Most To Be Pitied

1 Corinthians 15 is a fascinating chapter for a variety of reasons. It is there that we find the simplest presentation of the Gospel in all of Scripture (1 Cor 15:3-4). We read of Paul's astounding apologetic for the Resurrection -- eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:5-8). We have that interesting exercise in logic -- "If there is no resurrection of the dead ..." (1 Cor 15:12-20). And who can forget the classic "mom" line: "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor 15:33). This chapter includes the glorious "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Cor 15:55) and that wonderful promise of being changed from perishable to imperishable "in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor 15:51-57). Lots of good stuff.

I recently referenced 1 Corinthians 15 when I suggested that Pascal's Wager violated the biblical view.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:19).

In his book, Desiring God, John Piper sees this as an indictment of western Christianity. I think he's right. Think about it. Given life in today's "Christianized" world, in what sense are we "most to be pitied"?

Paul lived a radically different Christianity than we do today. He was "in danger every hour" (1 Cor 15:30). He fought wild animals in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32). In his second epistle to the Corinthians he has a whole list.

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure (2 Cor 11:24-27).

And lest you wish to chalk all this up to Paul and his times, he offers the alternative. What would his life be like if he wasn't a believer? "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor 15:32). Paul's suggestion is a two-sided coin. On one side, the rational life without Christ is to simply enjoy life's pleasures. That just makes sense. The other side of the coin is that Paul didn't.

Contrast that with western Christianity in general and American Christianity in particular. While most of us haven't succumbed to the "health and wealth gospel", that false gospel that suggests that all true believers deserve to be rich, we're not too far off. According to reliable studies, only a third of church goers actually give financial support to their churches. Christians worldwide give an average of about 2% of their income to Christian causes, with only 3-5% actually tithing. While it may be true that something like $103 billion went to churches in 2007, it still begs the question as to what they're doing with all that money. Most of it is spent on buildings and salaries and events rather than Christ. And this is just in terms of money. How about time? Is your time your own, or is it the Lord's? Or your job? Is your job your business or is it God's business? There are so many of these questions. Family, future, retirement, vacation, leisure, charity ... on and on it goes. Where are your priorities?

Why does Paul consider us to be "most to be pitied" if we only have Christ in this life and not the hereafter?

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith -- that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead (Phil 3:8-11).

It's all right there. Assuming that Christ is raised, that Christianity is genuine, that what we believe is true, Paul says that it completely revamps your value system. Status, birthright, income, all of it goes away. It falls in the "loss" column. The only thing of any value is "knowing Christ Jesus my Lord". The deepest longing of Paul's heart was to share in the sufferings of Christ.

You may think I'm pointing fingers. Trust me. It is my own sense of conviction that weighs most heavily on me. I am not a modern example of Paul's Christian values. I do not die daily. I live a comfortable life and would be hard-pressed to do otherwise ... to my own shame. I have wrong values. I suspect, however, that I'm not alone. So I thought, while I'm mulling over my shortcomings, that maybe you'd like to join me to see if you have some similar problems. Where are your values? Do you consider comfort and lifestyle more valuable than knowing Christ. Is "sacrificial giving" a term that makes you uncomfortable? Do you see suffering for Christ's sake as a necessary evil at best? (The Bible describes it as something of great value.) Are you offended if there is a hint that you might have to suffer some loss of some sort for your belief in Christ? Then maybe you have some value problems just like I do. Because the way American Christianity works, we are not the most to be pitied, are we?

Tolerance

Tolerance is the rule of the day. People are fine if you want to believe what you want to believe ... as long as you don't believe that those who disagree are wrong. They're perfectly happy for you to be a Christian (well, perhaps not perfectly happy) as long as you don't suggest that being a Christian is the only way to go. And if you want to hold a position in the Bible, that's fine -- just don't tell others that their position on the same subject is wrong. You're not allowed to do that. No, no. We need to be tolerant. We need to not only allow others to disagree; we need to accept their views as equally valid.

It starts as a mistaken step. In America, our freedoms of speech and of religion mean that varying speech and religions are equally protected. The next step, then, is to assume that they are equally valid, and this is a mistaken step.

Setting aside (for a moment) truth claims, it becomes readily apparent very quickly that "equally valid" makes no sense whatsoever. In the easiest of examples, a grade school student that claims that 2 + 2 = 4 and his classmate that claims that 2 + 2 = 5 may both enjoy protection in expressing these claims, but it is impossible for both claims to be valid. That is, 2 + 2, whatever it is, cannot be both 4 and 5. That's not just poor math; it's poor logic. So when religions claim "Ours is the exclusive truth", whatever you may conclude about that religion, you cannot conclude that all religions with exclusive truth claims are valid. Logic forbids it.

We as Christians have a difficult position to take. In America we are free to believe what we want. So we believe that Christ is our savior, that Christianity is true, and that the Bible is the Word of God. And no one can complain because we have that freedom. They do complain, though, when we state these things as true. If we are to be faithful followers of Christ, we must conclude that Christ is the only way, not because we're arrogant and intolerant, but because He said so. For us, true arrogance would be to acknowledge that God Incarnate said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" and say, "Yeah, well, that's not true." Genuine conceit would be to recognize that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" and then say, "But, of course, all roads lead to heaven." Yet this is the demand of those around us. In other words, we can believe what we want ... as long as we don't genuinely believe it. You're free to hold as true whatever you wish as long as you don't hold it as true.

And, for us, it only gets worse. Assuming that Jesus is the only way and faith in Christ is their only hope and anything else is eternal damnation, what are we to do? They would tell us, "Be more considerate and just don't tell anybody." Really??!! "Excuse me, but you're about to drink poison." "Please, just let me do what I want. You shouldn't be so rude." We're told that we're overbearing if we try to warn people that they're going to hell. We should just ... let them? How is that kind, caring, considerate? How is that a nice thing to do to people?

I get it. Some people (of all religions) can be abrasive. Christianity carries around its share of poor examples of Christianity. Some people are intentionally rude and unkind when they express Christian truth. I'm not suggesting that's a good idea at all. The gospel is already offensive enough; we don't need to be offensive in our presentation of it. On the other hand, if we are allowed to believe that Christianity is true, we are required to believe that Christianity is exclusive. If we are going to be caring people, we are required to speak the truth in love. We are promised that we won't always be warmly welcomed with our message, and we shouldn't complain when that promise comes true. On the other hand, we dare not succumb to a twisted sense of tolerance that eliminates truth and silences genuine love. Tolerance -- accepting as valid -- that terminates truth and love is not a virtue. (Oddly enough, from the other direction, tolerance that accepts as valid the Christian claim to truth seems to be unnecessary. Why is that?) So we're forced to let our lights so shine before men and let God do the work. I guarantee it won't always be pleasant. But, really, what choice have we?

Lesser Pleasures

For some Christians the simple idea of pleasure is suspect. We don't seek pleasure. That's bad. We seek ... well, something else. And we know this because we can read wise sayings from the Bible like "Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man" (Prov 21:17). We are warned that in the last days men will be "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:4). We know that some of the seed falls on thorny soil and is "choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life" (Luke 8:14). Bad. We know it's wrong to be "slaves to various passions and pleasures" (Titus 3:3). So some conclude "Pleasure = Bad" and we end up at the stoic, sour-faced Christian stereotype.

On the other hand, this becomes problematic if we take all of Scripture seriously. We read, for instance, "Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding" (Prov 10:23). Solomon argues that "everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil -- this is God's gift to man" (Ecc 3:13). David writes to God, "In Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psa 16:11). Apparently, then, it is not pleasure that is the problem. It is what brings you pleasure.

The psalmist says that the blessed (that's pleasurable, isn't it?) man is marked by having delight in the law of the Lord. We are told to "Delight yourself in the Lord." In the list that is the fruit of the Spirit we find joy and we are, in fact, commanded to "rejoice evermore". No, that's not sufficient. In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul writes, "Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord" (Phil 3:1). Not satisfied with that, he repeats it: "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice" (Phil 4:4). He tells the Thessalonians, "Rejoice always" (1 Thess 5:16) because, among other things, "this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18).

Pleasure, you see, is not the enemy. Our problem is not a love of pleasure. Our problem is that we are too easily satisfied with lesser pleasures. We find pleasure in lust when the greater pleasure is in genuine love. We find pleasure in material goods when the greater pleasure is in heavenly treasures. Some (too many) find pleasure in pornography which robs them of real pleasure found in genuine love and godly relationships. And, Of course, in all things there is a still higher pleasure -- the ultimate pleasure.

I count everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ (Phil 3:18).

There is the highest of pleasure. If we delight in the Lord, there can be no higher joy. Lesser pleasures become boring and pointless when we have an eye to the abundant joy of our relationship with Christ. Paul counts them as trash.

Are you delighting in trash or are you seeking genuine pleasure? Are you satisfied with dung (the King James word) or is your real joy found in Him? Seriously, are you happy with stuff when you could have Christ? That would be a pitiable pleasure. Become a pleasure seeker; delight yourself in the Lord. That is surpassing value.

Pray for my Kids

When I was in junior high school, someone told me this little story. I've never forgotten it because, well, it made too much sense to me.

Do you know what double petunia is?
Well, a petunia is like a begonia.
A begonia is a kind of sausage.
A sausage and battery is a crime.
Monkeys crime trees.
Trees a crowd.
A rooster crowd and made a noise.
A noise is the thing between your eyes.
When you vote, there are eyes and there are nays.
A colt nays.
If you go out in the rain with a colt, you wake up with double petunia.

Pray for my kids. That's the kind of father they grew up with.

No Need to Ask or Tell

This is going to sound like a moral rant or something, I'm sure. I am, of course, morally opposed to homosexual behavior. Obviously, then, this must be about that. Well, it isn't. It isn't a rant. It's a serious question. And I've not heard any serious answers, so maybe someone can help me out.

The President is moving toward eliminating the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military and allow homosexuals to serve openly. Top military brass are troubled by "a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are." So the goal of those who testified before the Senate are hoping that heterosexual and homosexual will just serve alongside and everything will be hunky dory. Yes, hunky dory -- I believe that was the very term they used.

Now, I'm not questioning whether or not a homosexual can serve well in the military. Admiral Mike Mullen affirmed, "I have served with homosexuals since 1968." That's fine. There is nothing about people who are attracted to the same gender that would preclude them from being able to do the tasks required by the military. And while I obviously have a moral objection to their sexual behavior, no one could safely argue that the military is a bastion of high moral character even among the heterosexual population. And, frankly, I think that whole "shared blood may bring about AIDS" is a specious argument. I mean, heterosexual members may have diseases (STDs, hepatitis, even HIV or AIDS) as well, so let's not even go there. In all cases you screen for bad stuff and hope for the best. I'm fine with that. And prejudice in the military against homosexuals will just have to be dealt with. They dealt with racial prejudice. They always have to deal with a whole host of other prejudices. Deal with it. No, none of those "standard" problems disturb me. My problem is in envisioning how to ... how do they put it ... "accommodate" homosexuals.

Given "normal" conditions, you have men and you have women in the military. Men and women do not share accommodations. Why? Well, it's quite obvious. There is this standard condition which almost all humans encounter in which they prefer not to be made constantly and without invitation a sex object. It is standard for women to not undress in front of random men and, despite what some might thing, the same is true in reverse. Especially in the military, but anywhere else, public encounters are stressful enough without the accompanying sexual tension that opposite sexes bring. That, of course, is under "normal" conditions. So, a group of guys in a dorm room in the military aren't too concerned about being in various states of undress around a group of heterosexual males because there is no sexual tension there. Ditto for women. Have someone of the opposite gender walk in and it's "cover up quickly". We all know this. And so we house male and female separately.

Currently, under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, we don't quite have these conditions. We understand that there are those males being housed with males who may be sexually attracted to males or females with females. Some estimate that it's up to 60,000 of them. That's roughly 4%. So it might be (has been) argued that heterosexual and homosexual members of the military are already living alongside each other. Here's the problem. First, in a "No homosexuals in the military" environment, it would be highly unlikely that this would be the case. But even in a "Don't ask, don't tell" environment, while the odds are higher (4%), you just don't know. So, here I am, Joe Hetero, serving in the military, living in a dorm with other guys. Are any of them possibly looking at me with lust? Well, there is only a 4% chance that they are, and I'll not know if they are. Therefore, I can tell myself it's not a problem and be done.

Now we shift to the third scenario -- from "no homosexuals allowed" to "Don't ask, don't tell" to openly homosexual. How do we now deal with this new demographic? Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension. So what do we do with the homosexuals? We can't put them in their own housing because we'd be building in sexual tension. I suppose, since they're not attracted to females, we could put them in with the women, but that would clearly not be the right thing to do. Besides, wouldn't the male homosexual population be uncomfortable in those circumstances? You can be quite sure that housing female homosexuals among the heterosexual males would be a catastrophe. It seems like the only answer would be to house each of them separately from the rest. But that's not practical at all. Without bringing up any of the moral issues, questions of their ability to serve, or the vague "threat of AIDS", how would we accommodate the homosexual population in the military? Often the military is housed in group settings. How will the military deal with this thorny problem? I don't have an answer. I can't even imagine an answer. Is the best we have to make the rest of the male (and female) population suffer? I can't see where this is going.

The Fruits of Marriage

A friend of mine is the manager of the produce section at the local grocery store. He has a lovely fiance and I asked him when they planned to be married.

"Well, we cantaloupe because I have a honeydew list that would kill a kiwi. Besides, I think we could berry get by on what I make. I would get a second job, but I have to ask myself, 'How far should a mango?' I have some collectible books that are in cherry condition I could get rid of, so maybe after I visit the book celery might consider saving up for a wedding. I mean, she's a real tomato and we make a wonderful pear. She's been a great date. I'd have to be out of my gourd not to marry her. I'd have to be some kind of a nut. And all that stuff about 'You have to be ready' is a bit corny to me. Besides, I don't really give a fig if we're rich or anything, so we'll be wed someday, kumquat will. I'll come up with the cabbage somehow. Something will turnip. If we didn't marry, I'm pretty sure it would make artichoke. He's going to be my best man, you know. So I yam sure we'll get married soon. But I gotta get to work, so, when we get married, orange you going to come? If so, I'll cashew then. Lettuce catch up then, okay, Herb?"

I didn't have the heart to tell him my name wasn't Herb. And I should have known better than to ask in the first place.

Legion

A new movie came out at the end of January. The title was Legion. The tagline: When the last angel falls, the fight for mankind begins. The premise: The archangel Michael comes to earth to fight to save mankind. And who is Michael fighting? Well, as it turns out, "When God loses faith in humankind, He sends His legion of angels to bring on the Apocalypse."

Now, I know ... it's Hollywood. Don't expect good theology from Hollywood. It is not, after all, Holywood. Fine. I'm there. So I haven't seen the movie and I'm not planning to, nor do I plan to review or complain about it. It's Hollywood, after all. What I do wish to point out is the very popular view that God might have faith in mankind.

Let's set aside the multiple errors like the remote possibility that God could lose anything or that Michael could stand against God or that there would be any question of the outcome. Again, Hollywood can do anything they want. But the real problem here, Hollywood aside, is that most people believe that God highly prizes mankind in general. The fundamental source of this high value God places on humans is ... well ... we're highly valuable. We are intrinsically valuable. We deserve to be valued. God owes it to us. That is, any rational being can see that humans are important and God would be foolish not to think so. Thus, it comes as a sad awakening (in a movie like Legion) that God would discover that humans are failures.

Trust me, even those of us who are trying our best to be theologically correct slip into this thinking. We believe that God values us because we're valuable. We believe that it would be wrong of God, for instance, to simply eliminate the human race. It would be wrong. It is that belief that makes, as an example, the whole idea of reprobation -- that God would choose some not to be saved -- so abhorrent. We're too valuable for that. God values us all and desperately wants all of us to be saved ... because we're so valuable. We apply this to evil in general. Theodicy is the defense of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. The only reason it is necessary is because God should eliminate evil because we're so darned important! So it's a sticky question for most of us, and don't suggest otherwise.

Well, let me suggest otherwise. The question is one of value. In business (and most of life), value is determined by a simple formula: Benefit - Cost = Value. Think about that for a moment. From God's perspective, what are the benefits of human beings and the cost of human beings? The benefits are near zero and the cost is His Son amongst everything else. That puts a negative value on humans. No, no, let's not have God figure our value that way. If we're going to have any hope, let's bank on God placing value on us in relative terms. You know, like "sentimental value". He is so endeared with us that we are valued simply by being, not by calculation. There, does that help? No, not really.

When kids today come across an arrogant kid, you might hear them offering some sage advice: "Get over yourself." It's their way of telling people, "You hold too high a view of yourself. Step it down. Give up the drama and the hype. You're just not as important as you think." And we would do well to learn from that advice. God has no faith in humankind. We're just not that valuable. Our only value is assigned, not intrinsic, and that is a variable that God alone knows and places -- based solely on Himself. Don't count on your cuteness to get grace from God.

Against Predestination

I was wondering whether or not Martin Luther taught the doctrine of Predestination, so I did some research. The answer, it turns out, is "yes" and "no".

Some in Luther's day latched onto his view that God was sovereign to assume that all things were predestined. Indeed, Luther affirmed that "everything is absolute and unavoidable." That is, it is a given that if God works all things after the counsel of His will, that if He is sovereign and omniscient, then what will happen will certainly happen and it can't be changed. Thus, Luther affirmed predestination.

Luther also countered the concept. He didn't object on principle, but on practice. Those in his day would argue, "If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works." This isn't the principle of predestination; this is the application (or misapplication) of the principle. Luther held that God was sovereign and all things were set, but we didn't know what they were. That meant that we couldn't operate as if we did. Thus, Luther denied predestination.

The problem really is in the application. We can know in theory that "everything is absolute and unavoidable", but we can't live that way. You see, God is a God of means. He has methods by which He operates. Easy examples would be that He provides for families by having us work for a living or He makes converts by the preaching of the Word. He could provide for His own by simply giving us what we need, but He doesn't use those means. He could convert people simply by speaking it, but He doesn't use those means. Thus, while all things are predetermined, since we don't know what those things actually are, we are obligated to operate through God's means.

A similar objection has often been lodged against predestination in terms of evangelism. If God chooses whom He will save, why bother spreading the Gospel? I can offer two very quick reasons. First, God commanded it. That settles it, doesn't it? That should be sufficient reason. Go and make disciples not because you understand, agree, or are the power source for such an enterprise. Go because you're told to go. That's all we really need. But the second reason is precious to me. God has ordained, by use of such means, that His people should take part in His work. We do this by obeying "so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." We do this by preaching the Word because "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" We do this by praying "that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

Intellectually, if God is sovereign and omniscient, then we can be sure that everything that occurs is predetermined. We can be sure intellectually. The danger comes when we misappropriate that certainty to prevent us from doing what God commands. We are commanded to be holy. We are commanded to pray. We are commanded to share the Gospel. If we try to use the hidden will of God as an excuse to defy God, it will surely end badly for us.

Origin of Marriage

In the debate about whether or not we ought to redefine "marriage", we are not allowed to bring into the discussion our religious views. For those who disagree with our beliefs, they simply say, "Well, that's fine for you, but you can't force your views on us." There is, in fact, some truth to that. We can't force our views on others. You can't force someone to believe. Okay, fine. So this discussion isn't for them. It's for us.

Are you aware of the origin of marriage? A lot of Christians would say "Yes" and point us back to Genesis. In chapter 2 we read, "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). That's it, the origin of marriage. Jesus quoted it in Matthew 19 as the reason why we shouldn't allow divorce. Paul quoted it in Ephesians 5 as the reason why husbands should love their wives. The origin of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. See?

I think it would be a mistake to agree with me there. Look at the Ephesians 5 passage:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (Eph 5:31-32).

Do you see that? Paul just disagreed with me.

Marriage didn't originate in the union of Adam and Eve. According to Paul, the concept of the union of a man and a woman originated in God's plan to unite Christ and the Church. Marriage, then, is simply the human representation of the divine concept. In other words, marriage, properly understood, should be a representation of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Look back at the Ephesians passage again. We see there that wives (who represent "the Church") are to submit to their husbands (who represent "Christ") "as the Church submits to Christ". See that? Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord because the first purpose of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between the Church and Christ. Husbands (who represent "Christ"), in turn are to love their wives (who represent "the Church") "as Christ loved the Church". Again, the first purpose of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the Church.

You can spend some time considering the ramifications of such imagery. We know, for instance, that the Great Commission to the Church is to make disciples (that is, to bring people to Christ and then "raise them" in the training and admonition of the Lord). The great commission (no capital letters) for a marriage is to bear children, bringing them into the world and bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Or, from another perspective, we know that there are different roles for Christ and for the Church, so we shouldn't be surprised that there should be different roles for husbands and wives. We know that Christ is the head of the Church and we know that the husband is the head of the wife. We know that the Church is supposed to adore Christ and we read that wives should respect their husbands. We read how Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church and we read that husbands ought to do the same for their wives. And so it goes.

If you agree with the premise, there are two very important applications. First, does your marriage provide a good illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church? Are you as husbands providing the headship and care that the wife needs? Are you as wives providing the love and support that the husband needs? Are you seeking to reproduce and, if you are/have, are you making it a priority ("great commission") to disciple those children? Frankly I think that if we can get it through our heads that marriage is a picture of that relationship between Christ and Church, it will clear up a lot of confusion many of us have over what marriage should look like.

The second application is in the public sector. If we allow "marriage" to be redefined, what then? Where are we going to go to provide the biblical image? If they redefine marriage to something else, they've already stripped off all the useful imagery. There is no submission, no reproduction, no connection whatsoever to the relationship between Christ and the Church and, therefore, God's design for marriage. I'm not concerned at all about the fact that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is sin. Fine. That's a given. But if we allow God's definition of marriage as an image of Christ and the Church to be stripped away, the consequences are much worse than we realize. Think, for instance, what happened to Moses when he struck the rock rather than spoke to it (Numbers 20). Moses destroyed the image of the Rock once struck that could now be appealed to by prayer, and it cost him entry into the Promised Land. God takes His imagery seriously. Those who engage in sexual immorality (whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) will bear the consequences of their own sin, but we need to be careful not to give up too easily in defending God's imagery of marriage.

What Makes You Happy?

We are assured, in our Declaration of Independence, that we have a God-given right to the pursuit of happiness. While I'm not sure I agree, it still begs the question, "What makes you happy?"

All humans are motivated by happiness. All humans want to do that which makes them happy. It is a fundamental drive, and I'm not suggesting in the least that it's necessarily wrong. It's just part of our construction, part of that which makes us human. We are concerned about our best interests. Even someone who commits suicide does so because they believe that would be best for them. We inherently love our selves and want to be happy.

While there are a lot of possibilities -- seemingly endless -- of what makes people happy, I wonder how bizarre my version really is. Perhaps it's not so far out there. What really makes me happy is the joy of others. That seems to be a primary motivation for me in so many areas of my life. I dearly want my wife to be happy and will go great distances to accomplish it. It sounds like self-sacrifice, I suppose, but that entirely misses the point because it is her happiness that makes me happy. So if I surrender something to make her happy, I am simply doing what makes me happy. This works itself out in so many other ways, too. I feel the need to engage people I know who appear unhappy to see if I can help them out. Their happiness makes me happy. I want to hear from people the good news they are sharing because their happiness makes me happy. The other day I paid for lunch for a friend of mine. He was a little low on cash and I thought he'd enjoy a lunch if he didn't have to pay for it. Now, the motivation might have been to make him indebted to me or to encourage him to like me or ... well, lots of things, but it wasn't. If buying him lunch made him happy, it made me happy.

Happiness is a fleeting and fitful thing. Sometimes we can find happiness in the wrong thing. Reveling in other people's misfortune is probably the wrong thing. Sometimes we can find happiness in cheap things when we ought not be satisfied with them. The thrill of a sexual encounter outside of marriage is nothing like the deeper satisfaction of the union of sexual relations within marriage, for instance. We might go to church and enjoy the singing when we could have been enjoying the presence of God. Happiness, then, can be elusive and misguided. On the other hand, humans are built to pursue it. Do we find our happiness in the things we ought to? What makes you happy?

Wartime Living

Lifestyles in the first half of the 1940's in America were not something that we here in the 21st century would likely recognize. They were coming out of the Great Depression where unemployment was pushing 25%. Enter a world at war. According to encyclopedia.com, "In 1941 as many as 40 percent of all American families lived below poverty level. Nearly eight million workers earned less than the legal minimum wage. Another eight million Americans were unemployed, and the median income was only $2,000 per year." But there was a new outlook in America. While 10 million men went off to war, women went to work to support the family and the war effort. Goods necessary for living such as gasoline, rubber, and sugar were rationed so the boys overseas could get what they needed to fight. Price controls and taxes controlled much of life. I didn't know this before I started the research for this, but during the war there was a national speed limit imposed of 35 miles per hour. Standard drivers were limited to 3-4 gallons of gas a week. People were allowed to own up to 5 car tires; anything above that was confiscated for the war effort. According to wikipedia, by the end of 1943, "automobiles, typewriters, sugar, gasoline, bicycles, footwear, fuel oil, coffee, stoves, meat, lard, shortening and oils, cheese, butter, margarine, processed foods (canned, bottled, and frozen), dried fruits, canned milk, firewood and coal, jams, jellies, and fruit butter were rationed." All of this and more was considered reasonable and right because America was at war and everyone needed to do their part to defeat evil and defend the right.

Imagine that today. Imagine Americans today being asked to pay higher taxes to support war. Imagine the uproar that would occur if Americans were told that they would have to limit their gasoline usage, their sugar, their speed. Imagine the outrage that would explode from Americans if they were told they couldn't do whatever they pleased whenever they pleased with as much as they pleased. Americans today aren't quite as sacrificial as they were back then, are they?

My point, however, is not to demean American greed or self-centeredness today. My point is to lead your attention to something else. Americans are humans and humans are sinful. Don't expect anything different. But I'm writing here to Christians. According to the Bible, we are at war. "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm" (Eph 6:12-13). So why are we American Christians tending to live like we're not? While the population of the '40's gladly sacrificed comfort and income and personal rights to defend what is good, we're barely willing to give the growing needs around us acknowledgment. We ought to be living life aware of the spiritual war around us. We ought to be laying up treasures in heaven rather than building earthly treasures. Don't we know there's a war on?

I'm not the guy to tell you what to sacrifice. That's between you and God. But if we are to be Christians -- followers of Christ -- and if we take the Word of God seriously, it would seem to me that we cannot continue at the materialistic pace we are at and still call ourselves disciples of Jesus. I am not one who believes that when Jesus said, "Sell all your possessions," He actually meant sell everything you own. Still, I have to ask (myself more than you) "If it doesn't mean sell everything, what does it mean?" and I can't bring myself to conclude that He actually meant, "Live it up! Gather all the worldly goods you can for your own personal pleasure!" We're at war. We ought to be living more like it.

Double Predestination

Just the phrase alone can inspire wrath. "Predestination" by itself stirs up all sorts of resistance in a lot of folks, but step on over to "double predestination" and you've stepped into a pit of vipers (so to speak).

Defining terms is important, especially on a hot-button topic like this. What is "predestination"? Well, to be clear, it is not what most people think it is. The first thought is "election" or the like. The biblical version (and it is indisputably a biblical term) is actually referencing ... everything. Romans 8:29-30 uses the term to cover the entire process from "foreknow" to "called" to "justified" to "glorified". Paul there says that we are predestined "to be conformed to the image of His Son". Ephesians 1:11 says we were predestined to adoption and to obtain an inheritance. In Acts 4, the people of Jesus's day did "whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place" to accomplish the crucifixion of Christ. And so it goes. It's only reasonable. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, then all things are predestined. Note that "predestined" means "determined in advance" without requiring direct causation. Thus, if God is omniscient and simply and accurately knows all that will occur, it will occur and is, therefore, already determined. Thus, given God's Sovereignty and Omniscience, not only is predestination biblical, it's mandatorily logical.

Of course, since "predestination" entails all things, then it would necessarily include "election". And since the concept of whether or not God chooses some for salvation is a hotly debated topic, it is that aspect of predestination that is contested the most. So when we roll around to double predestination, we've rolled into a fight. So let's see if we can take some of the teeth out of this squabble.

Assuming predestination means that God predestines some to eternal salvation, is there any reason to think that double predestination is true? Double predestination would say that, just as some are predestined to salvation, the rest are predestined to damnation. And that whole idea that some might be predestined (predetermined, foreordained) to damnation is what really gets people fired up. But I don't really know why. If we can establish that God chooses some for salvation and that God does not choose all for salvation, then haven't we already established double predestination? Look at it this way. If God chooses some (not all), then by definition we have double predestination.

Now, first let's agree on something. We all agree that God does not force people to be damned. This is the image conjured up in a lot of people's minds when we say "double predestination". They say, "So, you're saying that there are people who might want to be saved, but since they were predestined for damnation, they cannot be?" No, this is not in mind when we speak of double predestination. "But, if you argue that God brings people to salvation (election), then aren't you arguing that He also keeps people from salvation?" No, no, a thousand times, no. We will all agree that God does not force anyone to be damned, nor does God cause anyone to be damned. There is no biblical nor logical reason to think so. We're all agreed on that, okay?

Having tossed out together that horrendous concept that God authors sin and forces damnation, we are still not done with the concept. The real question, logic aside, must be "Does the Bible teach it?" That's the one we need to examine.

In Romans 9 Paul is talking about genuine Israel, "the children of the promise". How does one get to be one of these? Paul says:

It depends not on human will or work, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:16-18).

Paul has no problem at all making the claim that God both has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills. So stunning is this claim that Paul immediately answers the next obvious objection: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist his will?'" (Rom 9:19) and so on. Regardless of what you'd like to think, this clearly speaks of both election ("Has mercy on whom He wills") and reprobation ("Hardens whom He wills"). ("Reprobation" is the opposite side of election. While election means "to foreordain to salvation", reprobation means "to foreordain to damnation".) And making such a large concept on a single verse is questionable, so, of course, there's more. Peter writes of Jesus as a cornerstone. Some find Him "chosen and precious", but others find Him a "stumblingblock". "They stumble," Peter says, "because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do" (1 Peter 2:8). This isn't the only place Peter speaks of double predestination. In chapter two of his second epistle he talks about false prophets and says, "Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep" (2 Peter 2:3). That phrase, "from long ago", is an interesting phrase. The King James uses "of old". The same phrase is used in the next chapter where Peter speaks of mockers who "deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God" (2 Peter 3:5). Same concept ... before time. Jude uses the very same phrase in verse 4 of his epistle. "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). So both Peter and Jude affirm that condemnation was "long ago" and the language most likely points at "before time" -- from the beginning.

Predestination is biblical. The only way to deny that is to cut out Bible passages. Election is also biblical, even if we wish to debate the mechanism. Further, God's Sovereignty and Omniscience make predestination a logical necessity. If we admit that predestination is in the Bible and that God chooses by some means or another who is saved, logic would require that those who are not chosen would be predestined to condemnation. The concept isn't merely logical -- it's biblical. I'd say that we should set aside the hostility and come to an agreement here.

Marriage and Me

"If gay marriage was legalized, what difference would it make to you?" That's considered a popular argument today for changing the definition of marriage to allow for two people of the same sex to get married. Never mind that it isn't an actual argument for a position. Truth be told, it's a difficult question to answer. The idea is if it makes no difference to your marriage, what difference should it make to you if they do something else?

The problem, unfortunately, is much larger than we realize. The assault on marriage has been going on for a lot longer than we imagine. Now we are being told (not asked) that we need to redefine marriage in what looks like a small step. So small is the step, it seems, that the majority of people don't even see it.

What is marriage? Part of the difficulty of this seemingly simple question is the mixing of definition and application. You will commonly get answers like "It has changed over time" with "proofs" like polygamy, arranged marriages, and bans on interracial marriage. The problem with this is that they are not definitions of marriage, but applications of marriage. They are ways that marriage was carried out, not defined. Consider this example. A popular argument is that marriage used to be defined as a condition where the woman was the property of the man. And it seems rational ... except it isn't a definition. It would be like defining an automobile by where you drove it. But if you break it down, in all cases you'll find a constant thread, a commonality that clearly makes the definition of marriage rather than how marriages were carried out. Marriage for all time has been the union of a man and a woman, the key component of human society that produces a family with two opposite-gendered parents to raise children. That is the bottom-line version.

Not so today. Marriage to most is a social contract. It is a union of lives emotionally, legally, economically, socially, and so on. Marriage is the fundamental core of a society, serving a variety of integral purposes. Biblical marriage differs from the social contract concept because a contract says, "If you meet your obligations, then I will meet my obligations." The biblical version doesn't allow for failure to meet obligations; it is a covenant that is not to be broken. The obligation, then, is that I will always love my wife regardless of whether or not she meets my expectations.

That's a long way from today's view. While marriage has for most of time been viewed as a life-long commitment to another with the aim of bearing and raising children and meeting other generational and societal obligations, we've worked hard in the last century to liberate marriage from these traditional views. Marriage in the latter half of the 20th century was viewed as some sort of prison camp for women. Think, for instance, at the outrage some expressed over that "horrible" wedding ceremony where the minister pronounced them "man and wife". "See?" the left raged, "It isn't a union of equals! He's still a 'man', but she's not a woman -- she's a 'wife'!" So we threw it out. We acquiesced. And that whole "life-long commitment" thing had to go. So in 1980 for every woman who divorced her husband there were 12 men who divorced their wives and in 1990 the ratio had changed. For every man who divorced his wife there were 600 wives who divorced their husbands. Ah, equality! And that whole thing about children ... that had to go. It was pushed out in the 1970's with the overpopulation scare and almost completely demolished in the following decades when we assured women that their primary function in life was to do whatever they wanted to do. Having children would just have to wait ... perhaps indefinitely. As a result, birthrates in America have dropped to a low of 2.03 births per woman ... by choice. (The birthrate required to maintain replacement is 2.1.) And that whole "opposite-gendered parents" thing as the optimum for raising kids ... well ... you know how it is. It's not true ... right? Well, to be clear, yes, it's still true. (Throwing out "Good same-gendered parents are better than rotten opposite-gendered parents" is a red herring -- apples to oranges.)

So, starting with a covenant -- an agreement to meet my obligations regardless of your response -- in which two people of opposite gender become a united entity called "a family" with the expectation of bearing children and so on, we've certainly come a long way, baby. Now we're at a "contract of equals" in which discomfort is grounds for termination and children are possible at best and, too likely, problematic. In other words, a life-long relationship forming a union founded on commitment, selflessness, and family has "progressed" to a tenuous relationship with shaky commitment and self as the primary focus. Now ... all you have to do is change "he and she" to "whatever" and we're at "gay marriage".

What difference will it make to my marriage? I will still be committed to my wife for life. I will still be committed to my children for life. I will still honor "marriage" in its original sense. Passing that on to the next generation has become more difficult, and with each passing decline it gets worse. What will my grandchildren think marriage is? At this rate, a casual friendship between ... oh, who knows? But it will be warm and friendly, I'm sure. Meaningless, but warm and friendly. And my definition -- the definition of the ages -- will be an archaic, hard-to-find concept. Yeah ... that's too costly for me to support.

You Get 'Em When They're Not Looking

So I'm not really paying attention with the evening news on and I hear out of the corner of my ear a story about how Doctors perform transfusions on Valley woman’s unborn baby. What a concept! The mother has a rare blood condition that attacks her baby's red cells in the womb. So they're giving this little child transfusions every two to three weeks to save her life. (Her name is already Sharon before she's born.)

Then there's this fascinating quote from one of the doctors involved in the procedure:

"I always think it's a really, really fantastic thing that we have this technology available to us. It always is mind-blowing to me that we're about to operate on a life that's not born," said Dr. Lam.

"Operate on a life that's not born." Not a fetus. Life.

It seems like, when the issue of abortion is not on the table, everyone is well aware that the little one in the womb is a life, a child, a baby, worthy of the best possible care that we can offer. When abortion isn't the question, most will readily admit it's a life. Just don't ask them to repeat it when you're asking about abortion.

Addendum:
Another prime example. A woman went to the hospital with premature labor. She admitted that she had been smoking for the first 6 months of her pregnancy (which is stupid but not illegal). For the sake of the baby, the court ordered her not to leave the hospital. The state attorney who filed the suit to confine the woman said, "This is good people trying to do things in a right fashion to save lives -- whether some people want them saved or not." Lives? I thought they were merely tissue blobs.