt, and to snatch them from the fire if possible. It is not a minor question. "Do you believe in full-immersion baptism or sprinkling?" "Is it a sin to smoke?" These are questions we do ask and might cause sparks. But if you love those around you, how can you not ask "that which must not be asked" if you see reasons to ask it? And if you are asked by someone who loves you, set aside your pride and see if there might be some reason for concern. It isn't a small matter and no one is immune from error. If you love God, you will welcome the opportunity to obey by examining yourself to see if you're in the faith. This should not be the question that must not be asked.

Postscript
Two important points that need to be brought out with this kind of post.

First, the absolute key to asking or being asked the question, "Are you saved?" is love. It is routine for hateful skeptics and apathetic doubters to attack your beliefs and there is no reason to expect that these people are asking out of love, so I can't imagine why there would be a reason to examine their question. It's a no-win. If you conclude they're right, they're delighted. If you conclude they're wrong, they don't care. The absolute essential in asking whether a person is saved is whether or not you love them and the absolute essential for accepting the question is whether or not they love you.

Second, despite my assertion that it is possible to be self-deceived, a common misconception, then, is that certainty is wrong. Certain Christian groups and all skeptics will argue that certainty is wrong, even evil. The Roman Catholics have even made an official statement on it that assurance of faith is wrong. This fits nicely with the double standard of the pseudo-Christian who will claim "I am confident I'm saved but it's wrong that you should be." It does not fit nicely with Scripture where, for instance, John wrote, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13). If John wrote so that you may know that you have eternal life, it must be possible to know it. While we are capable of being self-deceived, a perpetual doubt is not wise, healthy, or even biblical, and those who claim it is are self-deceived, not recognizing their own cognitive dissonance.

Let the Word Dwell in you Richly

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Col 3:16).

I like that verse. It puts a new spin on the biblical use of music as well as the methods by which believers ought to communicate. Paul here says to use "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" for the purpose of "teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom". Imagine if our Sunday morning churches did this. They wouldn't just sing songs in the hopes of producing the proper emotional response. They would select and use songs for teaching and admonishing. Given the nearly magical power of music to move you apart from your mental faculties, this would offer a powerful tool to engage both mind and emotion in the service of the King.

But, hold on a minute. What does that first part mean? "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." It informs the rest of the verse. That whole "teaching and admonishing" thing is linked to this. Apparently "teaching and admonishing" is the way we work out this indwelling of the word of Christ. So, what is it?

Well, we might approach this by asking what it is not. It is not a disregard for the word of Christ. A popular view today is that the Bible is a good book (they even use the term "good book"), but certainly not infallible or even completely reliable. That view wouldn't fit with the concept of letting the "word of Christ dwell in you richly". And, of course, it is a known fact that a lot of us who call ourselves Christians don't really spend much time with our Bibles. First, we don't know about it. What is the order? What is the content? What does it say? Beyond that, it isn't our priority or our companion. "Read my Bible? Yeah, I will, but I just don't seem to have much time for that." We always make time for what is important to us. And if the Bible is our friend, our intimate, the voice of God to one who loves God, then a lot of things would slide before we failed to make time for the Word of God. So "let the Word dwell in you richly" is not a lowered view of Scripture or a cursory knowledge of Scripture. Neither makes sense with the phrase "dwell in you richly."

The text suggests that Christians ought to be people of the Word. If bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible, we ought not be confused with a bibliolater. If, as the dictionary suggests, bibliolatry is an excessive reverence for the Bible as literally interpreted, we should own that one. No, we don't worship the Bible, but it sure can look like it because we don't merely know this stuff, we live it. That is, the book itself is not sacred, but we highly honor what God says. It shapes our daily existence. It informs how we see life. It defines reality. The Bible is not our sole source of knowledge or morality, but it is our sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Since the Bible is God-breathed for us, we cannot separate the Bible from God. It is His Word.

The most common error we see in Christianity today is a light handling of the Word of God. "It's a matter of private interpretation. It is simply a matter of opinion. It's a good thing, but certainly not the final word on what is or isn't true. Besides, who has time to really get into all that, you know, with computers and television and movies and all? There are only so many hours in a day." That would not be letting the Word dwell in you richly. The opposite error -- where the Bible is the only thing there is, the only source of information, etc. -- is not as common. But it, too, is a failure to let the Word dwell in you richly.

We need to be people of the Word. We should be reading, studying, memorizing our Bibles. We ought to know what it says not merely verse by verse, but in its entirety. We ought to be listening to God speaking to us through His Word. And we ought to be living His Word. We need to be teaching and admonishing one another. We need to let the Word dwell in us richly. No excuses will do.

Biblical Weddings

Recently over on a post from 2011 a lively if sometimes strange discussion took place regarding the biblical perspective on marriage. (The post was on the Bible on Sex and, of course, held the position that biblically moral sex only occurred within a marriage, so, of course, the question had to be asked, "What constitutes a biblical marriage?") In the end, more than one voice in that discussion argued that weddings were not biblical. (I was not one of those voices.) Not that they are bad, mind you, and maybe they are even recommended at least in today's culture, but they are not biblical in the strictest sense, as in biblically standard or recommended. So I thought I'd take a closer look.

First, the Bible does not prescribe a marriage ceremony. There is no explanation of what processes should take place, what vows should be exchanged, who should be there, or what to serve at the reception (because, of course, no receptions are commanded, either). So we're not going there. There are, however, biblical accounts of weddings. Perhaps the most famous is the wedding at Cana. It is commonly understood that the mere presence of Jesus at that wedding constituted His (and, therefore, God's) endorsement of weddings. That is, by Jesus being there, He was saying, "I'm in favor of a wedding at the beginning of a marriage." Indeed, Jesus spoke often of weddings (e.g., Matt 9:15; 22:2-13; Matt 25:1-12; Mark 2:19; Luke 12:3; 14:8). All well and good. So those who would argue that weddings are not biblical will need to explain why Jesus endorsed same. Second, we know that Revelation ends (or nearly ends) with a wedding -- the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Clearly weddings in Scripture are a good thing, endorsed and encouraged by God.

Earlier versions of marriage in Israel (I'm using Israel because they operated as a theocracy and as God's chosen people and the rest ... didn't) also included a wedding. This is because the Old Testament version of marriage was not a "solemn commitment", but a covenant (Mal 2:14). A covenant is, among other things, a binding agreement, typically formal, between two (or more) persons to do something specified. This is far more binding than an agreement or commitment. It is even more binding than a contract, another common term we use when speaking of marriage. Contracts typically have loopholes, clauses that allow the contract to end. "If you do xxx then I will do yyy." And, of course, if you don't, I won't. A marriage covenant, though, is "I will do xxx and you will do yyy without recourse if xxx and yyy are not done." Contracts focus on "what do I get out of it?" and covenants aim for "what am I required to bring?" The Hebrew word for "covenant" is berith, which means "to cut", because the Hebrew concept of a covenant included a cutting ceremony in which blood was shed to indicate, "May God to this to me if I fail to fulfill my promises." It's serious, folks.

Jesus's parable of the virgins (Matt 25:1-12) provides an illustration of a traditional Jewish marriage process. (It's a process, not an event, because it takes place over time.) The typical process started with the father sending the son to purchase his bride-to-be, paying the price for her. He would then leave and return to his father to prepare a place for them to live. Having accomplished the preparations, he would return (at a not clearly known time) with a shout and a trumpet to retrieve his bride. They would marry (with family and friends present) with great celebration and, having consumated the marriage, he would take her home to be with him. Now, I'm sure you can see a parallel there to something bigger. And that's part of the point. Marriage is something bigger. It is between a man and a woman, sure, but it is an image of Christ and His Bride. Christ came and paid the price for His Bride. Then He returned to prepare a place for her. He will come, at a time not clearly known, with a shout and retrieve His Bride. They will share the Marriage Feast of the Lamb (you know, like a wedding) and then return to be with Him forever.

In Scripture and in Jewish history, marriages were more than just "consummation". There are those that argue that biblical marriage is just "leave and cleave" -- if you choose to be married, you're married. Live together and have sex and the marriage is consummated. End of discussion. It doesn't quite fit with the biblical picture. Nor does it fit with history. From dowries and arranged marriages on, more than a mere "Let's just be hitched" has been the norm rather than the exception. Abraham formalized a wife for Isaac and so on. History shows that Egypt made a big deal about weddings. In Rome, Caesar Augustus (you know, the one in charge when Jesus was born) penalized men who put off their weddings. Rome even gave us the word "matrimony". Public weddings "sealed the deal", so to speak, making it publicly clear that these two were married. So Scripture, Jewish history, New Testament accounts, and general human history all attest to the value of weddings.

If you, as a single person, should, some day, find yourself on a deserted island with no hope of rescue with a woman to whom you are not married but wish to be, clearly a wedding would be out of the question. I'd say go ahead and solemnize your marriage between the two of you. If you, on the other hand, find yourself living in a civilized country that makes marriage laws that you are able to obey, I'd suggest (based on Rom 13:1-5) you follow the legal procedure and, indeed (based on the principle of Rom 14:20-21), have a wedding. It doesn't define "marriage", but it isn't an unbiblical or uncommendable part. Jesus favors (present tense, given He has one coming up) it. Just my recommendation.

Marital Sex

I know ... provocative title, but this is a serious question. We often run into a collision between "real life" and what the Bible says we're supposed to be or do. An example would be the military member who is commanded by Christ to make disciples and commanded by his commander not to. Collision!

More often, however, it is a collision of ideology. There is no doubt at all that the Bible, for instance, indicates that in a standard household the husband is the head of the wife (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3). Now, I'm sure you're all aware that this statement collides headlong with the more popular egalitarian view where "we're coequals; neither is head over the other -- we share it" concept of the day. And, look, doesn't that sound more "civilized", more "advanced", and, hey, even more loving? So we're struck with not merely a tension, but a direct contradiction between what might appear to be right and what is clearly stated in Scripture as correct.

One of those that I've been mulling over recently is this one. Do with it what you will.

Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another (1 Cor 7:2-5).

Now, this is one that clearly collides with both the good will of any decent husband as well as the viewpoint of the culture. According to this command from Paul, it would appear that husbands and wives owe each other sex. (I know that in the majority of cases it is a question of a man with a stronger drive and the woman withholding for various reasons, but let's not limit it to that.)

Now, we know intuitively that the good husband is not going to "force himself" on his wife sexually. A loving husband will wait until she's "in the mood". No decent man would expect his wife to "perform" (See how the language just demands that the text is not right?) when she doesn't feel like it. After all, husbands are supposed to love their wives sacrificially, and certainly sacrificing our own needs for sex in favor of our wives would be a good and right thing, right? But, doesn't that collide with this passage? Doesn't that say that Paul was mistaken and really represented the situation incorrectly?

The text says that the husband does not have authority over his own body nor does the wife over hers. It seems as if he's saying, "It doesn't matter if you're in the mood. You need to give yourself to your spouse." It seems as if he's saying that a godly marriage requires that the husband give his body to his wife to meet her needs and the wife give her body to her husband to meet his needs and "in the mood" is irrelevant. It seems as if it's a lot closer to the version of yesteryear where a wife thought she ought to "service her husband" to keep him happy because that was part of her duty as a wife (and vice versa for husbands).

Now, you have to be honest. That sounds ... archaic. It sounds barbaric. But you also must recognize that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, and typically the culture is not going to offer you a biblical perspective on things. Someone once told me that the easiest way to determine what is right to do is ask yourself what comes naturally ... and do the opposite. This seems similar.

So, does this text say what it appears to say? If so, what are we to conclude? Is it possible to have a biblically sound marriage without the wife engaging her husband sexually or vice versa? Does the text violate our popular "in the mood" concept? I'm not willing to entertain the "Paul was a mysogynist and was clearly wrong" argument, but I do want to know if I'm missing it somewhere because it looks like this is telling husbands and wife to engage in sex regularly to avoid the temptation to sexual immorality. Does it? Some insight and even clarification might be helpful.

It is us

Google has offered an inexpensive laptop for people to buy. It's called the Chromebook, and it's available for just $250 or so, lower than just about any computer you can imagine. It looked interesting, but then I realized that it was designed for use online. They offer "offline apps for the rare times when you’re disconnected from the web", but, let's face it, how often does that happen, right? No, this isn't designed to be a standalone laptop. It only has 16GB of Solid State hard drive. You're supposed to store stuff on the "Google Drive Cloud Storage". This computer is inexpensive and cool, perhaps, but it is designed to be an online computer.

We are an online society these days. We play online. We work online. We connect online. We talk online. We share online. We fight online. We make up online. There is hardly any escape from it. Our phones are online, for pity sake. My youngest son decided that paying for the Internet was just too much money, so ... he doesn't. And the rest of us are trying to figure out how to keep in touch with him without Facebook or email or ...? I mean, how do you live offline???!!!

Some have argued that the Internet is making us stupid. This isn't obvious at first look. After all, we now have easy access to just about every piece of information that human beings can have. That's an exaggeration, of course, but not by much. So it would seem like we'd be smarter. (Someone said, "My phone is so smart that I can access all the information that is available to human beings and I use it to access funny pictures of cats and pictures with captions.") But think about it from this perspective. Did you study harder for a closed-book test or an open-book test? You see, as it turns out, we don't work as hard at remembering stuff if we know we don't have to remember it. A report from Scientific American suggests that the very act of reading from the pages of a book will cause you to remember what you read better than reading from screen. Farris Jabr reports that reading is "topographical". You can remember, for instance, where places are based on landmarks that you saw around them. Well, Jabr says that you remember what you read based on where on the page it occurred. (It's funny, too, because I can well remember my mother telling me about a particular passage she read in Scripture and looking through her Bible to find it. "It was over here on this side of the page." And she'd be right.) Apparently reading from physical books works better for human memory than reading from computer screens. So by these and other standards we may be losing out.

Of course, the big concern for so many, especially Christians, is the rife immorality. Pornography never had such sway as when it gained the Internet. It's no longer "in the closet", but something in which some delight openly. Everyone knows about the danger of chatrooms where child molesters are trolling for underage kids to entice and abuse. We're all aware that the person representing themselves on the Internet may not be the person they really are. And there is the very real factor that interactions on the Internet are tainted with some level of anonymity. Face it, people can get really mean in online interactions who would never be so mean in person. But because there is a buffer, a distance, no real connection, they feel as if they can get away with it. Part of it is the distance. Part of it is the lack of feedback. He said it with a smile on his face as humor and she read it without the smile as serious, and it becomes a problem. I'm aware of that problem in writing this blog because most of the time I'm somewhat amused in general when I write, but I'm certain it doesn't come across to readers without the smile, the twinkle in the eye, the wink, the clues that tell you that information.

Paul Miller did an experiment in which he stayed offline for a year. He wanted to see how life was different without all that ... mess. How much time do we waste and how much trouble do we get into and how much genuine relationship do we miss out on because of the electronic world in which we live? Well, he was going to find out. After a year, he has written his report. He points out an interesting fact that I wish to pass on to you.

It's not the Internet. It's not technology. It's not the phones or the lack thereof. It's not the television or the media. These are not the problem. As it turns out, "We have met the enemy and he is us." As it turns out, it's not a technology problem, but a sin problem. This may come as a shock to you, but sin was just as rampant before Al Gore invented the Internet.

Are there problems with technology that we're missing because we're so enamored with it? I'm certain there are. I've written in the past about how the medium of television, without regard to the messages in it, can be harmful. I know that the hours I've spent on the computer (it is my profession) have contributed to decline in my eyesight. And there is little doubt that the Internet provides access to sins that would have been more difficult to reach in the past. I'm not saying that we don't need to be aware or cautious. But neither is it right or safe to think that it's all television or Internet or those evil smartphones to blame. No, that would be us.

Mother's Day, 2013

I was blessed from birth with a remarkable mother. Not only has her defining characteristic for my whole life been her sincere devotion to Christ, but she has showered upon those around her a veritable treasure trove of wisdom. To this day I recall and even apply many of her wise quotes, from those on common everyday life to spiritual truths.

I know, for instance, that bananas are best when they are flecked with brown and have a golden hue, and that you should never put bananas in the refrigerator. Why? Because she used to sing us the Chiquita Banana song and it was right there in the lyrics.

She has always enjoyed quoting Alice from Alice in Wonderland by assuring us that "One never knows ... and if one does know, one can't be quite sure." It really is a good position to take.

Some of her sayings exhibit keen insight into human nature. For instance, she is fond of saying, "'Yes, but' means 'No'." How true! We will even hand that to God, won't we? So, as an example, we might read, "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Pro 3:27) and realize we're not doing that. And we'll "agree" with God ... with stipulations. "Yes, but ..." and we'll give the reasons why we cannot or will not do it now. Which is a "no".

Now, as a person who is concerned (as, I believe, most human beings are) about what other people think of you, my mother had this bit of wisdom to offer: "You wouldn't be so concerned about what people thought of you if you knew how rarely they did." As it turns out, most people are so self-absorbed that they rarely do have the time or inclination to take notice of you. If they do, it is a fleeting notice. And if, as the vast majority of folks do, you don't stand out (because that's the definition of "normal"), it's very likely that you will not often be thought of very often at all. So don't waste too much time trying to be liked or worrying about what other people think of you. That attention might be better spent on thinking about what God might think of you.

She has offered concise statements that help clear up confusion in life. When we were young and would complain that we weren't getting our fair share -- "He's doesn't have to do as much work as I do" or "His piece of cake is bigger than mine" or some such -- she would offer this little piece of wisdom: "Who ever told you that life was fair?" And it's true! If you are going to go through life demanding nothing but fair and complaining when it isn't, you will go through life demanding and complaining.

One of the sayings for which she is famous requires a back story. A part of the family was eating out and my parents asked my younger sister what she wanted for desert. "I want lemon meringue pie." The waiter said, "We don't have any more lemon meringue pie." "Okay, so what do you want now?" "I want lemon meringue pie." My mother is fond, then, of saying "We don't have lemon meringue pie" when people express a demand for that which can't be had. "I want world peace." "We don't have lemon meringue pie." We very often in life get bogged down in desire and demand for things that just don't exist. The presidential election cycle of last year would be a prime example. "From the group of candidates offered on the ballot, we want to elect a good leader who can solve the large problems our country is facing." "We don't have lemon meringue pie." (By implication, then, "Get over it and move on.")

One that hit home in both good and bad ways was this one: "You know what you believe by what activates you." For the believer, there is often a concern about doubt. "I believe; help Thou mine unbelief." That kind of thing. But humans are interesting creatures in that, although we may say and even think that we believe or don't believe something, we will always act on what we truly believe. I may tell you there's a bomb under my desk, but if I don't act on that claim, you can be pretty sure I don't really believe it. So this might be comforting to the believer struggling with doubt while still working at being more Christ-like. That's good news. For the believer who claims to believe and, in fact, lives a life of sinful abandon, this is not good news and you need to check your faith because your actions suggest you believe something different than what you're telling us or yourself.

My mother has been a veritable font of wisdom, without exaggeration, from keeping bananas to my daily walk with Christ. From pithy and wise sayings to a genuine She is a constant joy, my "go-to" person with questions on biblical points, and a blessing from God. It seems a day doesn't go by that I am not touched by her positive influence in my life, and I am deeply grateful for her.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom!

First Amendment, Schmirst Amendment

A gesture of honoring God at a high school track meet disqualified the winning team. Not allowed.

When Obamacare was introduced, the Catholic Church protested. It would violate their religious convictions. The government agreed that the church wouldn't have to pay for contraceptives ... but the same protection didn't extend to Catholic universities, organizations, or hospitals.

When the legal playing field shifted and demanded that homosexual couples be allowed to adopt, the Catholic adoption agencies refused. The courts denied their suit and their only options were to either change their convictions or close their doors. They closed their doors.

In California, the people voted in Prop 8 as an affirmation that marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman. Taken back to court, Prop 8 was overturned largely because "some who favored it did so from religious conviction".

A baker in Oregon was castigated for refusing on religious grounds to bake a wedding cake for two women. Now in Richland, Washington, a florist is sued for not selling flowers for a wedding to two men because she believed "biblically that marriage is between a man and a woman." In 2005 an innkeeper in Vermont was sued and lost for refusing to host a homosexual wedding and in 2006 a New Mexico photographer opted not to shoot a homosexual "commitment ceremony" and, literally, paid the price. A recent story out of Hawaii came out the same, with the owner of a bed and breakfast losing a suit for refusing on religious grounds to rent a single bed to a lesbian couple.

The florist wasn't, as it turns out, sued first by the men she refused to sell to. She was sued by the Washington Attorney General for violating the state's anti-discrimination law. The ACLU followed suit (little joke there) and filed for a public apology, a demand to change her policy, and a $5,000 contribution to a local LGBT youth center. Get that? Have convictions, stand for them, and expect to have them violated repeatedly.

Delaware's new bill that redefines marriage includes "protection for religious groups" ... but not for others of religious conviction. Ministers can choose not to serve a particular segment based on their convictions, but wedding vendors such as photographers, florists, bakers, etc. do not have the same protection. Neither does the Clerk of the Peace.

What is in common with all these stories? Yes, there is a whole lot of "look what 'gay marriage' is doing to religious freedom", but that isn't in all of these cases. Yes, it does look like religious persecution is starting in America, but it's a little hard to support the term "persecution" when it is so spotty and rare. What, then? The common element is religious convictions in the public square. Obama, for instance, allowed the Roman Catholic Church an exemption for contraceptives because the Roman Catholic Church is, well, a church. Their subsidiaries, their services, their other programs? Not protected. Neither are private citizens who own businesses such as Hobby Lobby. That is "the public square" and religious persuasion in the public square will not be countenanced. You are free to believe what you want in private; just don't exercise your religious convictions in public. That includes sports announcers, Christian track members, florists, bakers, or even voters. You still have your First Amendment right to your religious views, but only as long as they are private and don't affect anything or anyone in public. (And if your religious views require that they affect your public life, well, too bad. That one is right out, too.)

Compelling Argument

Recently we had a very lively discussion on my post, "Truth by Vote". I warned that "compelling argument" did not necessarily equate to truth. It produced some conversation, sometimes friendly, sometimes contentious, about what I meant and whether it was true. It appears true, for instance, that the public is finding the "marriage equity" argument to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex people more compelling than the logical, historical, practical, and biblical argument to limit it to male and female. I indicated that the public opinion does not accurately reflect what is or isn't true. Some disagreed.

There is a component of the discussion that is important to consider and hasn't yet been touched. What compels? We speak of people being "compelled" to agree or disagree with an argument. What is it that compels people to one or the other?

Most people think of it as if we live in a vacuum, so to speak. We are balanced beings without any attraction in any direction and, when the force sufficient to move us comes along, we follow that force. In terms of physics, a body at rest tends to stay at rest. In order to move it, you have to apply an external force. In this case, it would be the most forceful argument.

Of course, that's a naive perception of the human being. We are not balanced beings without any attractions. We are full of internal forces at work impelling us in various directions at any given moment. We might curse or we might bless. We might help or we might hinder. We might be heroic or pusillanimous. (Sorry, I had to work that word in somewhere.) And tomorrow, it might be reversed. Because no human being is actually in a vacuum and all human beings are biased. All that humans do include bias. You know that grand news channel (if one exists) that insists they're reporting without bias (the one near me claims "without the spin")? Doesn't happen. Ever. There are always a variety of forces at work.

So, here comes our everyday public who will listen to two arguments and decide which was more "compelling". The suggestion -- the mistaken idea -- is that the best argument will win. This, unfortunately, fails to consider what forces are at work. Argue, for instance, that the smartest thing you can do is to run into traffic, and they'll laugh you off the stage. Throw a bag of money in the street, and they'll be stopping cars and risking their lives to run into traffic. Was it the most coherent argument? No, of course not. But it was the most compelling. That is, it properly engaged the forces already at work in the audience to obtain the desired outcome.

What forces are already at work in the public today that must be considered in questions like these? What existing forces might influence the outcome of a public debate on matters of Scripture, morality, and a biblical worldview? Humans suffer from a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9), so that's one issue. Appeal to the heart, not the mind, and you've got a winner ... that is often a lie. God declared that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), so moral issues examined by the unregenerate man will be dubious at best. Paul declared that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7), so arguments that favor God are not likely to be viewed favorably by unrepentant sinners. Indeed, the Bible tells us that those who are not in Christ walk "according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience", living "in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:2-3), so the mere suggestion that humans are free agents without influence fails to take into account the prince of the power of the air. About them Scripture says, "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving" (2 Cor 4:4). So we're expecting a clear thinking, unbiased, reasonable response from the blinded, depraved (Rom 1:27) mind? That's not reasonable.

Look, I could go on. If you're conversant at all in Scripture, you must know that human beings are sinners at their core. They do not want what God wants and do want whatever they want for themselves. They are self-declared enemies of God, incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). So we come along and offer arguments that do not feed the natural forces already at work in the general public. We should not be surprised that they don't find our arguments "compelling". Our arguments go against the forces already at work. Indeed, Jesus predicted that the world would hate us and Paul assured us that they would find our "good news" to be foolishness and offensive. Indeed, the only thing we can reasonably hope for is that God will work in the hearts of hearers, because things are not otherwise going to go our way.

So don't buy into that "compelling argument" concept. Humans are not unbiased. The discussion is not taking place in front of folk ready to be convinced to love God and His truth if you just give them the best argument. The deck is stacked, and not in your favor. This is why "the compelling argument" concept doesn't help determine what the truth is. Be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in you. Contend for the faith once given to the saints. Put your trust in the Almighty. Don't cause problems for the truth with poor arguments, but don't expect the world to like you for good ones.

What's Old is New Again

Perhaps you recall the story back in the Book of Acts about Peter healing the lame man at the gate of the temple. He asked for alms and Peter gave him that oh, so classic response, "Silver and gold have I none, but what I have I give you." And then he said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" (Acts 3:1-6) Well, of course, the authorities were delighted. They could see the cost of healthcare decreasing astronomically and they were deeply concerned about the welfare of the people and, being religious authorities, they were just plain tickled about seeing the unvarnished, undeniable hand of God at work. Or not. No, it didn't work out that way. Peter and John ended up on trial (Acts 4). The authorities demanded to know who authorized it and Peter gave his pleasant little speech (Acts 4:8-12) about "the stone that was rejected by you" and "there is salvation in no one else" -- stuff everyone loves to hear. In fact, the only thing that saved them was the fact that the man was healed and that the crowd was rejoicing about it. So, they tried to figure out what to do.

"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. 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, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:17-20)

And, what's old is new again. The Pentagon has declared that it is against the law for Christians to share their faith with others and they will prosecute "on a case by case basis" for it. Mikey Weinstein, the president of The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing. "We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution." Weinstein called proselytizing a "national security threat" and compared it to rape. "The Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason." The Pentagon confirmed that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

Are you ready, Christians? The same rhetoric Weinstein is using in military terms is cast about in general terms by other groups, and the "compelling" arguments (by which I mean the "non-arguments that appeal so highly to the feelings of the general public without regard to facts or logic or even the law") are getting louder and more accepted. Are you ready, military Christians? It isn't far from the horizon. You will need to decide for yourself whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to man rather than to God. And it won't always have a pleasant outcome.

Where do you come up with this?

At various times in various circumstances people will, in person or online, see what I have to say and ask, "Where do you come up with this?" or something like it. Of course, typically it isn't with a sense of admiration (there's a shock, eh?), but disdain. But the reason for the question isn't important. I think the question deserves to be answered.

When I express an opinion on, say, politics or current events, it will sometimes be from ... personal opinion. Nothing more. How do I feel about gun control? Trying to correlate "gun control" to "What does the Word say on the issue?" isn't very easy (if it is possible at all), so it's just my opinion. Who should be voted into office? Typically just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

More often, however, the question is asked about the "outrageous" claims I make. While almost everyone knows that what two people do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, I have the audacity to suggest that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and sexual relations between same-sex people is sin. "What? Where do you come up with that?" See how it works? Or in a recent post I made the outrageous claim that those who are hostile to God will not find arguments in favor of God's view favorable. "What??!! Where do you come up with this stuff?"

I have what is commonly referred to as a "Christian worldview". A worldview is the view of the world around you that you hold that stitches everything together and makes it all fit. Mine is from a Christian perspective. Further, it is created, defined, and explained by the Bible. If it's in there, it's true. Doesn't much matter if others agree or not. Doesn't much matter if the tide of public opinion finds it compelling. It's the worldview I have and, therefore, the one on which I operate.

So, I read something like, oh, say, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). I look at the text, the context, the subtext, and then conclude that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (because, you know, that's what it says). I read something like "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14), examine the text and context, and conclude that those in their natural condition do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Now, I know these things are not going to be well received. I know, in fact, that many Christians will disagree. But when it says it, it is in agreement with its context, and it is in agreement with the rest of Scripture, I have to conclude that it is true and others, Christians or not, who disagree are mistaken. So where do I come up with the notion that those who are hostile to God will not find arguments in favor of God's view favorable? Well, it's in the Bible, it's pretty clear in the Bible, and I have no reason to doubt from the words and the context that it doesn't mean exactly what it says. That is, "Well, my experience says otherwise" is not a suitable reason to change my conclusion. Experience is suspect.

I understand that my approach will not be viewed favorably by many. Well, certainly not by those whose mind is set on the flesh. Certainly not by those who are in their natural state. And don't be deceived -- that may include people who call themselves Christians. But I'm left with two possible options here. I can assume that the Bible is indeed God's Word, is understandable, authoritative, and right, or ... not. For those who would disagree with those notions, I have no other place to stand.

I would like to point out, however, that while it may be accurate (even expected) to say that my view will not be "mainstream" or "compelling" or even "acceptable", it cannot accurately be said that it is "cultural" or "irrational" or "immoral" -- accusations so often expressed about what I see clearly in the pages of Scripture. It can be said, "I disagree with your view" or, because I'm fallible, even "Here is a fault in the logic", but not that morality or rationality are missing. It is true, in fact, that I am not always pleased with what I find in Scripture. I mean, wouldn't it be easier to tell people, "Do whatever makes you happy"? But I cannot alter my Christian worldview without dynamically shifting all of life's paradigms and removing all hope or even rationale. Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I cannot and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

Transgender?

Okay, so I've looked and looked and looked and nowhere in the Bible do I find a text that says, "If you're gender-confused and feel like you're a man trapped in a woman's body, it's a sin to have surgery to make your body match how you feel." Nowhere. Clearly, then, God has no opinion, right?

These kinds of questions are difficult. I suspect, however, that there are far more of these than the other kind. You know, the kind where God says, "Thou shalt not ..." and we have a clear indication of what it is thou shalt not do. Much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture. Is it wrong to run a red light? I can't find a single biblical reference to red lights. In fact, I can't find a reference to traffic management at all. Is it wrong for a Christian to drive a beer truck for a profession? (Seriously, I've actually had someone ask me that.) Again, not a single reference to Christians and beer trucks. There is no reference to abortion, no reference to gay marriage, no reference to Christians going to war, no reference to oh, so much of everyday life.

It would, however, be inaccurate of me to actually hold the position I've already offered -- that "much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture." More accurately I would have to say that much of life isn't directly addressed. We are not, however, without guidance. Is it wrong to run a red light? The Bible doesn't say. But it does say that we should obey the authorities, and the authorities say it's wrong, so we have an answer. So while the Bible may not directly address questions, it clearly provides principles upon which we can answer them. So, are there principles in Scripture that would address our poor "gender-confused" fellow? I think there are.

In the very first chapter of Genesis we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). God created male and female. It wasn't an accident, a mistake, a derivation, or random evolution. It was God's design. God had a purpose when He designed male and female. They aren't "nice to have", but intentional.

So, anything else? Is that all? No, of course not. There is more.

In Deuteronomy -- the retelling of the Law -- we read "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Deut 22:5). I know the first response. "Oh, that old stuff. That was just for Israel." Okay, you go ahead with that. But it does say that "whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God", which seems to put it more in the category of "universal" rather than "ceremonial" or "Israel only". Or are we going with "Yeah, well, God hated it back then, but now He changed His mind"? No, if God found it abominable, it would seem to be ... still abominable. But if "woman" and "man" are variable sexes rather than defined sexes and "man's garment" or "woman's cloak" are simply faces of gender that might not match up with the variables "woman" or "man", why would God care? "Look, she feels like a man trapped in a woman's body. Let her wear what makes her feel comfortable! Don't go all judgmental and narrow-minded on us here, God." And apparently God disagrees. And it's not just here. Assuming that there are certainly women who can be trapped in a male body, why would God care at all if the woman trapped inside is effeminate ... you know, like a woman should be? And yet Paul lists "effeminate" as one of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). Why is that?

The Bible does not provide, in its Ten Commandments, a commandment regarding the morality of changing gender from sex. Now, we can discuss the irrationality of such a concept, but I'm looking at biblical principles here, so what do we do? Yes, the Bible is explicitly silent, but certainly not implicitly. It offers principles. God made male and female for a purpose. Further, He abhors the mixing of sexes and genders. That would suggest that the concept of "transgender" qualifies as abhorrent to God and, as such, immoral. In the absence of text or principles, I would heartily recommend not passing a moral judgment on something. That falls in the category of faith, a personal conviction. This is not the case here. I think there is compelling biblical principles upon which to base this position. Nor are there compelling reasons to come to any other conclusion. I think I have my answer.

(As a side note, there is a real question about whether or not a person can change their sex. Is "sex" defined as the genitalia you wear? Apparently not, based on the "pregnant man" who classified herself as a man while retaining female genitalia. Science will tell you that sex is based on XX or XY chromosomes. Now that is something that cannot change. And a forensic pathologist identifies sex from bone structures. Again, something that doesn't change. At the bottom of the whole question apart from morality at all is the very real question, "Can you actually change your sex?" And if someone modifies their body to mimic the body of the opposite sex but is still, physically, the original sex and then engages in a sexual relationship with a person of that same sex, wouldn't it still be homosexual sex?)

(Additional side note. The question of "cross dressing", of transvestites, as referenced in Deut 22:5, is not actually, according to most scholars, a simple reference to "wearing the clothing of the opposite gender". When Bill put on a wig and dress and did a comedy skit at the church social, he wasn't violating this passage. According to the rabbis, the Jewish commentators, and even the modern commentators, this is not merely a reference to a woman who is more comfortable in jeans, but to people of either gender dressing to appear as the opposite gender. It's not some guy secretly wearing panties, but men who dress as women to pass themselves off as women and women who dress as men to pass themselves off as men. There is, then, a deeper intent. It is a transgender intent.)

Orthodoxy is Winning

Mary Eberstadt is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She wrote a piece for Time about what appears to be a surprising phenomenon of growth among conservative Christianity while liberal Christianity declines. She concludes:

As changing views on gay marriage, among others, go to show, secularization marches on. Traditionalists may be on the losing end of historic real estate, at least for now, as well as booed out of the public square for their views on sex. Down the road, though, they still look to possess something else critical — a growing congregation without which every church, after all, is just a bed and breakfast waiting to happen.

Oddly enough, it's what Edward Gibbon remarked on the strength and reason for growth in the early Christian church under the Roman Empire. Apparently "narrow" views on matters of everyday life can actually produce strength and growth in a culture that is explicitly contrary to those "narrow" views. And, oddly enough, she didn't consult me on the piece, so it appears that someone else besides Gibbon agrees with me on this. Now that is strange.

Praise the LORD!

¹ Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
² Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
³ Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
⁴ Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
⁵ Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
⁶ Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! (Psa 150)

I was raised in a mid-20th century, conservative, Christian home. The date made "harp and lyre" not typical instruments in church. Okay, sure, we had timbrels (better known today as tambourines). But the conservative condition made "loud cymbals" (which appears to be repeated for emphasis) certainly not welcome. Stringed instruments and trumpets and certainly pipes -- at least those for the organ -- were okay, but I have to say, dancing was not to be.

So while I get the idea of this exulting psalm, I have to admit that the imagery offered here is not familiar to me. Maybe some day I'll see it. In the meantime I'll have to content myself with praising Him for His mighty deeds, His excellent greatness, His mighty expanse. You know, that might be quite enough!

Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!!!

"Normal" and "Natural"

Before I even start, the title should tell you what I'm going to be writing about, right? Putting these two together, we know where I'm going with this. Well, you'd be wrong.

"Normal" is an interesting thing. It has a definition. It's definition, by design, is hazy. No, not the definition, but the working out of it. The definition is pretty simple and commonly understood: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual". Easy, right? That which conforms to the common or standard is "normal" and that which is "unusual" is not. Of course, defining "usual" isn't always simple. However, note that the term carries no value judgment. There is "normal" and there is "not normal" and the value judgment that might result from this description is consequent to, not part of the description. That is, if the standard of "normal" has a value judgment (say, "tall is good"), and a person or thing doesn't meet that standard (defined, then, as "not normal"), then the conclusion would be a value judgment, but not the definition of "not normal". So, just for instance, if 3% of a population have a classification that is outside of the other 97%, that cannot be considered normal. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, but it does necessarily require that the 3% are not normal.

Here, let me give an example. I remember seeing a fascinating story about this young boy that was born without arms or legs. Now, it was a story at all because this boy was not normal. I mean, if everyone was born without arms or legs, this boy wouldn't have been a story. But the very fact that his condition was not normal made it a story. And no one would say that because he was not normal he was bad. He was not born with the normal limbs, and this did not reflect negatively on him. There, you see? "Not normal" does not necessarily mean "bad".

The story was really interesting. It was about how he got along in life. He had the support of a large family. The story followed him waking up in the morning and, on his own, strapping on artificial limbs. It followed him through the day as he went about his daily routines working hard to operate normally with an abnormal condition. He was a brave kid and you admired his courage, his spirit, his attitude. Yes, he had problems from birth, but they didn't serve to define him or to prevent him from proceeding with life.

It could be said that his condition was "natural". That is, it wasn't artificial. He wasn't a victim of an accident that deprived him of his limbs. He was born that way. Now, I don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way it is a good thing." I also don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way he is bad." "Born that way" in his case indicated that it was "natural", even if it was not "normal". But this amazing kid worked every day at overcoming his natural condition in order to be more normal. And we admire him for it. We recognize that overcoming a natural condition in order to be normal can be a good thing. We applaud this brave little boy who didn't allow his birth condition to determine his life definition.

Okay, maybe I have discussed what you thought I was going to.

Socially Acceptable Sin

There are lots of sins in the Bible. (Who knew, right?) And we know that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Well, perhaps not. All sins are equal in the sense that all sins deserve God's judgment, but I don't think it is true that all sins are of equal weight. We know this because of things like Jesus's words to the cities where His works had been displayed without repentance. He told them that "it will be more bearable on the day of judgment" for the cities that would have repented had His works been done there (Matt 11:20-24). And John writes about sins that lead to death and sins that don't lead to death (1 John 5:16-17). Thus, it would appear that there are levels of judgment and, therefore, levels of sin.

We're pretty sure these days that we know what "bad sin" and "not so bad sin" is. "Bad sin" would be things like homosexual behavior, adultery, fornication, you know, sexual sin. It would be things like rape and murder, theft, mayhem, certainly idolatry, oh, and that unforgivable one ... what was it? ... oh, yeah, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. No, no, we've got this one. We're pretty clear on this.

There are several places in the Bible that actually make lists of standardized sins. Here are a few examples:

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:29-32).

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people (2 Tim 3:2-5).

And in these lists we can see reflected our own abhorrence to some things. There's that whole "murder" problem, and "haters of God" is surely a bad thing. Oh, "inventors of evil" seem to abound, as does the giving of approval to those who practice evil. We already know that the sexually immoral and idolaters and adulterers and those who practice homosexuality are in deep trouble with God. And those who love money, who are unholy and heartless, who are brutal, treacherous, and "swollen with conceit" (What a descriptive phrase!) are surely among the most sinful.

I would submit, however, that there is another list of sins that we're happy to give a pass on. Oh, sure, maybe those things are sinful, but there's no need to call them to anyone's attention, no need to make a big deal about them, certainly no need to mention them in a blog. Or is there?

America, for instance, almost runs on covetousness and greed. They are practically our motto, so they can't be that bad, can they? And while God seems to think that "disobedient to parents" is a bad thing, we often think of it as noble and right, since parents are not perfect and children tend, in today's society, to be viewed as wise. Our favorite comedies include insolence and foolishness. Hey, our entire prayer chain basically works on a gossip-and-slander method. I mean, it's not gossip if we're just sharing it as a prayer request for someone, is it? And, look, we're pretty sure that "lovers of self" is in there by accident. I mean, how can you love others as yourself if you don't first love yourself? Loving self is "the greatest love of all", they tell us.

I am concerned. I'm concerned that in seeing the obvious we miss the more deleterious. While seeing the clearly wrong we miss the acceptable wrong. We let that leaven in, sometimes intentionally, not realizing that we're in danger of leavening the whole lump. It ought to concern us, then, when we read about God's perspective on the greedy, the gossip, those who dishonor their parents, and those who love pleasure. "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things" (Rom 2:2). "The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9). "Avoid such people" (2 Tim 3:5). While you're hastening to point fingers at the homosexual offenders, be careful it's not you who is missing the log in your own eye.

The Golden Calf

Remember the story of the golden calf? Yeah, sure you do. God spoke to Israel as "face to face" as it gets, where the nation gathered around Mount Sinai (Exo 19) and God declared to them His law (Exo 20-23). Then God called Moses and a few extras to go up and get more info (Exo 24-31) where He told Moses about His design for the tabernacle. While they were up there, the people got a bit restless. They went to Aaron and demanded, "Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him" (Exo 32:1). Aaron fought them off, but lost, so they gave him their gold and he threw it into a pot and -- poof! -- out came this golden calf (Exo 32:21-24). Okay, so maybe Aaron didn't quite represent that event properly, but that was his story and he was sticking to it. The outcome, of course, was not pleasant for the children of Israel ... or even the adults. Moses's verdict resulted in the execution of 3,000 people (Exo 32:26-28) and God followed that up with a plague. Not good at all.

There are, I believe, a few fine points missed in this story that might be helpful and even instructive. I mean, for instance, it appears that Aaron made the golden calf for the people and clearly the people pay a high price for their idolatry, so why is it that Aaron, as payment for his complicity, gets made high priest? How did that work out? And how is it that Aaron, as Moses's cohort, took part in the first place? So let's look at some of the details to see if we can make some sense out of it.

In the story, when Aaron is tasked with making them gods, he asks them to "Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters ..." (Exo 32:2). Isn't that interesting? They had a load of loot from the Egyptians when they left Egypt (Exo 12:35-36), so why not some of that? It would appear that Aaron was stalling, knowing that taking the gold off the women and children would be much more difficult than taking a little from their stashes back in the tents. This would also coincide with Moses's apparent assumption that Aaron acted under duress (Exo 32:21). Next, Aaron tried the delaying tactic of "tomorrow". I mean, if the idol is there and ready, why wait? Note, also, that when the idol was finished, Aaron declared "a feast to the LORD." That "LORD" is the word "YHWH", the word for the One True God, not just any gods. The people had asked for elohiym -- generic "gods" -- and Aaron gave them YHWH, Jehovah, their One God. At least in name. Note, in fact, that Aaron specifically countered what was being said. "And they said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" (Exo 32:4). Who is "they"? Very possibly the Egyptians that had accompanied them. But Aaron denied that it was their elohiym and claimed that it was YHWH.

It should also be noted that there is an interesting theory about this calf. Some have suggested that Aaron was playing a "trick" on the people. The calf was a standard component of Egyptian pagan worship. They would often put the image of their god on the back of a cow, where the cow formed the seat of the god. But Aaron produced a calf without a rider. The idea is that Aaron took what the Egyptians that were with them and the Israelites that had grown up in Egypt were used to and used it as an object lesson. He was saying, in essence, "Your God is knowable like the gods of Egypt, but not visible -- not earthly -- like they are." Maybe.








^{Storm-God Hadad on the back of a cow}


Here's what we do know. We know that the people weren't willing to wait. Moses took too long. God wasn't acting quickly enough. The actual, visible, even dangerous (Exo 19:12-13) presence of God on the Mount was not good enough. They demanded satisfaction, and it was to be a "here and now" satisfaction. It was to be represented by something known and was to act as a suitable substitute for the Almight God. Aaron offered, perhaps reluctantly and slowly, that substitute.

We live in an idolatrous world. We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7-8). We live in a world beset by substitutes for God because "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). Idolatry is the standard operating mode here. We all suffer from it. We worship the creature rather than the Creator. Sometimes it's because we are unregenerate and, therefore, by nature hostile to God. But in the story of the golden calf, it wasn't those outside who were clamoring for a replacement; it was Israel. It was those who had seen God's salvation, been through the Red Sea. It was those who just said, "All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do" (Exo 24:3). That there are those in the world who have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (Rom 1:23) is no surprise. But we, those of the faith, ought to know better.

Idolatry is simply the substitution of something not-God for God. We think of it as a wooden image or a metal form of a false deity. We've gotten much more creative. It could be the flat-screen god in the family room or the political action committee of your favorite party or the social justice movement that is going to straighten out the world. It could be your car, your house, your spouse, your children, your job, your bank account, your own body. It is whatever you love more than Christ and whatever takes your attention from God. It is whatever you think will save you that is not God Himself. It cloaks itself in rationality and comfort. And it is a lie (Rom 1:25). Learn from the Israelites. Substituting for God does not end well.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21).

Truth by Vote

As with most arguments/debates, one side "wins" and the other "loses" when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument.

I read this claim on another blog that someone pointed me to and was amazed. The discussion was on the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage. And it appears as if the claim by a self-professed Christian was that an argument can be properly determined by asking those who listen which is the most rational or moral argument. That is, truth by vote.

It is certain that you can ask an audience listening to a debate "Which argument made the most rational or moral sense?" and get an answer. (It is, of course, most likely that you will get a divided answer, but an answer just the same.) And in a generic, formal sense, it might be said, based on this scheme, that the one with the most votes "won the debate". What cannot be said was that the one with the most votes was right.

I would hope, even to this blogger, that it is abundantly clear that the second -- the right or wrong of the argument -- cannot be determined by public opinion. Any Christian who has read his or her Bible will know that 1) Christianity is right and 2) the world will not like it. Paul is not hazy when he affirms, "The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Any questions? Well, he wasn't done. "Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:21-25). Let's see ... Jews and Gentiles vote "No" on this message. That leaves ... no one. All that is left is "those who are called". If truth is a matter of voting -- by determining the case that appeals to those listening as the most rational or moral -- then we can all give up our Gospel and go home.

It is important to be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). It is wise to be ready to do so as rationally and coherently as possible. Bad arguments do not serve well. But in the end, truth is not up for a vote. It isn't a matter of the most appealing arguments. It isn't a popularity contest. Like today's "same-sex marriage" debate, it isn't about what the culture thinks it should do that actually determines what is right. Don't fall into that trap. Because in that pit you carefully remove the Christian faith. I'm pretty sure that genuine Christians aren't going to fall for that.

Update
Good news, folks. The author of that blog I referenced does not believe that Truth is determined by vote. However, since so many do believe that is the case and do put so much stock in whose arguments are swaying the public opinion, and since the Bible is abundantly clear that genuine spiritual truth will not be acceptable to those hostile to God, the warning still stands. There are those who believe that the correct argument is whatever the majority thinks it is. Don't fall for that.