Bad Company is not a 70's band

In the book of Joshua we read, "When the LORD had given rest to Israel from all their surrounding enemies, and Joshua was old and well advanced in years, Joshua summoned all Israel, its elders and heads, its judges and officers, and said to them ..." (Josh 23:1-2). The rest of the chapter is Joshua's instructions (he gives a second set in the next chapter) to the people of Israel as he is passing on. He reminds them of all God has done (Josh 23:3). He assures them God will continue (Josh 23:5). He urges them to be strong (Josh 23:6) by obedience and by clinging to God (Josh 23:6-8). "Be very careful," he says, "to love the Lord your God" (Josh 23:11). He tells them that, just as clearly and surely that God has fulfilled His promises to them, they can be sure that if they transgress His commands, He will also give them over to servitude under His wrath (Josh 23:14-16).

In the middle of that, he warns them. "You may not mix with these nations" (Josh 23:7). He warns them, "If you turn back and cling to the remant of these nations remaining among you ... know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you ..." (Josh 23:12-13). Joshua, before he died, strongly cautioned Israel to avoid making close relationships with people whose values and beliefs were radically different than their own. It wouldn't just be unwise; it would be devastating. It is noteworthy that the book of Judges follows immediately on Joshua, and Judges is a circular set of stories where the people immerse themselves in sinful relationships with the surrounding people, fall under God's judgment until they repent, and God rescues them again.

It's not like this is the only place such a warning occurs in Scripture. David wrote

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night (Psa 1:1-2).

Paul wrote "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor 15:33). He also penned the famous, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14).

And yet we read that Jesus ate with sinners. He's famous for it. He was called "a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Matt 11:19). How do we reconcile the two? Well, the answer is in Paul's phrase: "What fellowship has light with darkness?" And if you look back at Joshua's warning, it's the same. It wasn't that they weren't allowed an interaction with the nations. It was that they weren't allowed to mix. They weren't allowed to marry. They weren't allowed to partner with them. It wasn't supposed to be ... κοινωνία -- koinōnia. That's the word used there for "fellowship". Koinōnia is an interesting concept because it defies the American sense of "individualism" and embraces a unity, a divesting of self in favor of the group, a like-mindedness. It's like "two fellows in one ship". It isn't merely proximity or acquaintance; it is walking the same path in unison (1 John 1:3-6). It is shared purposes and shared values and shared beliefs and shared lives. And while Jesus fellowshiped in that sense with His disciples, He did not do the same with the tax collectors and sinners.

Why are there so many disaffected youth? You know, they're raised in the church and they're taught the right things and they're educated properly and still they leave the faith and the family and the truth. Why? Why are there so many dissatisfied Christians? These are the ones that have decided to be spiritual but not religious. They're not ditching all beliefs -- just biblical ones. Why is it that "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) is no longer in favor¹? There are, I'm sure, many reasons. There is Satan, the roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). There are those who are "not of us" (1 John 2:19), the tares among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30), the wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15). And it is largely this tendency in our society to thoroughly and completely ignore this warning: Bad company corrupts good morals. It is our willingness to submerge ourselves in the world, to commune with rather than simply engage sinners. It is largely our blind acceptance and embrace of the world (1 John 2:15), welcoming full partnership with those around us and eventually internalizing their worldview.

Bad company corrupts good morals. Not the '70's rock band, Bad Company. The company that follows the counsel of the wicked, that stands with sinners, that sits with scoffers, that partners with unbelievers, with lawlessness, with darkness. "What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" Paul thought the questions were rhetorical, that the answers were obvious. In today's individualistic, Americanized Christianity, we don't seem to agree. But we're certainly reaping the results².
________
¹ To be fair, the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints has always been in disfavor ... which was why Jude appealed to believers to contend for it against those who "have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4) ... you know, like the prevalent approach today.

² e.g., Dan Haseltine, 'Jars Of Clay' Lead Singer, Tweets Support For Gay Marriage or folks like Rachel Held Evans.

When God Isn't Working

We have some interesting passages in Scripture that seem to point to a failure on the part of God. You find, for instance, the claim that

the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom 1:18-21).

You would think that a strategy to make Himself known within them would guarantee a following, but the text itself says "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him." A failed policy.

Take, as another example, Isaiah's commission from God.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed." Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate (Isa 6:8-11).

God called Isaiah to be His representative and to fail to get His message across effectively. His plan was to tell them to listen and for them to fail to listen. A failed plan.

Oh, here's one. This is one that you'd think would be a sure success. I mean, what do unbelievers tell you all the time? "If God would do a miracle in front of me, I'd believe." And yet,

In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to Me," says the Lord (1 Cor 14:21).

So God's plan was to give them the miraculous -- speaking in tongues -- and they would not listen. That is, that they would not listen was part of the plan. Talk about a failure.

Of course, it's not a failure. It is the same concept in all cases that is listed in the first: "So that they are without excuse." No one will be able to say, "I didn't know." No one will be able to stand in front of God and complain, "You didn't give me enough reasons." The failure of the proofs will be proof of their failure, not God's failure. You see, there is no time when God isn't working. It's just not always as obvious as you might think.

Catholicism

Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII were declared saints in the Roman Catholic Church Sunday. "Canonized" they call it. They are "to be venerated by the whole church." It's one of those things that differentiates the Roman Catholic Church from the Protestant church. We go with "'Saints' refers to all believers ... you know, like it's used in the Bible."

One of the accusations of the Protestants against the Catholics is this whole "worship of the saints" thing. "They're worshiping saints, for Pete's sake! That's idolatry!" And, of course, the Catholics answer, "No, we're not. We're just following the Scripture that says that the prayers of a righteous man avail much. Saints are righteous. We're just asking for their help." And someone might pause in their assault at that point ... until you hear the kinds of "prayers to the saints" that they're offering.

I saw a news story the other day that included a bit about a woman who met John Paul II. Afterwards she dedicated her life to service in him, even after he died. Her money quote: "I'm just waiting for the next thing John Paul II wants me to do." That's not mere "veneration". That's worship.

Worse, there's the whole "Mary, mother of Jesus" thing. Sure, Jesus was God and, sure, Mary was His mother, but they take the phrase "mother of God" to a whole other level. She is officially "Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate." "Co-redemptrix"! That's not mere "veneration". So we end up back in difficult territory.

In the media, the terms "Catholic" and "Christian" are synonymous. Likely as not, if they want a "Christian" representative in a story of some sort, it will very likely be a Roman Catholic. I have to wonder, though. If we are saved by faith, not by works, and if their entire system is set up under structure we are commanded to avoid (1 Cor 10:14; 1 John 5:21), you have to wonder how "Christian" and "Roman Catholic" can coincide. Are there genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church? I'd have to guess that there are. But I'd have to say it's not due to the official Roman Catholic doctrine.

A Miracle

My wife and I saw that new Captain America movie -- Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was amused by the guy sitting next to me with his son. Here we have a story built around a guy who died in the 1940's but came back to life and is doing quite well fighting off aliens (The Avengers) and now really, really bad guys. There is a host of essentially impossible equipment and impossible people. You know, like you would expect from a comic book story. But when one character you thought was dead turns up alive at some point, my fellow movie-goer complained. "Oh, come on!" Because that, you see, is unbelievable. A superhero? No, that's fine.

As it turns out, in a world ruled by science where all that occurs is governed by physical laws and the like, not only is that surprise resurrection impossible, but so is the entire movie and the others like it. But people watch them and enjoy them because in a world governed by imagination, such things are perfectly possible.

We meet on Sunday for a reason. The New Testament refers to it as "the Lord's Day", a repeated celebration of the Resurrection. Not just on Easter -- every week. This is no downstream miracle. The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. And in a world governed by science and physical laws, it, too, would be impossible. But it is attested to by Scripture and by witnesses (1 Cor 15:3-8). And, as it happens, in a world ruled by God -- a world that is made by God and sustained by God and for God's good purposes -- you would expect miracles. If God rules the universe, then, on occasion, these things that violate the laws of nature will occur. It would be ... natural ... in the sense of "according to the nature of reality".

So we celebrate, at least 52 times each year, a miracle. For those bound by science and naturalism, it can't happen. For those who live in God's world, it would be a given. For those of us who know Jesus, it is a fact. A great, wonderful, saving fact. Something worthy of repeated celebration.

Not a Slippery Slope

You know the "slippery slope" argument, right? Yeah, sure you do! It goes like this. You warn against a particular course of action on the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable consequence results. You know, "If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, before long you'll have all sorts of other combinations occurring." Slippery slope. It is, in fact, called a logical fallacy. And, as we all know, a fallacy negates an argument.

Interestingly, the "slippery slope" fallacy is a little unusual in that it is only a fallacy if it doesn't occur. If it occurs, it was not a fallacy.

So when the news reports a married lesbian threesome, that kind of eliminates the argument that it is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It's not a fallacy when it's a fact.

(What is that? Three paragraphs to say, "I told you so!"?)

Societal Suicide

Suicides can be pretty versatile. You can shoot yourself or cut yourself. You can poison yourself or starve yourself. You can jump off a building or off a bridge or in front of a moving vehicle. You can do a whole host of things. The idea is to deprive your body of the essential elements required to continue living. One of the picturesque ways to do it is to swim out to sea. You see, pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger is, well, a bit unnerving even to the ardent suicide intendee. So a variety of methods are devised that make it ... easier. Distract yourself while you end your life. That kind of thing. So one way it has been done is to just start swimming. Now you can tell yourself, "I'm just going for a swim. I'm not killing myself." Eventually you will reach the limits of your endurance and be unable to change your course of action and you will drown. Success! (As long as "success" is defined as reaching one's goal of ending his or her life.)

So how would a society commit suicide? The same way, of course. Deprive the society of the essential elements required to continue, and a society will die. If the society does it to itself, it is suicide. And I would offer the opinion that we appear to be doing just that.

Take, for instance, the assault on morality. A moral code is absolutely essential to the continuation of a society. It has been said that "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."¹ History tells us that corrupt societies fail miserably.

Key to any society at all is the bedrock component of the family. No society can exist without this element. Dismember the family and society ceases to exist. There is no more vital² piece of society than family. Look what we're doing to thoroughly dismantle that part of society.

Begin, first, with pornography. In my youth we knew of one or two fellows who discovered their fathers' carefully hidden "stash" of Playboys. It was hidden. It was private. It was even shameful. Today, of course, it is open, public, embraced, even encouraged. It's even considered a "marital aid". What has our society embraced? Pornography teaches that men should function a particular way and women should function a particular way in the sexual encounter. The fact that nearly no one functions that way is irrelevant. The fact that functioning that way does serious damage to interpersonal relationships is beside the point. Our thorough defense and endorsement of porn is preparing young men and women to be complete failures in their sexual relationships ... from an early age.

Then there is the problem of dating. "Dating?" you ask. "How can that be a problem?" We've decided that this is the most logical and effective method of finding our "one true love" (something else we've assumed as true). So we teach each other to hunt for "what I want", use whatever or whoever you want in that process, toss those who don't measure up to "what I want", and move on until you get what you want ... maybe repeatedly. This is not conducive to "family".

So far we haven't even arrived at "family". Marriage hasn't occurred. And there is still more. Consider the notion of contraception. Before modern contraception -- the Pill -- sex outside of marriage was risky business. Public opinion, economics, and practicality suggested that sex should only occur in marriage so that any pregnancies would occur in marriage -- in a family situation. Enter contraception, and sex eventually became a recreational drug. Do it for fun; don't worry about consequences. Marriage? Why? Without even considering the ramifications of abortifacients that kill babies in the womb, we've removed the caution and stigma of children out of wedlock.

A large part of this assault on the family found its most powerful weapon in the 60's with the "free love" movement. Going along with the assault on morality, this movement argued, bolstered by contraceptives and dating, that sex should not be limited to marriage relationships. The radical shift that occurred from that point on has been nothing less than astounding. In a decade, "living together" went from shocking to accepted and in less than half of a century it became more the norm than the exception. A few years ago I remember getting an email sent to myself as well as other coworkers inviting us to a fellow worker's wedding. One coworker commented, "He said he has been saving himself for marriage; he hasn't had sex with her yet. Who does that? Does anyone do that? Is that even safe?" A long haul in a very short time from the biblical "sex should only occur in marriage" to the current alternative.

But, okay, we've trained people to expect all the wrong things in relationships via the glut and acceptance of porn, taught them to test and move on in dating, stripped off the whole problem of "sexual immorality" and its consequences, and still people get married. So, see? We haven't done any harm, right? No, the problem gets worse. We've introduced "no fault divorce", a quick and easy method to shred any existing marriage simply because "We don't want to be married anymore." "She's not living up to my expectations" -- you know, the faulty ones he garnered from the porn. "He's not meeting my needs" -- you know, the self-centered notions built by dating. And the phenomenal, "The kids will be better off if we part" ... instead of "The kids will be better off if we learn to get along." So we've managed to strip marriage of any genuine purpose and any real backbone and render the concept of a lifelong commitment as generally pointless.

Enter the final nail in the coffin. With family shredded and teetering on the edge, we've now managed to completely redefine ... normal. Well, "normal" as it relates to family. "Marriage" once meant -- always meant in every historical venue and every biblical location -- the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and to procreate. No longer. We've factored in a new concept -- "gay marriage". This one has no "man and woman" requirement and no aim toward offspring. Coupled with the prior dismemberment of the concept with pornography, relationship-hopping, sex for recreation without consequences, and the transitory nature of any "marriage", it becomes likely a temporary relationship without any genuine sense of "monogamy" (now termed "mongamish"), and the whole thing becomes meaningless. Factor in the intrinsically related concept of "gender equality" -- that there is no difference in the genders -- and its consequent "sexual equality" -- there is no difference between sex with one gender or another -- and "family" is on the verge of vanishing in a puff of emotional logic. Today it includes unmarried couples, loosely related people, close friends, even the dog. It means nearly everything and, thus, almost nothing.

Bottom line: we've traded "family" for self-centeredness. "What I want" determines right and wrong, good and bad, the definitions of terms, and "what I will do". We're not killing ourselves; we're just going for a swim. And we slowly but surely remove ourselves from solid ground, food, shelter, safety ... life. It is societal suicide. It might not be intentional (I say "might"), but it appears inevitable.
________
¹ Attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

² Vital: 1) of or pertaining to life. 2) the source of life (e.g., "vital organs"). 3) necessary to life. Thus, "vital".

Experience

The new movie, Heaven is for Real, took in over $28 million in less than a week. It's a hit. Everyone is talking about it. It's about Colton Burpo, the 4-year-old son of a pastor from Nebraska who died and came back to life with tales of his visit to heaven. He met people there he didn't know in life and sat on Jesus's lap. Christians and unbelievers alike are lapping this stuff up. Right along with the God is not Dead movie, it is capturing attention.

Of course, the book and its resultant movie have been reviewed and there are many voices¹ out there warning about the doctrinal and biblical problems of this movie. I'm not going to do it. First, I haven't seen it. More importantly, to do so would violate the most sacred principle of all of today's culture.

You see, you and I can debate various ideas and doctrines and views of Scripture, but there is a sacred component that is beyond discussion: experience. Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that Scripture alone is the authority in matters of faith and practice, is all well and good ... until it comes to experience. If experience violates Scripture, then, as we all know, Scripture is wrong. And this movie is about the experience of a 4-year-old boy. So it doesn't matter if it violates Scripture. The account is right and Scripture is wrong.

Little Colton Burpo is not the only place you see this. Take, for instance, Paul's clear statement, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). No ambiguity there. Nothing unclear. But experience tells us that lots of people seek for God and, more importantly, lots of people do good. So clearly this text doesn't mean what it says. Even to those who relegate it to hyperbole -- an overstatement to make a point -- it is relegated to falsehood because, while Paul was ostensibly trying to make the point that few do good (their claim for hyperbole), they continue to argue that most do good. In other words, either Paul's statement or hyperbole falls flat because experience tells us differently.

Take, for instance, Paul's unambiguous, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:12-14). The protest to this passage is almost unanimous. "Well, I've known lots of women who are better teachers, better qualified, and better pastors than men." Experience, you see. Experience trumps Scripture. It trumps reason. It trumps everything.

When discussing a disputed topic with someone like me, someone who bases reality in Scripture, your worst approach would be to tell me, "Well, you know, the Bible is a man-made mythical text not of any real value." Sorry. I've already settled that in my mind. We have no common basis for discussion and we can stop this now. It works the same for those who base reality on their own experience. "Sorry. I've already determined that what I think or feel I experienced determines what is real, so anything you offer in contradiction to that is simply of no value and we have no common basis for discussion. End of conversation." Of course, the conversation doesn't actually end, but the dialog² does. Now we're hurling opposing ideas at each other without possibility of resolution.

Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience." Nice idea. Even popular. But certainly not definitive. You see, we all know that we routinely experience things that aren't, as it turns out, real. We hear sounds, see things, think things, assume things -- things all examined by a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9) and debased mind (Rom 1:28) -- and then "know" what is real ... even when it's not. And yet, experience is sacrosanct. You can't question it. Experience is the sola you can't violate. Not with your experience. Not with God's Word. Not with anything.

Not very wise in the final analysis.

________
¹ For an excellent article from CNN (because you wouldn't expect such a perfectly pointed article from CNN) on Heaven is for Real and biblical views of heaven, see this remarkable piece.

² Dialog: an exchange of opinions on a particular subject.

Too Much?

How much is too much?

On more than one occasion I've heard people -- self-professed Christians, mind you -- who have said, "If that is what God is like, I want no part of Him." The occasions vary. Sometimes it's when they find out that the Bible is full of references to "the elect" or "the chosen" and they discover that, by whatever means, God chooses some ... and, by obvious implication, not others. Or maybe it's when they receive the full impact of the Cross, a bloody sacrifice to a righteously angry God. I mean, a God who wants to save and all that ... that's okay, but a God who needs to satisfy justice like that, well, that's just a bit too much. Too ... pagan. Or it could be something else. But the idea remains the same. There are lines across which God cannot go and remain in our good graces. They judge God by their own standards and if He violates them, He's out. He's gone too far. It's too much.

On more than one occasion I've heard Christians complain about the Bible. They'll be skipping along, humming a happy tune, secure in their beliefs and then, all of the sudden, they'll come across something like, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) and they come to a screeching halt. "Oh, no! That's not right!" they'll assure me. And there are a lot of these.

Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor 14:34-35).

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).

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 (1 Cor 7:3-4).

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet (1 Tim 2:11-12).

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).

And that's just a quick sample. Some have the very same response in the text that many have today to the text. For instance, Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). He went on to say, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:8-9). Now, we don't know the response of the ones to whom He said it, but we do know the response of His disciples who were listening: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). Because, you see, this was just a little too hard, a little over the top, a little too much. And there are lines across which Scripture cannot go and remain in our good graces. Many tend to judge the Bible not by what it says or means, but by the standards of the day or the standards of experience or culture and, when Scripture violates those personal standards, Scripture is wrong. It has gone too far. It's too much. It's out.

So what is "too much" for you? For me, personally, I don't want such a thing. I don't want to say, "You can go this far and no farther, God." You know, the ultimate oxymoron: "No, Lord." I don't want to determine what is and isn't true in Scripture based on my feelings or perceptions, but based on what it says. I don't want to draw human lines in the sand to dare God to cross them in His character or His Word. I don't want there to be "too much" for me when it comes to God and His Word. But that's just me.

So What's the Big Deal?

Last month I wrote that the problem in America is not the president like so many seem to think, but the people. The people voted him in. The government represents America. So if the government is a problem, it's because Americans are a problem. I concluded, "America needs Christ."

The other day I wrote about the problem of aiming at the wrong target. We tend to compare ourselves among ourselves and, when we do, "I'm not doing so bad." The standard, however, is not "ourselves", but God. Jesus said, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). If that's not enough, Paul's standard was the same. He said, "Only let us hold true to what we have attained" (Phil 3:16). What is that? "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own" (Phil 3:12). Perfection.

In both of these cases the complaint was that it was too ... legalistic. Jesus wasn't about making bad people into good people. The Gospel is not "saved by works" (because, in truth, that would not be good news at all). Jesus is about making dead people into live people. And I agree with all of this. Christianity is unique in that it is not a morality religion, but a relationship one in which Christ reconciles us to God by becoming sin for us so that we can become His righteousness. A trade, so to speak, but one unheard of anywhere else. And that is good news.

So what's the big deal? What's all this about the problem in America and the standard of perfection? Why make these kinds of things an issue? Am I trying to set up a theocracy in America or turn Christianity into a system of being good? I would respond with a resounding, "No!" Okay, so what's the big deal here?

Here's the deal. Americans need Christ. No, not America. America is a nation. No nation is going to heaven. Only people have a relationship with God. So what makes me say that Americans need Christ? It's because of that pesky standard -- perfection. You see, if we allow a lower standard (like, "that wife-beater" or "Have you heard what a gossip she is??"), we miss the point. The standard is perfection and we can't make that standard. That is why Americans need Christ. That is why I need Christ. Oh, sure, you too. But it is only when we see the distance between what we are and what we are supposed to be that we can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. And when we see that, it is either Christ or complete failure because "good enough" doesn't exist.

Now, of course, Christians are a different matter. Being in Christ, we, like Paul, should be pressing on to make God's perfection our own. No, not for merit; for gratitude. Not to gain brownie points with God. Because we want to. Because changed hearts make changed lives. Because "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" (Phil 3:8). And because, when we live as obedient children of God, "they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:16). And glorifying your Father who is in heaven is the highest thing we can do.

I don't expect unbelievers to attain to perfection. Not going to happen. Neither do I expect Americans to start voting better. That, too, requires a relationship with Christ that produces a heart of flesh out of a heart of stone. No moralizing or urging is going to accomplish that. Not from me. But I'll hold it out there for believers to see and follow and for unbelievers to hear and possibly, God willing, recognize. It is a big deal ... for both believers and unbelievers.

False Teachers

So, there I was, reading through the latter epistles, and I came across this:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds (2 John 1:7-11)

Now, I have to admit, it was a little ... unnerving. I mean, seriously, "the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds"? What does that say about, oh, I don't know, the Christian shop owner who serves ... just about anyone? But I realized that this wasn't a general statement, but a specific one. It is not about general sinners, but about false teachers. These fall in their own special category. So ... how do we find these "false teachers"?

Well, John gives one possible characteristic. These do not "abide in the teaching of Christ". Well, okay, that's vague enough. More specifically, I suppose, they "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh." Yes, I can think of one or two self-professed teachers, pastors, and scholars who deny this. Okay, good, clear enough. Avoid them.

But there are more traits available. Jude (another of the "latter epistles") has several things to say about them. Like John, he says they "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). They indulge in "licentiousness". Nice word. It's wantonness or sensuality. They do it by perverting God's grace. Now that sounds familiar for a lot of voices out there, doesn't it?

Jude goes on to say that they rely on their dreams, defile their flesh, and reject authority (Jude 1:8). They revile the things they don't understand and are destroyed by the things they know instinctively (Jude 1:10). They become part of your group but care only about themselves (Jude 1:12). They follow their lusts and flatter you for the sake of gaining an advantage (Jude 1:16). They cause division based on worldly-mindedness (Jude 1:19). Oh, yes, Jude has a lot to say about identifying false teachers. One of the more colorful descriptions is where he calls them "clouds without water" (Jude 1:12). Isn't that interesting? They look like they are bringing life-giving water, but they don't actually have any substance to offer.

John has more to say about them as well. He calls them "antichrists" (1 John 2:18). John says they come "from us" (1 John 2:19). They differ from "us" in that "you have an anointing from the Holy One and you all know" (1 John 2:21). John's false teachers deny the Son and the Father (1 John 2:23).

False teachers, according to John, are to be avoided at all costs -- not even a greeting. You can figure them out. They resemble Christians (Matt 7:15), but they are not. Instead of building the Body, they cause divisions. They minimize sin and tell their listeners what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3-4). They promote immorality and sensuality, operating primarily from self-interest. They deny "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Oh, and they were marked out before time for condemnation (Jude 1:4). Watch out for them. Don't receive them into your house. Better not even greet them. At least, so says John.

Rock Solid

Edward Mote grew up at the turn of the century ... the 19th century. Born in 1797 to parents who ran a pub, Ed was a street kid. He became a cabinet maker and then found Jesus, becoming the pastor of Rehoboth Baptist Church for 26 years. His congregation offered to give him the church in which he preached. "I do not want the chapel," he told them, "I only want the pulpit; and when I cease to preach Christ, then turn me out of that." And Edward Mote wrote:

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus' name.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.

Makes you wonder ... what "other ground"? Obviously the pastor is suggesting that "Jesus' blood and righteousness" is one place on which to build your house, but that there are others. What others?

Well, the terms alone suggest others. Many build their place to live on their own righteousness. By using a sliding scale that adjusts for everyone and leaves them "just a little bit better than that", they feel confident to stand there. If they aren't already "righteous enough", they're pretty sure they can arrive there eventually. Others build on "Jesus" without accounting for His blood. Today there are loud and constant voices assuring us that any God who would demand a blood sacrifice would be a barbaric God and has no place in our worship. But Paul warned the Ephesians, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). The Church, you see, was purchased with blood. God put Jesus on display "as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" (Rom 3:25). "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom 5:9). You see, "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22). Oh, yes, many voices urge us to abandon this view of blood-bought salvation, but the Bible considers it fundamental, absolutely necessary, even a demonstration of God's righteousness.

Many voices offer many alternatives. Lots of sinking sand. But we stand on Christ, the solid Rock. We stand on Jesus' blood and Jesus' righteousness. It is the only solid ground for hope. And for that it's as solid as a Rock.

Calculating Easter

Easter comes pretty late this year -- April 20th. Seems almost arbitrary. Ever wondered how they determine when Easter comes?

Well, as it turns out, it is almost arbitrary. Not quite, but ...

The first number to keep in mind is the first day of Spring, the vernal equinox. That's March 21. Sometime between March 21 and April 25th will be the official Easter. (By the way, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't necessarily celebrate on the same day as the rest.) So the next thing you need to determine is when the full moon occurs. Find the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Then find the first Sunday after that first full moon, and you have Easter¹! (Note: If the first full moon falls on a Sunday, then Easter will be the next Sunday.)

Why? Well, it's supposed to coincide with Passover. And this year Passover will start on Tuesday, the 15th of April and will continue for 7 days until Monday, the 21st of April. There you go. All clear. Right? (Don't blame me. I didn't set it up.) Glad to be of service.
________
¹ To be accurate, it may not exactly be the actual physical full moon. There is what is known as an "ecclesiastical" full moon (or "paschal full moon"), a date set by the early Church back at the Council of Nicea (325 AD), and may not exactly coincide with the astronomical full moon.

The Irony of the Cross

Recently I wrote about irony. It was in the arena of current events. I explained how "irony" is defined as "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" and gave a current events illustration. Often it is humorous; not always. This idea -- words used that end up expressing the opposite -- is a key component of the Cross. Yes, that Cross.

Think about it. One song speaks of the irony of the One who made the seas crying out, "I thirst." I think that just touches the surface. The Cross represents the darkest moment in human history. Human beings rose up against God's Son and put Him to death. That event we call "Good Friday". Irony. Sinners did the worst they could do so that God could show us His best. Irony. In fact, Christ the sinless suffered the ultimate injustice so God could be both just and justifier (Rom 3:26). Irony.

The leaders of the day ridiculed Him as "the King of the Jews" ... which He was. Irony.

Jesus stayed on the Cross when coming off would prove the truth of His claims (Mark 15:31-32) to prove the truth of His claims by dying for us. Irony.

Jesus died rejected by the religious, the "Hosanna hosts", the government, His followers, one of His own friends, and forsaken by God so that God could embrace the "many" (Rom 5:15, 19). Irony.

Jesus surrendered everything (Phil 2:5-8) to gain everything (Phil 2:9-11). Irony.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' -- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:13-14). Irony.

Paul said, "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:2). Irony.

Jesus died that we might live and lives again that we might die to sin. Irony.

Satan achieved his biggest victory that day -- the serpent bruising the heal -- and Christ achieved His biggest victory that day -- crushing the head of the serpent. Irony.

There was nothing so horrific or so majestic as that event in all of history. Irony.

In the Cross, Christ became our Mediator to save those for whom He died. Irony.

Lots of good irony. I bet you could come up with even more. It was the reason He came. It was by His choice. It was the ultimate humiliation for our ultimate exaltation. Lots of irony. Lots of reasons to rejoice, to celebrate, even to be in awe. Not much humor, though.

Giving Up the Ghost

You've heard the phrase before. It's fairly common. You know what it means to "give up the ghost." We might use it to talk about a device that stops working, but most often it is a euphemism for dying ... because we don't like to talk about people dying. The earliest record of this phrase actually comes from the Bible, but this gets a little obscured because our Bibles are translations. So you will find references in the Old Testament to people who "gave up the ghost" and New Testament references to people that "gave up the ghost" and, as it turns out, these are mostly ... euphemisms. There is an exception.

The Old Testament uses the Hebrew word גּוע, gâva‛, to breathe out, to expire. Interesting, I suppose, because it carries the image of the last breath as well as the idea of the soul leaving the body. This, as it turns out, is the common New Testament idea as well. In the many places that you just might find the phrase, "gave up the ghost", or something like it, you will find the Greek word, ἐκψύχω, ekpsuchō. It means "to expire" (Mark 15:39; Luke 23:46; Acts 5:5, 10; Acts 12:23).

And then we come to the exception. Both the Mark 15 and Luke 23 references in the previous paragraph come from the Gospel accounts of Jesus on the Cross. When He died, all four Gospels say He gave up the ghost (depending on your translation). But two of them differ in their expression. Those two say He expired. The other two (Matt 27:50; John 19:30) use a different phrase. The Matthew version uses a phrase that begins with the Greek ἀφίημι, aphiēmi, literally "to send" or "to send forth", and ends with πνεῦμα, pneuma, the breath, the spirit, used to indicate the "vital principle", the soul, the life. The John version starts with παραδίδωμι, paradidōmi, to surrender.

"Wow, Stan, nice 'mountain out of a mole hill'." Yeah, I know, it looks like I'm being obscure. But wait! Note that there is a distinct difference between "expire" and "to send the spirit" or "to surrender the spirit". One happens to you and the other is something that you do. And there is where it gets interesting. You see, nowhere in Scripture is there a literal reference to anyone actually giving up the ghost. They die. It happens to them. They breathe their last. Over and done. But Jesus didn't merely expire. Oh, He did breathe His last, but it didn't happen to Him. He chose. That's something that none of us get to do.

The text indicates that when Jesus died on the Cross, He did it by choice. He gave up His spirit. He sent it forth. And that's the amazing thing about the Cross. He chose to die that way for us. It was the plan, and He carried it out willingly, even to the point of surrendering His life at the right moment.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:5-8).

Hitting the Target

Give me a break. I was only a junior high kid. It sounded good when I said it. I don't remember how the conversation came about, but I remember talking to my 8th-grade teacher, Mrs. Proud, at the Christian school I attended about my older sister who had been her student before. We were talking about the decline in morals in society. I told her not to worry about my sister. "When the rest of the world is going nude, she'll be wearing a bikini," I assured her, as if it was a good thing.

Remember the story of the two guys camping out on the African Serengeti? They notice in the night the glow of a lion's eyes just at the edge of the firelight. One of them starts pulling on his shoes. The other says, "What are you doing, man?? You can't outrun a lion." He replies, "I don't have to outrun him; I just have to outrun you."

There's a point to that story and it relates to the first. Welcome to the standard measure. Ever hear of Godwin's Law? It's an Internet adage. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." What does that mean? Well, if we want to point out evil, all we need to do is mention the Nazis or Hitler. Why? Because we all know that they were evil. And we're all pretty sure we're better than they are, so we're better off. And so it goes. How about that drunk that lives down the street? "Well, maybe I drink a little too much from time to time, but at least I'm not as bad as he is." We comfort ourselves by comparing ourselves to ourselves. "That wife-beating husband is far worse than I am, so just because I'm not very kind to my wife is no reason to think I'm a bad fellow." And it seems as if we can always find someone worse than we are. So we're okay.

Jesus told this parable.

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).

We all know that the Pharisee was a jerk ... but we rarely notice that we're just like him. We compare ourselves to people we deem worse than we are and classify ourselves as nice people. But here's what Jesus said our standard was to be:

"You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48).

Ouch! Now that's a standard we're not meeting, isn't it?

You see, that naïve junior higher bragging about how moral his sister was failed to ask, "Is it good that she wears a bikini, or should she be wearing more?" Because the Bible calls for modesty (1 Tim 2:9). But my childhood standard was simply "a little better than the culture." And so we end up like the two guys on the Serengeti running for our lives and thinking we're okay because we're ahead of the other guy. You know lions hunt in packs, right? And that's why there is so much sexual immorality among professing believers and why biblical morals seem so far-fetched to us these days. We're not looking at those; we're looking at the other guy, and we're not as bad as that ... while the other guy sinks lower and lower and so do we.

Perhaps we need to reevaluate our standards. "A little better than the culture" when the world is defined as hostile to God (Rom 8:7; James 4:4) and under the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2) is a lousy standard. We have a higher one to meet. We may think we're hitting the target, but we're aiming at the wrong one. And you know that the biblical word for "sin" means literally "to miss the mark", don't you?

A Biblical Definition

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband (1 Cor 7:1-2)

With that Paul starts the 7th chapter in his first epistle to the church at Corinth where he lays down some rather startling commands surrounding marriage. There is the command that "The husband should give his wife her conjugal rights" (1 Cor 7:3) and "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" (1 Cor 7:4). There is the encouragement to remain single (in a world that thought it was stupid to do so) (1 Cor 7:7) and the famous "it is better to marry than to burn (with passion)" (1 Cor 7:9). There is that whole "Don't leave an unbelieving spouse" thing (1 Cor 7:12-14) and its subsequent, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so" (1 Cor 7:15). What is all that about "the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife" (1 Cor 7:14)? Paul takes a hard-line stance about remaining married and not divorcing and all that and it's all an interesting read.

Something in the middle of all of this struck me between the eyes, though. Right there at the beginning Paul says, "Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." At least, that's the translation we get. That's not what he wrote. What he actually wrote was that ἕκαστος should have his own γυνή and each γυνή should have her own ἀνήρ. "Wow, Stan, thanks! That's really something ... not!" Okay, that really was all Greek to you, so let me explain.

Paul said most literally (putting those Greek word translations in bold and italics) that each (he didn't say "man", but ...) should have his own woman (from which we infer "wife") and each woman (this time in context it just translates "woman") should have her own man (from which we infer "husband"). There, that should clear it up. No?

Okay, look, γυνή (phonetically gunē) means "woman" and, in context, can refer to anyone of the female sex. It might be a virgin (an unmarried woman), a wife, or a widow. It's any woman at all. And ἀνήρ (phonetically anēr) means "man". Any man -- single, married, or widowed. Any member of the male sex. Now, in our day we've managed to shift the meanings of "husband" and "wife" slightly to accommodate the latest redefinition of "marriage" so that two men can refer to one another as "husband" and "wife" or two women can refer to one another as "husband" and "wife", but this isn't possible in these biblical texts. The words mean "man" and "woman".

And Paul is saying here that marriage is solely the union of a man and a woman. It can be none other. In fact, every biblical instruction on marriage includes instructions to men ("husbands") and women ("wives"), the standard make-up of a married couple. Indeed, the two genders receive differing instructions based on their gender. Thus, the modern version of "marriage" collides head on with the biblical version and anyone trying to make any sense out of biblical instructions to the married would be at a loss to make heads or tails out of them with today's deviant¹ definition. Now, they will try to tell you that there have been lots of definitions. It's not true. Or they will try to tell you that there is no biblical definition. Again, not true. And you know that "not true" is a euphemism for "a lie". The only way to align today's popular definition of "marriage" is to discard the biblical version. I would think that discarding the biblical ... anything ... would have its own implications about the religious values of the one doing it.
________
¹ I know, I know, "deviant" is a potentially inflammatory term, but just look at any dictionary. They will tell you the word simply means, "different from traditional norm". Even the California court that threw out the law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman recognized that it was the "longstanding, traditional definition", so the new one by definition is a deviation from the traditional norm.

Values Clarification

No, this isn't about that old "values clarification" curriculum from the late 70's. It's about my values.

The accusation is made that by declaring (with the Bible) that homosexual behavior is a sin and marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I am demeaning homosexuals. The nearly unanimous claim is that I am "anti-gay" if not worse ("hater" is a common epithet). I'm devaluing my fellow human beings. Loser.

Let me tell you a secret. I am not a great champion for animal rights. Oh, I think they should be treated nice and all that, but, look, if a cat gets sick and the cost of the cure is too high, I have no problem suggesting a lethal injection. Why? Because animals are not humans. That is, if you wanted to claim that I am diminishing the value of pets over people, I'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly.

What's my point? Well, if I didn't value the lives of my fellow sinners, I would just leave them alone. I'd keep my mouth shut. I'd be silent. But I do. I value their lives. I value their souls. I think they are important people. Most of all, I desperately hope that they do not spend eternity apart from God. I think that people that practice homosexual behavior are important and valuable enough that I need to speak up and warn them of a serious potential problem, even if it means that I'll be accused of hate and bigotry. I think that all sinners are valuable enough to urge them to meet my Lord, even if they throw the offer back in my face ... perhaps with something more solid included.

I'm not gaining anything by standing against the tide of culture. There is no personal profit here. But I value the homosexual and the transsexual and the bisexual and the sexually immoral of whatever stripe you care to mention. As such, I couldn't live with myself if I stood by and kept silent when God says He doesn't approve. You may consider that hate and you may think it's demeaning, but that just means that you just don't get my motivation, do you?

'Nuff Said

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen (Jude 1:24-25).

I thought I would expound on the text, but then I realized that, if my aim was to give you a reason to worship God, it should be just fine as it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Hypocrisy Defined

This last week the president signed into law an Executive Order "prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees who choose to discuss their compensation." Why? Because the president believes that "full-time working women still earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by men." And if they tell us it's so, it's so, right?

Odd thing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (yes, another government agency) says that unmarried women make 96 cents to every dollar a man doing the same job makes, essentially no difference at all. A study done by CONSAD for the Bureau of Labor Statistics compared a variety of factors including experience, insurance, fringe benefits, overtime, industries, motherhood, and a host of contributing factors and concluded that there was, making the truest comparison, an hourly wage gap of 5 cents.

But that's not the most interesting item. Using the standard comparison (annual income) which results in the standard claim (77 cents), as it turns out the difference on a weekly income is more like 81 cents to the dollar and an hourly income comparison is closer to 86 cents to the dollar. In other words, there appears to be a wage gap ... but no one really knows how much.

But that's not the most interesting item. Apparently, using whatever standards they may use, the White House staff suffers from an 88-cents-to-every-dollar wage gap for women. Their defense? "It is better than the national average." Not, "Oh, my, we have to fix that right away!" No, it's "You have to fix your problem, but we're 'better than the national average', so we're okay."

If someone comes into your office holding a package and says, "Look! I've got a ticking bomb going to explode at any second!" and does not run, don't believe him. If someone comes to your town and warns, "If we don't stop flying private jets and driving SUVs, we're going to destroy the world" and he got there by private jet and then an SUV, don't believe him. If someone shouts, "You've got to fix your women's wage gap" and won't fix their own, there's a word for it. It's called "hypocrisy". Look it up.

Without Love

We all know 1 Corinthians 13. You know, "the love chapter". They've written songs about it. It's that "warm feeling" passage about how wonderful love is. Makes you all gushy inside. Well, perhaps some of it. Because, you see, if we're honest what we're most familiar with, perhaps, is "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13). I've even seen it on secular signs. And, of course, the whole description of love (1 Cor 13:4-9). Except, I suspect, we've not really paid a whole lot of attention to it. I mean, some of the descriptors for love are pretty tough for those of us whose aim is to love.

The rest, however, isn't nearly as familiar. So it isn't a surprise that I got struck pretty hard recently with a single verse in the "love chapter" that hit way too close to home and cut way too close to the bone.

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Cor 13:3).

"Um ... yeah ... okay," I can hear you saying, "... so?" I know. On the surface that seems fine. But when you look at it for a moment, it is really hard to take. Paul gives a hyperbole about the gift of generosity (or liberality, depending on your translation) (see, for instance, Rom 12:8). He lists "all I have" including "my body". This person has given it all away. One would expect, then, a "well done" from God, but Paul says without love "I gain nothing."

Think about it. Love is primarily "outward bound". It isn't about self. It's about the other one, the loved one, the recipients of this love. When a person, then, gives away everything without having at its core the care of those that are loved, that is a pointless venture. It isn't generosity; it's a waste.

And I ask myself how many times I've done anything like that? How often do I do things and think, "I deserve some attention for that"? Every time I hear myself say, "I'm not getting the appreciation I deserve," I'm saying, "I did this good thing for me." It was for appreciation or recognition or something for me, but not for love. Every time I might say something like, "My wife doesn't show me the respect I deserve" I demonstrate that I'm treating my wife well for what I can get out of it, not for love. And no matter how good I may be, how well behaved, how kind, how giving, how thoughtful, how wise, if I do it for me, I didn't do it for love and I wasted my time.

We tend to think that good deeds are sufficient. The fact is that love is the command, not good deeds. Obviously good deeds follow love, but if they are done in love, they are done in self-sacrifice, not with the hope of gain. And I'm embarrassed to think about how many "good deeds" I've wasted ("I gain nothing") giving them with expectation of return and not as a function of love. I would suspect, if you think about it, I'm not the only one.

Objections

Here's what they tell me. "The Scriptures have been questioned on (the subject at hand) throughout Church history" and "They've been wrong about women and slavery since the beginning, so why wouldn't they be wrong about (this subject)?"

The question I keep coming back to is, "If Jesus claimed He would send the Holy Spirit who would lead His disciples into all truth, how is it that He failed to do so?" No one is answering.

So, the first objection is a question of consensus. "Since everyone throughout history hasn't agreed, the Scriptures aren't clear." No, no one actually says that, but this is the basic position. And this is a mindless position to take. Given that the world will hate you (John 15:18) and the Gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe (1 Cor 1:18) and Jesus Himself taught so as to give "the secrets of the kingdom of God" to His disciples while the rest would see and not see and hear and not understand (Luke 8:10), it would be a certainty that there would be dispute over Scripture. Consensus isn't the answer.

As for the second objection, is it true? Is it true that the Church has always been wrong about women? Is it true that the Church has always defended slavery? Now, remember, I'm not asking if it's true that anyone has ever been wrong about these subjects. I'm asking if it is true that the Church has always been wrong on these. I'm asking what the thread has been. Has the Church -- those who are genuine Christians -- always held an oppressive view of women? Has the Church always endorsed the slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries? Are those accusations accurate?

Actually, no, they're not. These objections are typical, coming from a blind view that seems to think, "If it has been recently, it has always been." Further, it imposes modern standards on biblical texts. For instance, you will hear about "women's equality" and how it hasn't existed in the Church for thousands of years. In truth, when Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28), he was indicating equality. It was not however, the modern version. Modern "equality" means "equivalence". It requires basically that everything be the same. "Same" is not "equal". The idea of "equality" in human terms is "equal worth" because isn't it absolutely clear that no two people are "equal" in the sense of "the same"? "Equality" today requires that women be allowed to perform everything that men perform (and, apparently, not vice versa), but this isn't required to come to the position of equal worth. So Peter says husbands are to show honor to their wives as "heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). Equal worth. But by applying a modern version on top of the question, it makes a false dichotomy. No, the Bible doesn't call for "equality" in the sense of "everyone is the same". Nor should it.

Worse, there is a continuing position here that modern values and measurements ought to be applied to Scripture. If God's Word does not line up, God's Word is faulty. Of course, this is pure nonsense. If it is indeed God's Word, then we need to do the reverse. We need to see what God's Word says and then evaluate modern values and measurements against that. So if God's Word demanded unequal treatment or slavery or the death penalty for adultery (a favorite objection of so many), then we must favor it as well. We don't get to decide what's right over what God says is right. That is the ultimate arrogance.

No one is answering for me the question about how the Holy Spirit seems to have failed (assuming their objections are valid). Thus, my contention is that He didn't. I hold that the Holy Spirit has come and that He has led His people into all truth. As such, I would argue that, from Jesus onward, there has been ... the truth. Sometimes that truth has been mainstream and sometimes it hasn't. Sometimes it was bright and clear and sometimes less visible. But it has always been present in the Church. Now, of course, I need to emphasize that what I mean by "the Church" is not Christendom -- the visible Church -- but the Body of Christ. I refer to those who are genuine Christians, the "wheat" among tares. Depending, then, on the "purity of the field", so to speak, the truth would be more or less visible, but it was always present in "the wheat". So when I can trace a clear path from Jesus to today of a constant position on a topic, I see this topic as a serious matter to hang onto. Isn't it interesting that things like the definition of marriage and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior are things that were constants throughout Church history but in question today? I mean, I can certainly see why we might wonder about areas where there have been debates among God's people, but these are not those areas.

The question, then, is really much more basic than the morality of homosexual activities or even marriage. The question is about the reliability of Scripture and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth. Either we have a Bible we can read and trust or we don't. Either the Holy Spirit has led His own into the truth or He hasn't. If the modern objectors are correct, then the Bible is not clear and the Spirit hasn't succeeded until the day they showed up and all of that is now in question. I'll have to stand on this issue until someone tells me how it is that, given the lack of clarity of Scripture and 2,000 years of the failure of the Church to get these issues right, the Holy Spirit did not fail. I'll wait right over here.

Did God Say ...?

One of the absolutely clearest texts in Scripture on the subject of the morality of sexual relations between two people of the same gender is found in 1 Corinthians. We can look at Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 and see it clearly, but you'll obviously be faced with the objection, "But, that's Old Testament. Do you follow all the Old Testament law?" We can look at Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). They'll tell you that it wasn't a matter of homosexual sin; they just failed to be hospitable. Now, trying to figure out how a lack of hospitality deserved such complete annihilation will be a little tough. And trying to explain how it was a lack of hospitality when the "big problem" appeared to be that the men of the town wanted to "know" the angels in Lot's house might be a problem. And how their desire to "know" someone might be satisfied by Lot offering his daughters is not so easy, either. And when Jude writes that Sodom and Gomorrah "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" as the reason for their destruction (Jude 1:7), well it just doesn't seem like it's going to hold water. But they'll stick to their guns. So we look at the New Testament.

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).

Now, to the casual observer, this is pretty clear. First, it's clear that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God". Not a question. I mean, when Paul asked it, he was asking a rhetorical question. "Don't you know this?" He explains "the unrighteous" in terms of a variety of sinful behaviors including "men who practice homosexuality".

Now, let's be clear on this at the outset. Paul is not saying that everyone who has ever committed one of these sins is "the unrighteous" and doomed to damnation. We know that because of the very next verse in which he says, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). So those who are washed, sanctified, justified cease to be identified as "the unrighteous" by virtue of being practitioners of these behaviors. Just as John claims that those who are born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9), genuine believers can sin (1 John 2:1) but do not make a practice of it. Just so we're clear.

But the argument is "You know that the word there isn't clear, right?" They will tell you that the modern translators are ... well ... wrong. It doesn't mean "homosexuals" or "men who commit homosexual acts" or any such thing. It means something ... else. What "else" it means may vary, but they're pretty sure it does not mean what the translators say it means. Some argue it refers to pederasty (homosexual relations between an adult male and a juvenile male). Others are quite sure it's a reference to temple prostitutes, not simply "loving sexual relations between the same sex." And they'll point to the problem that the word only appears twice in Scripture and almost never anywhere else and it's all too obscure for us to figure out.

There is an "encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture" online. It is in favor of GLBTQ folk. (I still don't know the difference between "gay, lesbian, and transgender" and "queer".) As such, to those of my perspective, in matters of debate it would be classified as a "hostile witness". This encyclopedia includes a section on Paul (specifically as he addresses GLBTQ subjects). What do they say about Paul on homosexual behavior? Addressing the content of 1 Cor 6:9-10, they say:

The meanings of these Greek nouns have been the subject of lively debate, largely provoked by gay authors anxious to show that Paul and the early church had not intended to condemn homosexuality per se as harshly as has been traditionally supposed, but only a degraded type of pederasty associated with prostitution and child abuse.

Recent scholarship has shown conclusively that the traditional meanings assigned to these words stand.

They point, as I have, to the parallel of Paul's arsenokoitai in that passage, translated "homosexual" or "homosexual behavior" in modern translations, to the commands of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. They assert (as I do) that the word, apparently coined by Paul, is simply the Greek translation of "men who lie with men" as a reference to homosexual behavior. They conclude that "the traditional meanings assigned to these words stand." They further conclude:

The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community.

Evidence from a hostile witness.

Look, the texts (the ones I've listed and more) are obvious. The meaning isn't unclear. Most people, whether they are in favor of or opposed to the view that homosexual behavior is a sin, admit that the Bible teaches it is so. Arguments that it doesn't fall short of dealing with either text or context. Now, we don't live in a Christian world, so I'm not suggesting that everyone ought to knuckle under and do what God says. I'm just suggesting that it might be something to think about because the Bible has made it pretty clear.

What Christians Should Do

"Why can't you be more loving?" they will ask (demand). "Why can't you be more like Jesus was? He embraced everyone!" That's what they'll tell you. Funny thing. Although it appears to be a truism, I can't seem to find it in my Bible.

Remember when they came to Him to ask Him about a nasty incident Pilate perpetrated on some of their people?

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-5).

They came to Jesus with a fairly simple, even understandable question. I mean, a really horrible thing happened. "Was it due to their sin??!!" Jesus's response was not, "Let's not dwell on their sin; let's just love one another." It was "Repent or die!" And He repeated it! You know, somehow this doesn't look like "He embraced everyone."

Most are aware of the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, but many aren't clear on the fact that it happened twice. That's right. In John's Gospel, it happened right after the wedding at Cana (John 2) and in Matthew it happened again after the Triumphal Entry (Matt 21). So, here we have not one but two times when Jesus goes into the Temple, overturns tables, and drives people out of the area. Now, I have to say, this does not sound like a warm-and-friendly "Jesus warmly loves everybody" kind of thing.

Whenever they want to assure us that Jesus embraced everyone, they point to the woman caught in adultery. Now, to be clear up front, this passage is problematic. That is, John 7:53-8:11 it isn't contained in the most reliable documents. And there is a serious problem with the story. If, as they say, the woman was caught in the act, where was the man? So there is a real reason to question the truthfulness of the accusers. Having laid all that out, however, what does the story tell us about Jesus embracing sin? Here's what we read (because this is what warms the cockles of their hearts): "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11). But, wait, that's not what you will hear. What you will hear is "Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery." And it is, for whatever reason (Perhaps the absence of the man was reason to question the accusation?), true that Jesus at that time indicated no condemnation. But He did not say, "It's okay; I'm not worried about sin." He said the reverse. "Go and sin no more."

And who can forget the harshest language Jesus used? It was against the Pharisees and people seem to think that it was justified in this case. Because, you see, they're the ones that kept telling people that they were doing bad things, and that was bad, right? Right? Well, apparently not. Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). That meant that they had a standard of righteousness that was pretty high. Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life" (John 5:39). Surely searching the Scriptures is a good thing. Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others" (Matt 23:23). "Ah, now!" you say, "See? They neglected the weightier matters of the law." Yes, indeed, but Jesus said of their tithing, "These you ought to have done." Do you? If not, it would appear that their righteousness exceeds yours. No, Jesus didn't give them the toughest tongue-lashing of His earthly ministry because they held people to a high standard. He did it because they were hypocrites. Hypocrites hold others to a standard they themselves aren't willing to meet. It's not that the standard was the problem; it was that they refused to aim for it themselves.

You will hear time and time again that we ought to be more like Jesus. By that they mean that we ought to be less concerned about sin and more willing to embrace everyone, sin and all. I am pointing out here that that Jesus didn't exist. The real Jesus warned about the need for repentance. The real Jesus warned about Hell (e.g., Matt 5:22; 7:19; 13:40; 18:8; 25:41; Mark 9:42-48). Jesus commanded, "Sin no more." Jesus warned against not meeting the standards God has set. So, by all means, check yourself according to Jesus's commands. Remove the log from your own eye. Don't be a hypocrite. And then be like Jesus, urging repentance and an end to sin, and warn against Hell. It's what a Christian should do.

Not Making Sense of it All

Someone help me with this, because I'm not getting it.

I'm not a big fish in the blog pond, so I'm not surprised that I don't get a lot of comments. I might expound on Reformed Theology and get a nibble or two. Sometimes when I point out the Sovereignty of God someone might have something to say. But for the most part it's pretty quiet in the comment department on these pages. And I understand. I mean, people commenting is not the same as people reading. I get that.

There is, however, one single solitary subject upon which I can write and I will almost certainly get a host of comments. I'll get comments and I'll get people contacting other people to comment and I'll get people writing about what I wrote behind my back and ... lots and lots of response. Outrage, actually. Now, to be fair, I'm not a big fish in the blog pond, so the outrage is fairly small, relatively speaking. No death threats. I haven't lost my job. Nothing that extreme. Still, I can say just about anything about just about any subject and I will get nary a peep, but write about the Bible and the sin of homosexual behavior and I am hit with all sorts of complaints about intolerance and error. In one of the recent exchanges I asked a dissenter "What would you suggest we do?" He said, "How do you treat fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (be they believer or believer-to-be) when they differ on whether infants or adults should be baptized?" The call, then, is to let matters lie. Don't make waves. Don't say anything.

So, here's how it goes. I believe in believer's baptism and you believe in infant baptism, so we should just leave it alone and be friends anyway. I believe in worshiping on Sunday and you believe in worshiping on Saturday, so we should just leave it alone and be friends anyway. I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and you believe it isn't, so I should shut up and stop believing what I believe and agree with you. Wait ... how does that work? How does that make sense?

You see, I have lots of reasons to believe what I believe about the morality of that particular behavior. It's what I see in the Bible. It's consistent with all the other topics around it. It's consistent with nature. It's consistent with Church history. All well and good. So I hold a position. And in every other case it seems I can hold a position and no one will say a word except this one. So when loud voices complain repeatedly and continuously that I should shut up and change my beliefs to align with theirs because theirs is more tolerant and accepting and inclusive (which is contradictory because theirs does not tolerate, accept, or include my beliefs), it simply convinces me one more way that theirs is wrong. Which means that mine is right.

So here I am with my position. I'm not campaigning to make the behavior illegal. I'm not visiting pro-GLBTQILMNOP blogs explaining why they're wrong and need to shut up. I'm not writing my congressman or recommending deporting those who practice such things or ... I'm not doing anything to stop them. But my voice needs to be silenced by "tolerant" people who urge "inclusiveness" and "equality" by being intolerant, exclusive, and unequal. And I'm the problem.

Like I said, I'm not getting it.

Transcendance and Immanence

It seems as if we, those who are the followers of God, often fall off the track on one side or another in our thinking about God. Either He is too far away or far too close.

Transcendance is the word we use to convey the distance between us and God. Here is how God put it.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9).

The sheer weight of transcendance was placed in a single verse in Isaiah 6, but we might miss it, not being from ancient Israel. There we hear the seraphim crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory" (Isa 6:3). You see, that word, "holy" means most literally "other". The word, qâdôsh, refers to the sacred, but more at that which is set apart. Did you get that? Set apart. And the repetition -- thrice -- is a Hebraism. It is like our underline and exclamation marks or italics and bold print. "Holy, holy, holy!" God is so utterly "other" that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. So when we start to think that God is our best buddy, we start to miss this point. When we think that He is just like us, we stray from the truth (Psa 50:21). He is "other".

So we head toward the distance between God and us. He's "out there". He's not paying attention. He's "other", right? This skips right over the immanence of God. Immanence¹ refers to His closeness. The Bible speaks of "Christ in you" (Col 1:27; Rom 8:10). The Bible says that all things consist in Him (Col 1:17). Paul said, "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). He is more "here" than we are.

Error on one side gives you deism, the idea that God is so far removed that He isn't involved. Error on the other side gives you pantheism, the idea that God is in in everything. Ours is a middle ground. Never forget that He is above all, high and lifted up, not a man like us. Never forget that He is right here, every day, intimately involved. Remember both; both are true. Both are vital.
________
¹ Not to be confused with "imminence", referring to the soon return of Christ.

Return to Babel

"It doesn't really matter what language you speak," I read recently. "What matters is that you're understood." This is so true. I often complain about the abuse, disuse, and decline of words. Their meanings shift, change, even disappear, and we end up using a word we think we all know in senses that are completely foreign to one or the other (or, in some cases, both).

The other day I was musing about one of the state of affairs in this country. There is a lot of noise about helping the poor, about assisting those without health insurance, about aiding those in trouble with their mortgages -- all well and good -- about equality, you know. Odd thing, though. No one is offering me any help. Why is that? "Well," I told myself, "that's because you're not one of the underprivileged." The term hit me. "Underprivileged." What does that mean?

According to Merriam-Webster, the term means "deprived through social or economic condition of some of the fundamental rights of all members of a civilized society". And Webster isn't alone. Dictionary.com agreed both from Random House Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary. It is missing rights. Now, wait a minute! When did this happen? When did a "privilege" become a "right"?

Indeed it did! Dictionary.com defines "privilege" as "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most." The World English Dictionary uses the older definition, suggesting it means, "a benefit, immunity, etc, granted under certain conditions", but thanks to the evolution of English, we've pretty much blurred the distinction and "privilege" is no longer distinct from "right" or "entitlement". Indeed, "privilege" is no longer simply a nice thing to have. It is "rights and advantages enjoyed by the elite." You know, like that "1%" so hated these days by the 99%.

So, we have "underprivileged" which means "deprived of your rights" even though "privilege" was usually distinct from "rights". And this would suggest a standard of "privileges" below which you would be "underprivileged". There would be the next level -- those in the middle -- who would be the "privileged", and then there would be the upper echelon that we would necessarily need to classify as the "overprivileged". We should restore the rights of the underprivileged and tear down the overprivileged because that's just ... right.

Okay, so I've thrown out the standard definition of "privilege" that is distinct from "right" and I've been able to make sense now out of "underprivileged" since there is no distinction between "privilege" and "right". Just when I think I'm getting back to the "understood" section of the language, someone throws out, "You know, driving is a privilege, not a right!" And ... poof! ... I'm back in the confusion pot. Seems to me that, while it may look like English is becoming the universal language here on this planet, what we're actually experiencing is a return to Babel.

Irony Defined

Irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. Usually it's humorous. Sometimes not. As in the story of Mozilla co-founder CEO Brendan Eich who resigned under fire because he was outed as having donated $1000 to the Prop 8 campaign in California. You remember, the campaign to keep marriage as marriage. Mozilla has apologized for Eich and GLAAD is satisfied, saying, "Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all."

And that, dear readers, is irony. It's irony when someone loses their job for taking a position and that is referred to as "inclusive" or "safe" or "welcoming". It's is irony when one side says of another that the damage done to their opponent's welfare is "inclusive, safe, and welcoming" at all. And "equality" extends only as far as GLAAD's nose (and the noses of those who agree with them), it seems, because they should be protected, but those who disagree should not ... and that's "equality". Irony. Apparently, excluding and removing someone who disagrees is "equality" and "inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all" ... as long as "all" means "those who agree with us" and not those who don't.

The Greater Good

The primary argument used against God is the argument of evil. Why would a good God allow evil to exist? Lots of people have answered; some well, some not so much. I've always maintained (against a pretty hefty current, I suspect) that God intends evil for His good purposes. No, He doesn't cause it, but He allows it to accomplish something He wants to accomplish that is better than the good that would be accomplished in eliminating evil.

We see this in Paul's reprimand of those who question God's Sovereignty.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:22-23)?

It's clear then that He wills to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known. Or take Joseph's predicament back in Genesis. God could have saved Joseph from his brothers' schemes, but He didn't. Instead, He intended to use Joseph in his position in Egypt to save Jacob's family (Gen 50:20). Saving Joseph? Good. Saving Israel? Better.

I came across another one that was quite startling.

And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross." In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him. "He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Matt 27:39-43).

Now think about that one. I mean, how many have said to you, "If God would do a miracle in front of me, I'd believe in Him"? How many have challenged, "Why doesn't God do something to prove His existence?" We have the same thing here. Imagine if He had. Imagine if, right there in front of the Romans and the Jews and the Pharisees and all, Jesus simply floated off the cross and sailed down to the ground, perfectly healed and intact. Who could have disbelieved Him then? Who could have questioned that the Father delighted in the Son then? Good stuff, right?

Sure, perhaps¹, this would have been a triumph, a winning hand, an irrefutable proof. Perhaps many would have believed. All good stuff. But what else would have happened? You and I wouldn't be saved. No death, no resurrection, and no payment for sin. No "saved by grace through faith". No hope. No Christianity.

Jesus had an option of doing a good thing. He opted instead to go the painful route to accomplish something better. God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4), but has something better to achieve. God could end evil in any form, but He has something better in mind. He has the greater good in view. Are you willing to let Him accomplish that?
________
¹ I say "perhaps" because of other events in Scripture. We have the children of Israel who miraculously cross the Red Sea and are complaining days later that God brought them out in the desert to kill them. We have Jesus's story about Lazarus and the Rich Man where He said, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). And, of course, shortly before they hung Him on the cross, many witnessed an actual resurrection when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:38-44). The response of many to an undeniable miracle was to seek to kill Jesus and Lazarus (John 11:53; 12:10). So we can't really be sure what the response would be.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Kristen Howerton wrote a piece entitled Christians: Is the Debate Over Gay Marriage What We Want to Be Known For? Springing off of the recent World Vision misstep as well as the Phil Robertson and Chick-fil-A kerfuffles, she wants to know, "Why can't we all just get along?"

She has three primary questions:

1. Why is same-sex marriage such a fraught issue?
2. How can we find unity in this division?
3. How is this affecting our LGBT brothers and sisters?

When I read the last question, I tried to think what she meant. Is she referring to "our LGBT brothers and sisters" in the sense of "fellow human beings" or in the sense of "brothers and sisters in Christ"? I read on. When she said, "I asked a gay Christian friend ...", I had my answer. She was thinking of fellow Christians, not fellow human beings.

Why, then, is same-sex marriage such an issue? Well, I'd like to answer that, Kristen. It's because the Bible isn't unclear about God's intentions for marriage. It is for the union of a man and a woman to become one flesh (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). (I needed to put that Matthew reference because these are Jesus's words.) It is for the male-female "helpmeet" relationship (Gen 2:18). It is for the propagation of the species (Gen 1:28). And, beyond and above all that, it is a picture of the relationship of Christ to the Church (Eph 5:31-32) (which, by the way, includes a built-in requirement of male and female, husband and wife - Eph 5:22-33). It isn't small and it isn't trivial and it isn't merely a difference of opinion. It is at the heart of the question, "Is the Bible reliable?" It is at the core of the question, "Is the Holy Spirit able to accomplish what He intends to accomplish?"

Kristen conflates two issues here, and this just adds to the confusion. One issue is "marriage". What is it? What does it mean? What does God say about it? You see, the primary reason that "same-sex marriage" is an issue is not because homosexual behavior is a sin. It is because marriage means something, and "same-sex" is not part of it. The question, then, isn't the morality of same-sex relationships, but marriage. But she, like the majority of others, throws in homosexual behavior as the issue. This is a separate issue. It's not part of the "marriage" question.

Kristen asks, "How can we find unity in this division?", and I'll answer this as well. We can't. Why? Because one side is confusing the issues. I don't call "same-sex marriage" a sin; I call it nonsense. I call it an affront to God's definition of the term. I call it a violation of God's explanation of what marriage is about and what it stands for. If that was the issue, I suppose we could find unity by hashing it out. But that, no matter how fanciful, can't be done because no one on that side of the question sees that as the issue. They, like Howerton, are stuffing "same-sex marriage" together with "homosexual behavior" (and buying the notion that "homosexual" is a definition rather than a behavioral choice). So now I have my Bible, the Word of God, that says the homosexual behavior is a sin and that those who engage without repentance in that particular sin (along with a list of others) have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). And voices out there like Howerton's would like us to just get along. How? Well, we need to put down our Bibles, put down our certainty, put down our principles, set aside Church history, set aside everything that the Bible says about this particular sin (see, for instance, Jude 1:7), and just say, "Oh, it's okay; everything is fine."

No, it's not. If there is such a thing as "LGBT brothers and sisters" -- unrepentant folks engaging in what the Bible deems sexual immorality -- and if there is such a thing as "same-sex marriage", then we don't merely need to "just get along". We need to move on. We need to give up the whole concept of a reliable Bible and a Holy Spirit that can accomplish what He intends. We need to abandon Christianity as a solid belief system because we have no firm footing on which to stand. The Bible is obscure, the Spirit is incapable, and what can we really know at all? Now we can all get along. Of course, it is a "get along" into a hopeless morass of relativism and subjectivism. Maybe the Kristen's of this world are happy with that. I can't go there. How do I hope to affect "our LGBT brothers and sisters"? I hope to call them to repentance, to bring them to Christ, to offer them a solution, because that is love. I hope to offer them the same thing I need, a relationship with Christ on His terms. We don't get to do that by standing on the ground He forbids. It's not unity or loving to suggest we do.