Who Said?

Let's play a game. Who said:

Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith.

The quote is from Dwight D. Eisenhower after his second inauguration. Eisenhower was the only president to ever be baptized while in office. He classified himself as a Christian. He held a deeply felt religious faith. And he followed the statement above with "and I don’t care what it is." It is indeed true that our form of government cannot be maintained without a deeply felt religious faith, but not just any religious faith will do. The secret to a functional democracy is an intrinsically moral society, only possible in a Christian society.

Okay, next one. Who said:

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.

The quote comes from President Barack Obama at the prayer breakfast so irksome to so many where he compared Christianity and the Crusades to Islamic fundamentalists (although, of course, he never used that term). The president spent 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ under, for many years, Jeremiah Wright, who preached, among other things, strong forms of racism against whites and Jews and that 9/11 was retribution to white America. In that quote above the president was absolutely correct. Unfortunately, he makes a practice, as does a large portion of America, of asking God to respond to our notions of truth rather than simply accepting truth from His Word.

Both statements were accurate, but outcomes were mistaken. What a pity. In both cases.

Biblical Absence

We live in tough times. Many Christians are deeply concerned about our political conditions. Finding good people to run for office is hard. Dealing with the bad ones already in office is hard. The political trends toward less morality and less religious freedom are hard. Times are tough. We are concerned about the economy. We are concerned about an ignorant and even anti-Christian education system. We are concerned about the legal system. We are concerned about police brutality. We are concerned about a rising national immorality. Times are tough, and we're concerned about our world.

Have you ever noticed the glaring absence of something in the Bible? There is precious little about politics. Jesus and the Apostles after Him lived in some of the worst possible times. While we bemoan "unfriendliness" against Christianity, they were looking at prison and execution. Followers of Christ were classified as "atheists" because they didn't believe that Caesar was God. The Jews, the Romans, their families and neighbors were all their enemies. And nothing in the texts appear to address what we consider today some of the biggest problems facing us.

Could it be that we might be concerning ourselves with the wrong things? When Jesus was asked about the oppressive taxes paid to Rome, He answered, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's." (Mark 12:17) Now, wait, Jesus. Nothing about "No taxation without representation!"? No "These are unfair taxes and we must write our governor about this!"? Where is the stand for human rights? Where's the push for fair treatment of women? Why is there not one, single political commentary in the New Testament? Oh, except for that nasty "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." (Rom 13:1) We really don't like that one.

God told Israel, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways." (Isa 55:8) Is it possible that we might be spending too much time complaining about our president or our Congress, our laws or rights? The Bible seems to be most concerned about you and your relationship with God. Could it be that we should be more concerned about that than our complaints about how others are treating us unfairly? Could it be our concern should be more for God's purposes and others' welfare?

Questions, you know, just in the absence of biblical content on the subject.

Limited Atonement

The so-called doctrine of Limited Atonement is perhaps the most contested doctrine in Reformed Theology. So hotly contested is it that you can find people who classify themselves as "Reformed" but deny that particular point. There are "5-point Calvinists" and "4-point Calvinists" because that one point is just unacceptable. My intent here is not to defend the point. My intent is, rather, to find common ground. Look, I didn't even put "Reformed Theology" as a label here because I don't think I am going to talk about Reformed Theology. I think I'm going to find agreement.

So, where do we agree? First, we agree that "Limited Atonement" is wrong. It is, from your perspective, a falsehood and from my perspective a poor way to put together an acrostic. Let's start, then, by just throwing that one right out, okay?

So, on the concept of the Atonement, what do we believe? Well, we believe in the sufficiency of the Atonement. We believe, that is, that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all the sin of all mankind. We are all in agreement on that point. It was funny to me. I once heard a preacher defending the doctrine of Limited Atonement where he asserted "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." Not a week later I heard another preacher preach against Limited Atonement. His claim? "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." Indeed, word for word. So we're all in agreement here on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

What else? There are a small number who call themselves both "Christian" and "Universalists". This is problematic since Christ spoke more of the threat of Hell than anyone and the warnings that "few there are who find it" (referring to the way to God) are throughout Scripture. So I think I'm fairly safe in suggesting that we largely agree that the Atonement does not apply to everyone equally. It's a reference to that shared quote above: "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." That is, "efficient for some" means "not for others". The Atonement only applies to some. We all agree that the Atonement is offered to all, but is only appropriated by those who repent of their sin and believe. I'm pretty sure, even though the phrase will catch in your throat at this point, that in this sense the Atonement is limited. We're pretty comfortable with that fact as biblical and clear. Not everyone has their sins atoned.

Well, now, look at that. We're all in agreement so far. On the sufficiency of the Atonement, we agree that it was sufficient for all. On the efficiency (how effective it is), it was efficient for some. To disagree with the first is to diminish Christ's work. To disagree with the second is to subscribe to Universalism. I think we're all on the same page so far.

So where is the controversy? The question isn't about the sufficiency or efficiency. The question is about the intent. When Christ went to the cross, what did He intend to accomplish? When God gave His Son to die, what did He intend to achieve? The question was of the Divine Plan. What did they expect to do?

The Open Theist will argue that God didn't know what would happen. He had possibilities in mind, of course, but couldn't actually know what they would accomplish with this sacrifice of His Son. So this view is of the opinion that God was just playing a big gamble, so to speak. Oh, no, they wouldn't actually say that. I don't mean to suggest that's their stated position. But, in essence, God, not actually knowing the outcome, played the odds and sacrificed His Son with the theoretical possibility that no one would be saved but reasonably sure that someone would believe.

On the other hand, the orthodox Christian--the one who subscribes to the historic Omniscience of God--has to say that God knew what would happen as a result of His Son's death on the cross. To us, then, what was God's intent? We would have to conclude that God's plan was to save some. Not all. If His plan was to save all, God failed. And we don't believe that God fails. So His plan must have been to save some, and those "some" (however that number is determined) will be saved because, as everyone knows, God does not fail. It is, in fact, what Jesus said. "I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:15) (In case there is any question, "the sheep" are specified as "My sheep" in the same chapter. Christ says "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice." (John 10:16) In case you might be confused and think "sheep" refers to "all people".) So it seems obvious that we--all Bible-believing Christians--agree that the intent of the cross was the salvation of some, not all, and that this intent will be fully realized.

You see, then, that I arrive at a point of confusion. I'm confused about the confusion. What I've laid out here on which I think we're all agreed is, in the final analysis, the doctrine badly named "Limited Atonement". It is not about limited sufficiency. It is not even about limited efficiency, even though we're all in agreement there. It's not about limited opportunity. This atonement is offered to all, contingent on "repent and believe". It is about intent. And I think we're all in agreement that God did not intend to save every man, woman, and child and fail in that intent. I think we're all in agreement that He intended to save those who repent and believe and is succeeding in that plan. So my confusion is why this doctrine is so hotly contested when I think it is actually agreeable to all Bible believers. With the exception, perhaps, of the Universalists and the Open Theists, with whom we have more difficulties, are we not agreement here?

Higher Criticism

The term "higher criticism" refers on the surface to a critical way of viewing the Bible. It is distinct from "lower criticism". Higher criticism is defined as "the study of the Bible having as its object the establishment of such facts as authorship and date of composition, as well as determination of a basis for exegesis." This idea was started in the 19th century. Lower criticism is a form of biblical criticism having as its purpose the reconstruction of the original texts of the books of the Bible. The usual name for this criticism is "textual criticism". All this sounds all well and good. The "higher" side looks at origins and authorship and the "lower" side looks for meanings of texts. But, if you were paying attention, you might have seen a sinister component in the definition of the "higher" side. They look for "determination of a basis for exegesis." Through whatever means they might use, they tell you, "Yes, it is possible to do useful exegesis on this text" or "No, there is no basis for exegesis on that text."

You see, despite the harmless, even beneficial-sounding concept, the "higher critics" became Bible critics. They began disassembling the Bible. "Well, this part is probably not written by Moses" (as Jesus indicated it was) "and that was certainly not written by Paul" (even though the early Church fathers and the text itself indicates that it was) "and ..." And so it went. Eventually we ended up with things like the Jesus Seminar in which "enlightened scholars" are voting on "Did Jesus say or do this?" and "the truth" is determined by a vote. (By the way, they generally voted, simply as a matter of principle, that Jesus did no miracles. Everything else was suspect.) The Higher Criticism movement spawned the Fundamentalist movement, a call back to biblical fundamentals rather than "higher critics" falderal. What the Higher Criticism movement did was start with Enlightenment principles (like "There can be no miracles") and work from there. Superimposing predetermined beliefs on top of the Bible, they ended up with a highly questionable, sharply reduced version of "Scripture" that, frankly, left little solid ground on which to stand. Unless the higher critic had a devotion to Scripture as well as scholarship (rather than scholarship over Scripture), it was inevitable that Scripture would suffer when pressed against the standard of humanism. So, based for instance on style and an author's qualifications, they would determine who wrote what. The higher critics (at least most of them) ended up with a "superior" position based almost exclusively on subjective analysis. With a prior commitment to rationalism and subjectivism, they, in essence, removed the Bible.

I would suggest that Higher Criticism would be a good thing. I would simply suggest that the version where God's Word is measured by human predispositions is not Higher Criticism. It would be like allowing a Dr. Seuss book to be your mode of evaluation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not "higher". I would suggest that "Higher Criticism" would work much better if we allowed that which is higher--the inspired Word of God--to bear on that which is lower--our deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. Now that would be a Higher Criticism worth pursuing.

Here, try a couple of examples. When you read, "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12), do you understand that to mean "There is none who does good" or do you do what so many others do? "Well," they tell me, "I know lots of people who do good, so that can't be what it means." (You see, their experience trumps the text.) So "It's hyperbole," they tell me. And this hyperbole which says no one does good actually means almost everyone does good ... a hyperbole failure. Could it be that it means what it says and our understanding of "good" needs to change? That's the kind of higher criticism I'm talking about. When John writes, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7), do you say, "Well, just about everyone loves"? Because if you do this text says "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God", so you would be affirming universalism--everyone is born of God and knows God. Or could it be that this love is far more rare than we might think and we need to figure out how our understanding of love is not aligned with God's version? That is the higher criticism I'm recommending.

Much of Christendom handed the reins over to "scholars" who decided their prior beliefs were a suitable method of evaluating Scripture rather than subjecting their prior beliefs to Scripture. And the whole cart has been careening across the field of history ever since. Don't question it, mind you. They're scholars; you're not. But if it is true (again, my version of "higher criticism") that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), it would seem to me that we would welcome a reliable source like God's Word to provide corrections to our deceived hearts and offer renewal to our debased minds. I'm in favor of that version of higher criticism.

Salty Language

Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Col 4:5-6)

The Bible teaches that Christians should use salty language. Okay, that would be an example of a cultural language problem. You see, "salty language" today means more like "swears like a sailor", but when Paul wrote that your language should be "seasoned, as it were, with salt", he didn't have that version in mind. So what did he mean to say?

Well, we can conjecture because we don't have a "Paul-to-21st-century English" dictionary. First, whatever it is, there is a clear parallel. "Let your speech always be with grace." Whatever the "seasoning" of "salt" is, it is grace. And we can find other parallels from Paul that might help further. Whatever that "salt" is, it is not "unwholesome words" (Eph 4:29) or "filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting" (Eph 5:4). I think that all pretty much rules out foul language. And this gracious speech is both truthful and loving (Eph 4:15) and "good for edification according to the need of the moment" (Eph 4:29).

After that, we have to figure it out on our own. Salt, for instance, is a preservative. Use language that preserves rather than tears down. Salt obviously adds flavor. Use language that means something rather than dull words. Proverbs 27:6 says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend", and salt, rubbed into wounds, can sting.

You will note that the verse on salty speech follows a prior thought and, as such, is likely part of the same thought. "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders." These "outsiders" are most likely those outside the faith. The New Testament is full of places where believers have a special bond with believers. Jesus said they (those who are not His) would know we are His disciples by our love for one another (John 13:35). So these outsiders would be unbelievers. How do we conduct ourselves with wisdom toward them? Well, the way that Paul highlights is to make the most of every opportunity. In what sense? In your speech. Thus, the primary focus of this gracious, salty speech is the way you talk to outsiders.

You can see this in Jesus. He was gracious to the lost and sinful and sick around Him. To the "insiders", the Pharisees who should have known better, He was not so gracious. (Describing them as "white-washed tombs" and "hypocrites" is not "gracious".) To those who at least believed they were on the "inside" He was relentless. But to those outside, He was gracious in His speech.

In the end I don't think we can definitively say what it is. We can clearly eliminate some possibilities. It is not foul language. It is not misleading or dishonest language. It is not coarse or filthy language. It is not aimed at tearing down, but at building up. It is not gossip or backbiting (Prov 25:23). I think, on the other hand, that it's safe to say that it is aimed at "flavoring" the conversation to get their attention. (Again, without foul language.) It makes for a lively dialog. It gives grace to those who hear.

Let me give a couple of examples of how this does not work. It does not work by using intentionally inflammatory language to describe those with whom you disagree. I know of some who inflexibly use the term "sodomite" to describe those who commit homosexual behavior. It doesn't matter that the term from the King James English no longer means what it did then. It doesn't matter that this intentionally and unnecessarily creates tension between the speaker and the listener. This is not "wisdom toward outsiders", speech with grace, or the salty language Paul commanded. Likewise, people who use foul language to express their views when they know such language is an offense cannot be classified as speaking with grace. The Scriptures specifically rule out this version of speech "seasoned with salt".

Christians, I know that the heresies and confusion and the assaults on the faith and the lies and the outright sin classified as "good" and "loving" is a problem. I know that such things can create tension, even anger. And we ought to be diligent for the truth and for the glory of God. But it isn't necessary to use intentionally inflammatory language to do that. We are commanded to make the most of every opportunity by speaking with grace. The anonymity and lack of accountability afforded by the Internet is not an reason to ignore the clear command, and, frankly, complaining about people who defy Scripture by defying Scripture makes no sense. We can do better than that, can't we?

Lines Are Our Friends

If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (Gal 5:18)

I have been assured by fellow Christians that this clearly teaches that the law is no longer in effect for Christians. That was "Old Testament". We're new. "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes," the tell me (Rom 10:4).

Unlike those who think we are still fully under every aspect of the Old Testament law (admittedly a very small number, but in existence nonetheless), there are many who avoid the whole accusation of "pick and choose" by rejecting the law wholesale. These are actually antinomians, those opposed to the law. In this view right and wrong becomes irrelevant. "It's between me and God," they will argue and then sort of make it up as they go (because they'll still argue that you're immoral for suggesting the law is of any value anymore).

Is the law dead? I, for one, hope not. As it turns out, lines are our friends. God didn't give us rules to strip away our fun or simply to condemn us. He gave us law to offer the best, as love always does.

There are, today, multiple uses for God's law. For one, Paul wrote, "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." (Rom 7:7) That is, the law teaches us what God views as right and wrong and tells us where we transgress it. (Thus, "transgressions".) The word "sin" in the Greek language means literally "to miss the mark" and if you don't know what the mark is, you can't know if you missed it. That's the function of the law. Along that line of thinking, anyone who wishes to please God would want to know what He wants. So God's law serves that purpose. It offers to those who want it (even to those who don't), "This is the way, walk in it." (Isa 30:21) A third purpose, and one we can see clearly today, is to use the law to restrain sin in society. There are cultures, for instance, that value murder. (Do I need to offer current examples (hint: ISIS)?) But the Bible forbids it and laws against it aim to help restrain it. While adultery is just about everywhere, God's law condemns it and we all know it's wrong which helps decrease the occurrences. Indeed, Paul claimed "the work of the law is written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Everyone has it. If it were not so, there wouldn't be nearly the outrage against people who claim "God says this is wrong." No, the outrage is caused by the conscience warring against desires. A function of the law.

As a whole, God's law may look like a restraint to our freedom, but it serves good purposes. Imagine, for a moment, a child that would like to learn to draw. Setting that child down in a room and telling him or her, "Go to it!" without guidance is not helpful. You haven't assisted that child in learning to draw. You need to make rules. "Here are some implements to use. Here is the medium you can use. Here is a book to give you some instruction." That sort of thing. Teaching them sociology (for instance) is all well and good, but it is not within the "lines" of learning to draw. So, as it turns out, limiting their choices serves to direct them toward improving their skills, while eliminating all limitations will simply allow random activity without achieving the ends they had intended. Now, step up from drawing and it gets clearer. The child that wants to learn to design buildings will need to learn foundational truths (yes, that was a pun) in order to do the job. Limitations? Yes, but limitations that make everything work.

In a nation whose god has become "liberty" that means "do whatever I feel like", laws--especially God's laws--are an affront. To the antinomian Christian, even God's law is an affront. But Jesus assured us "Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) And, as it turns out, lines are our friends.

God is Love

We love that verse. Well, at least that phrase in that verse. "God is love." (1 John 4:8) We (rightly) sing songs about God's love and enjoy the thought of God's love. Paul says that the love of Christ surpasses knowledge (Eph 3:19). God is love.

And then, right in the middle of a fine set from the praise band, we slip a cog. We get really confused about love. We think it's about God's warm feelings toward us and our warm feelings toward Him. And it's not. How do I know? Because it's in the text.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:7-11)

Now, right there in the middle of that passage is the phrase I already quoted: "God is love." It is not, however, all by itself. What else does it say? We are told at the beginning and the end that we should "love one another", but we aren't told that in a vacuum. We're told how and why. How? "Love is from God." Why? "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

I don't know why we routinely read this stuff without batting an eye. John says something critical here. Love, this love of which John is writing (as opposed to our sexualized, emotionalized version today) is sourced by God and is not common. "Love is from God." This love is only possible to one who is born of God. If you are not born of God, you cannot, in John's terms, love. This love as it comes out of us is a result of and response to Christ's work on the cross. This love is rare, but it is the love we are commanded to have for one another.

One of the confusions over God and love is that "God is love" as if love is God. People see it as an equivalence, like "A = B". It's not. People see it as if love is God's biggest attribute, overshadowing all others (like His justice and His wrath). It's not. Love is not who God is. Love is defined by God. You see, God is the standard of standards, the standard without standards. God, by His nature, defines what is good. There is not a higher standard of good to which He must submit. Instead, His nature is the standard of good to which we must all submit. The same is true of God's love. God, by His nature, defines love. There is not some objective "love" out there to which God aligns Himself. He is the source.

Think of a dictionary. Dictionaries do not define words; they report the definition. If you use a word--say, "marriage"--to mean something different, the dictionary has nothing to say about it. It just reports that new definition. That's why you can find the description "archaic" in some definitions. It used to mean this, but no one uses it that way anymore. Because dictionaries aren't the ones that define words; we are. The same is not true about God. God defines good. God defines love. When it says, "God is love", it is not a limitation--"This is what God is"--but an explanation of the source of love. That is what the text says. We don't love because of ourselves or because there is a "higher love" out there that we tap into. We love because He loved us. He is the definition. He is the source.

God's love truly is amazing. We truly are blessed. God's love exceeds our comprehension. We can taste it, but we can never fully grasp it. Because of that love, we are to love one another. Because God is love.

Objective vs Subjective

Any Bible-believing Christian knows that we face constant challenges to basic subjects these days. Two big ones are truth and morality.

On our side, Jesus told us, "I am ... the Truth ..." (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit would "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Truth matters. But Pilate epitomized the other view with his sarcastic, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) Does truth exist? Or is it, as so many want to claim, simply a matter of opinion?

On our side, we argue that there is actual morality, not mere opinion. We base it in God as Creator and Lawgiver. As such, He has the authority (and responsibility) to tell us what is good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and these are applied to all people. The other side argues that ... well, now, wait ... they argue in two directions. On one hand they argue that morality is simply the norms of the society in which you live. If marrying 5 women is moral in your society, it's moral. If not, then it's not. Morality is relative. On the other hand they argue that the God of the Bible has failed to satisfy their moral demands of eliminating evil, so He does not exist. They do this without a basis for the demands or for the definition of "evil". That is, they hold both that moral is what you make it and moral is real. It may or may not be moral today to marry a fence, but it is certainly immoral to torture and kill an innocent child ... unless, of course, a woman chooses to do so. Well, you get the idea. All very confusing.

The differences in both "truth" and "morality" here are the differences between "objective" and "subjective". "Objective" refers to things that are real apart from your feelings, opinions, or preferences. It refers, essentially, to an object. "Subjective" speaks of feelings, tasts, or opinions. It is predicated on the subject doing the examination rather than the object being examined. There are, for instance, some outlandish folks who argue that nothing is real and everything is in your mind. As such, there are no objective truths--no objects. Everything is based on your perceptions, feelings, or thoughts--subjective.

The question, then, is not whether or not there is truth or morality. Of course these things exist. The question is whether there is objective truth and objective morality. Are there things that are true regardless of how you feel about them? Are there things that are right or wrong regardless of your opinions? Do these things actually exist?

Christians, of course, must argue for the positive. If God, then, yes, there is reality and morality outside of my own perceptions. God made objects and they exist. God made natural laws and they exist regardless of my opinions. Reality is actual, not simply my opinions. The trick in this case, then, is to align your perceptions with the truth rather than the reverse ... like so many do today.

When the argument sides with the subjective, you must keep in mind that the outcome is there is no truth or morality. Well, not that is applicable to everyone. If truth is subjective and morality relative, then no one has the right to claim that you're wrong in your truth claims or evil in your moral code. Indeed, the atheist argument that God is a perpetrator of evil falls apart since evil no longer has an objective definition. And questions like "Can an atheist be moral?" become pointless because "moral" has no basis.

Why it is that those who hold to subjective truth and moral relativity continue to argue about truth and morality is beyond me. They do so without foundation. As for you, just make sure you're not one doing that argument. It really is the perfect example of a slippery slope.

Inspired by God

Perhaps one of the most hotly contested Scriptures today is in Paul's second letter to Timothy.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

It is a claim to divine inspiration ("No, it's not," the skeptic--Christian or not--will tell you) of Scripture ("No, it's not," said skeptic will repeat), placing the Bible in the category of "God's Word" ("No, it doesn't," our friendly skeptic will strongly affirm ... without proof or evidence, of course). That is, the text is a clear statement that the Bible is God's Word.

Already my skeptical readers are shaking their heads or even pounding their keyboards to assure me this is not the case. But let's look at the text.

First, it refers to "all Scripture". As I demonstrated earlier, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul refers to Luke's Gospel as Scripture, so this cannot be simply construed as "Old Testament" as many would try to suggest. The only reason the canon of Scripture was not determined until the 4th century was not that they didn't see it as Scripture, but because of a guy named Marcion who offered his own version that they had to refute. The Muratorian Canon, for instance, was compiled by 170 AD and contained none of the books we don't have and all but 3 of the books we do. Scripture was clear from the beginning.

The really difficult term there is "inspired". "Yeah," the skeptic will say, "we get 'inspired'. Lots of writers are inspired." And the whole sense of the term is deflated to mean little more than "really cool". Is that the sense of the wording? Well, the ESV uses the phrase "breathed out by God" and Young's Literal Translation uses "God-breathed". Why the difference? How is "breathed out by God" different from "inspired by God"? Well, "inspired" means most literally "inhaled". The opposite, "expired", would mean "exhaled". But, as in "expired", we understand "inspired" to mean something different now. Now it means "aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something" ... or "really cool". But the word (and it is one word) used in the text of the verse is θεόπνευστος--theopneustos. Interesting, isn't it? It is not "inspired by God" (as we would understand it today). It is one word. That's θεός--theos--and πνέω--pneō--from which we get our words "theology" from the first and "pneumatic" or "pneumonia" or the like from the second. It is a single word that means "God-exhaled". In light of our modern "inspired writing", there is a sharp contrast between "inspired by God" and "God-breathed". If I had a warm view of God, it might inspire me to write warm things about God, warm things that may or may not be true. But "breathed out by God" or "God-breathed" eliminates that notion. Nor is such an idea a mere wordplay. It's what's in the text.

Now, you may wish to disagree that the Bible is God's Word. You would do so against the plain meaning of the text as well as the historic view of the Church. You may wish to deny that words exhaled by God will be infallible or inerrant. I find it interesting that scholars almost unanimously agree that Jesus viewed the Scriptures as God's infallible Word, but so many today who claim to approach Scripture from Jesus's perspective do so while denying the infallibility of the Word. So you may wish to set aside the Bible (while, beyond my comprehension, you try to affirm a "high respect for the Bible"), but you do so against the plain text and the clear understanding of Christ. At that point, you're on your own. For those of you who wonder, it's clear. Wonder no longer.^[1]
________

^[1] For the skeptic who assures us that "Sure, it's 'God-breathed', but your opinion isn't," let's keep in mind that Jesus promised an answer, a solution (John 16:13). We do not evaluate the Word in a vacuum, dependent solely on our fallible, sinful understanding. We do so under divine guidance by the One who breathed it. Sure, we will still come to disagreements, but they are far and away the exception rather than the rule, and Christians taught by the Spirit of Truth, God's Spirit, are in much more agreement than disagreement. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

By Him For Him

Jean Lloyd, PhD, is a teacher and a happily married mother of two young children. She wrote an article for The Witherspoon Institute about gender identity. No, not quite what you think. Dr. Lloyd wrote of her own struggles as a 15-year-old girl in 1985 and compared what would have happened if it had been 2015. Back then, the option would have been for every friend, parent, and therapist to argue, cajol, even force her out of her confusion. Today it is illegal in some states to do that. In todays' world, she argues, the one option she would not have had was to not be gay. Very interesting article, especially coming from someone who has been there.

She concludes with a little about how she ended up following God instead of embracing the lesbian life.

I began to trust the One who knew the truth of my identity more than I did, who wrote His image into my being and body as female, and who designed sexuality and set boundaries upon it for my good.

Wow! She gets it. She understands. She understands better than a lot of the rest of us do.

The issue is not "me", my desires, my preferences, my leanings. It isn't, as has become the case for so many these days, my orgasm. It is God. God knows your identity. He knows it better than you do. He wrote His image on you. The gender assigned by God at birth was no accident of birth or some sort of child abuse^[1]. It's about God.

And it's about what's best for you. She fully recognized the truth that God designed her sexuality and "set boundaries upon it for my good." The "I feel this way so I should be allowed to indulge my feelings" line of argumentation makes no sense. We tell angry people who feel like killing to control their feelings and we tell sad people who feel like suicide to control their feelings, but when it comes to sexual desires, we tell them to go with their feelings? God limits sexual freedom for your good. That applies, by the way, to whatever sexual proclivity you might have.

I wish more people would understand what Dr. Lloyd figured out. It's about God and what He thinks is best for you. He is God; you are not. Work from there. But, I'm pretty sure that's the case beyond simple sexuality. I'm sure it's the case in all facets of our lives. And I'm pretty sure that we all have work to do on that line of thinking.
________

^[1] There is actually a website (to which I won't link) dedicated to "stop gendering children." As if you're doing them a favor. "Saying a child or adult with a penis’ sex is male is inherently transphobic and unnecessary," they say. "There is no reason to refer to genitals or sex as 'male' or 'female'." You understand, I hope, dear reader, that the clinical definition of "sex" as distinct from "gender" is specifically the reproductive anatomy. That is, a human with a penis is defined as the male sex, regardless of whether or not you want to do a "gender dance" where gender is fluid. This, in fact, is why transsexual operations attempt to change the reproductive anatomy to align with the "felt gender". If it wasn't the definition, it wouldn't matter, would it?

Red-Letter Christians

You've heard of these, right? It's a reference to those handy Bibles where they put Jesus's words in red. It's not as if the red letters are inspired, you know. For instance, some Bible scholars are unclear in John 3 where Jesus's words leave off and the words of John (the writer) begin. You see, Greek didn't employ the helpful quotation marks we have today, so did Jesus say the world-famous "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) or did Jesus end with verse 15 and John expanded from verses 16 on? Which illustrates the difficulty with red-letter thinking. You see, the red letters are not more inspired than any other, but the feel of it is "These are the actual words of Jesus so they're much more important than the rest." So if Jesus did not say John 3:16-21 as the red-letter Bibles indicate but John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, added them as explanation, then they are just as true as if Jesus had said them. Red letters, then, can become a problem.

Truthfully, then, there is no real problem with the red-letter Bibles ... as long as you believe that the Bible is the God-breathed word of God. In this case, all of Scripture is, in a sense, the words of Jesus. And the red just highlights what He physically said at the time. Fine. No problem. So I'm okay with all that.

The problem occurs when you find those (and there are not just a few) who say, "I try to follow the words of Jesus." These would be the "red-letter Christians" to which I allude. No, it's not about red ink. It's the notion that "What Jesus said was right but everything else is, well, questionable." Okay, they'll fill in "questionable" with some other adjective. Maybe they're "figurative" or maybe they "contain the truth". Certainly the Bible is not inerrant. In no way can we take the Old Testament historical narratives, for instance, as historical narratives. That just won't work. Because, you see, they aren't "the words of Jesus". So what these folk do is 1) superimpose their notion of what Jesus was like over the Bible and then 2) reinterpret the Bible to match their notion of what Jesus was like. If they see Jesus as, essentially, a modern day '60's hippy--"Love and peace, man"--then any biblical reference to violence or the like are right out. And, oh, by the way, the God of the Old Testament brings about a lot of violence. So does the God of Revelations. Jesus wasn't an angry man, so biblical references to the wrath of God don't quite work for them. To many of these types Jesus never condemned sin, so biblical condemnation of sin is in question and certainly anyone else's attempt to do so is in error. No, the rule of this Jesus is "Neither do I condemn you" and be very, very careful to end your sentence right there.

You see, when they call into question the bulk of the Bible because it may or may not align with their version of Jesus, they have a real problem. If the Bible as a whole cannot be fully trustworthy, why would the red letters be trustworthy? Trying to sound wise and holy, they undercut their own basis for belief. "Sure, the red letters can be trusted; you just have to be careful about the black ones." No, of course, no one ever says that. But that's the sense of it. "The Bible is all about Jesus" sounds so Christian and it is, in fact, true, but when they take that to mean "My understanding of who Jesus was determines what is or is not true in the Bible" becomes a real problem.

Bottom line, of course, there is a fundamental problem with this brand of red-letter Christians. If they are interpreting the Bible through the lens of Christ, and that Christ is primarily derived from the Bible, then the Bible must be first a reliable book. On the other hand, if the Bible as written is not a fully reliable book, then their lens through which they interpret the Bible is a Christ of their own making. And the real question then is if that Christ can save. Or is it not the Christ of the Bible who has the power to save? Paul warns of "another gospel". I am concerned for some of "another Christ". I'm concerned that it could be "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) who, in truth, is blinding their eyes (2 Cor 4:4).

Going All Bibley on You

There is, I believe, a current, ongoing assault on the Bible in our world today. It comes from all sides. Atheists and skeptics love to wrangle over it, popping up in Christian places complaining that we just have a man-made book with no real value and telling us what it teaches and how it's wrong (which, of course, makes no sense if it's a man-made book with no real value). (I mean, if it's man-made and pointless, don't try to tell me what it means.) You have to expect that out of the skeptic. But it also comes from those "within", folks identifying themselves as "believers". It comes from the Pentecostal types who claim the Bible is fully true, but perhaps not entirely sufficient, so they're getting helpful insights outside of the Bible straight from God and you had better not question the Lord's anointed. It comes from the extreme liberal wing that holds to "Christian" like a vegetarian crab sandwich. I mean, they say they're Christian and then deny everything Christian. No, Christ isn't the only way. No, we are not saved by grace. No, Jesus was not God. And on and on until whatever it is they end up with--and specifically it is not biblical--is nothing really related to "Christian".

There is another source of this assault. It's somewhat slippery, too. These types claim a great respect for the Bible. They assure you it is the Word of God. Well, mostly. Some will shift off to "contains the Word of God" instead because clearly some of the Bible isn't ... well ... true. But generally. However, most of this particular breed will verbalize that the Bible is true and is the Word of God. That is, until you actually try to refer to the Bible as the Word of God. Or, at least, in a place that disagrees with their view. Then you're in trouble. Oh, and never suggest the Bible is inerrant. That's just crazy. But what they like to tell you is, "You're conflating your opinion into God's Word!" How? "Well, you said that Jesus is the only way and that's just one view of what it means." Or, "You're homophobic and claim the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin but we know better today." In other words, when you offer a clear presentation of biblical texts interpreted as it is and in the longstanding, historical orthodox way, if it disagrees with them it is "conflating opinion".

Now, this sounds very ... holy. Certainly people have and do conflate their own opinions as the Word of God and they're wrong. But in every case I can find you simply have to use Scripture to demonstrate that this opinion isn't biblical. But what they're pointing to is anything that disagrees with ... their opinion. Clear texts cannot mean what they say if they violate these folks' opinions.

What most people don't see is that this isn't an attempt to uphold the sanctity of the Bible. It is simply an end of anything usable in Scripture. If plain readings of explicit texts and historic orthodoxy are unreliable, then what do we have? If you want to call it "the Word of God", it doesn't help if your "Word of God" is unknowable and uncertain. If all understanding of Scripture must be viewed as opinion, there is no authority in Scripture. But if all understanding of Scripture is opinion, why do they argue about my understanding so much? Hmmm, methinks they doth protest too much ... or something like that.

It sounds intelligent and holy. "Don't conflate your opinion into God's Word." But when it is used to say, "All understanding of Scripture is opinion"--and, make no mistake, when you boil it down that is the intent--then it is nothing less than an assault on the integrity and authority of Scripture. Just like the skeptics or the liberals. Perhaps worse because it almost sounds like a call for a greater respect for the Bible. Which it isn't. Deflating God's Word to mere opinion is not a defense of the Bible. Don't make me go all Bibley on you.

Clarification
You have to know that this whole thing strikes a nasty chord in the "Don't conflate your opinion" group. Why? Because, obviously all Bible interpretation is opinion. "So," they will object loudly, "we do hold the Bible in high regard as the Word of God. It's Man's interpretation that we question." And, again, it sounds holy. At least, "holier than thou." Because, you see, while affirming on one hand a high regard for the Word of God, they have completely undercut any ability to have the Word of God. Do you see that? If all interpretation is opinion and all opinion is fallible, it is impossible to have a reliable Word of God. Oh, sure, not because of the Word of God, but because of the interpreter of the Word. The result is the same. The final product you have in your hands is unknowable and uncertain. It's the same position the agnostic often takes. "Sure, there may be a God, but if there is He is unknowable, at least to any certainty." Even so the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but since all interpretation is human opinion and all human interpretation is fallible, all interpretation is fallible and the Word of God is useless, in the final analysis, in the correcting of human opinion. Like the Gnostic heresy, the argument has the appearance of wisdom but is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23).

The Cosmic Housekeeper

So, I'm sitting in the adult Bible class at church on Sunday and we're going through John 9. It's the story of the man born blind. You remember the story.

And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:2-3)

There were, of course, discussions about this that or the other in the story. But the teacher, at some point, came to this question. "Why was this man born blind?" Of course, the class gave the ... you know ... biblical answer--"so that the works of God might be displayed in him." "But," the teacher parried, "do you actually believe that, without any reason of sin in either him or his parents, God just chose to pick on this guy so He could do a miracle?" I was baffled by the question. Was he serious? "No," he went on to assure us. "This was just a product of biology, a product of a sin-tainted world where a gene went wrong or a chromosome was off and the man was born blind. God decided to use that to demonstrate His glory, but He didn't cause it or plan it."

I know, I know, this is certainly a popular view among Christians today. Some of you are likely nodding your heads. "He's right." Me? I'm baffled. No, I'm stunned. Who is this God? He appears to be stuck with a rotten apple of a creation and is forced to constantly bob and weave and parry to fix problems caused by sin and, well, if possible, make use out of one or the other of these bad things that happen. Mostly, "stuff happens", you see. So God, like a big housekeeper, goes around picking up after our mess and, when He can work it in, puts it to good use. I have to repeat ... who is this God?

The God I know claims, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." (Isa 45:6-7) So while we bustle about trying to absolve God for this poor man's blindness from birth, God says, "I cause calamity." The disciples understood, if imperfectly, that God could justly have this man born blind as a consequence of sin. Further, Jesus clearly indicated that the man was born blind "so that the works of God might be displayed in him." Now, did God use natural means to have him born blind? Maybe. Sure. No problem. But without a doubt it was God's plan in advance intended to display His works for His glory. Why do I say that? Because Jesus said it.

I know, I know. "Seems so mean of God to make this poor man blind." And, "Very petty for a big God to make a poor child blind just to show off." I get it. But these are all responses of the creature against the Creator: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Paul thought not. But Paul was wrong because it is extremely common today in Christian circles. God is obligated to be nice to His creation because His creation is of ultimate value. It's a lie. It's a result of idolatry, of worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. And I find myself guilty of it, too, every time I hear myself say, "I deserve better!"

The Judge of All the Earth

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25)

It was Abraham talking with God when God informed him He planned to punish Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. Abraham was dickering with God. He was concerned that God would kill the righteous with the wicked. And he essentially obtained an agreement from God that if a 10 righteous were found in those cities, He would spare them. Spoiler alert. They weren't. He didn't.

The question of God's justice is, I think, more important than we realize. Sure, we get that God is just. Fine. But, to be honest, we're not real fond of His justice. His grace, yes. His mercy, yes. His justice? Not so much. I mean, "If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3) Oh, no, it's not His justice we really like. Because, let's face it, if justice were all there was, we'd all be in deep trouble.

So, sure, we like His justice, just not toward us. On the other hand, we do like the aspect of His justice that demands that those who do well are rewarded for it. And we are thoroughly blessed that His justice was fully met in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf (Rom 3:24-27). Blessed indeed.

But there is another aspect of God's justice that is essential. We recognize this aspect even in human terms when we say to an offending party, "You'll get yours!" You see, without divine justice, morality would have no weight.

Have you ever seen where laws were passed that were not enforced? It is a travesty. It has no real purpose. Rules without consequences--either positive or negative--are useless. In order for objective morality to have any basis, it is absolutely necessary that there is justice. And if we don't see it in this life (and we don't), we must believe that there will really be justice at some point. It is Immanuel Kant's Moral Argument for God.

(1) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(2) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(3) God exists.

Now, to be sure, an argument that something is true because the alternative is horrendous is not a real argument, and this is, in fact, Kant's argument. The fact remains that if God is not just, moral behavior is not rational. Thus, God's justice is not only a positive affirmation when it rewards those who do good and a negative warning against doing bad, but it is also an essential basis for all moral behavior.

God's justice is important. Perhaps more important than you realized. Oh, and Abraham's question was the ultimate rhetorical question. Of course He will do what is right which, by the way, is the definition of justice.

Be My Valentine

It's Valentine's Day, a day for love. That's the tradition, at least. I wonder if we have a clue what that means. Sorry ... idle meanderings.

Everyone knows the sequence. You meet someone. You grow to like someone. Someday you like them so much you love them. We have that sort of hierarchy in our heads: "Acquainted" -> "Like" -> "Love". Each one is progressively higher. If you like someone, you are already acquainted with them. If you love someone, you already like them. We might hear the exchange between people, "Sure, you like me, but do you love me?" You have the mechanism of "meet", but then chemistry comes into play and you find you connect with that person until more chemistry comes into play and you are now in love. Oh, sure, "love at first sight" may jump right over "like", but you get the idea.

I would like to suggest this isn't entirely accurate even though it is fully accepted.

The Bible lists "love" not as an emotion, but as a command. Don't misunderstand. Every choice you make carries emotional response. You are, for instance, commanded to forgive those who ask. Clearly letting go of an offense will offer an internal emotional response. You feel differently. But the command to forgive is not a command to feel differently; it is a command to forgive. By the same token, we are commanded to love. Love God. Love your neighbor. Husbands, love your wives. God commanded Israel to love "the stranger who sojourns with you." (Lev 19:34) Now, it is not remotely reasonable to think that God was commanding His people to feel a particular way. No one commands their feelings. Your emotions are a response, not a choice. So it is true that the feelings we currently associate with the word "love" are the likely response to the choice God commands to love one another, but the actual love is not an emotion. It is a way of viewing the one loved. It is a seeking for the best for the other, a trust placed in the other, a self-denial in favor of the other. These things can occur without chemistry. They happen by choice.

Today's "love", if it's not sex in the mind of so many, is at least chemistry. We don't know how it happens. We can't really even quantify what it is. It's just a warm feeling, a flood of affection, something not entirely clear. Today's more skeptical scientists have even speculated that it is just that, a biochemical response in the brain. Nothing real. Nothing concrete. Brain chemistry and nothing more. That's not the biblical version.

Two considerations then.

First, when a Christian commits to a spouse, it is "till death do us part". This makes no sense in the modern version of love since everyone knows this emotion ebbs and flows. Some have even altered the vow to say, "till love do us part", as if that makes more sense. But we Christians are operating on a different basis. Biblical love--you know, the one we are commanded to have toward others--is a choice. As such, you can choose to love your wife or your husband till death. Feelings are irrelevant to the question. Conversely, if you do choose to love your spouse regardless of feelings, it is inevitable that the feelings associated with "love" in society today will follow. Christians, honor your vows.

Second, I know of no command in Scripture where we are told to "like". Now, think about "like" for a moment. Why do you like the foods you like? Why do you like the people you like? Why do you like the hobbies or pasttimes you like? Oh, I'm sure you can give some answers, but when you boil it down, I think you'll find that it's little more than ... chemistry. You have a little different structure than the one next to you, so you will have different likes than the one next to you. Simple as that. So, if "love" is a command, a choice you make, and "like" is chemistry, which is more remarkable? To me, I love my wife. I do it regardless of the feelings of the moment. Warm or not, full of affection or not, I love my wife. The warmth and affection are never far away because I love my wife, but my love for my wife is not predicated on those emotions. Thus, to me it is amazing how much I like my wife. I can't tell you why. Oh, I can list things I like, but I can't tell you why I like them. Nor can I offer a suitable explanation of why I like her so much. I just ... do.

It's Valentine's Day. They tell me it is a day started by the Church to celebrate Saint Valentine (turns out there were three of them), some claim in an effort to counter a pagan erotic festival, Lupercalia. How it became a celebration of love and marriage is unclear. But we know it's not limited to lovers. Every school-age child brings valentines to school to give to classmates without regard to love. All that is needed is affection. All that is expected is that you like each other. Love is commanded. It is excellent, a reflection of part of God's nature. Today, while you celebrate that command, why not revel in those you like as well? That is much more of a mystery. By all means love. But why not tell someone you like them today, too?

Mac and Tosh

In my younger years we had (unedited) Warner Brothers cartoons with characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig ... you know, classics. Two of the lesser known were actually two of my favorites. They were originally in a 1947 cartoon short entitled The Goofy Gophers. People confuse them with Disney's Chip and Dale, but these are not those two. They tell me their names were Mac and Tosh. Fine. The thing that marked these two was their extreme politeness with each other. They laughed at each other's jokes, complimented and complemented each other, worked together perfectly, and deferred to each other to the point of danger. (As the enemy is charging and they seek shelter, "You go first." "No, you first." "Oh, no, I insist." "I simply couldn't." That sort of thing.) You don't actually find that sort of thing in most cartoons ... or other entertainment for that matter. Or even life.

Odd thing. This notion of considering the other person to the extreme is actually something that seems to show up in Scripture. We find it in Paul's description of the attitude required in marital sexual relations. "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) We are commanded "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Phil 2:3) These in stark opposition to the standard "looking out for number one" attitude of most of our world.

Romans 14 concerns what we call "Christian Liberty". With an opening command "not to quarrel over opinions" (Rom 14:1), the discussion regards things not commanded and, therefore, basically a matter of opinion or personal conviction. For our world, the response is, "Yeah, live and let live. You should let me do what I want!" That is not the idea in Romans 14. The approach there is "decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Rom 14:13) The approach there is "let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (Rom 14:19) That is, in matters of opinion, not only should we not be hastening to condemn others, but we should be limiting ourselves.

This is something of a reverse war. Instead of "I think the KJV is the only way to go and you are all pagans for denying it!" followed by "Only a fool would argue 'If it's good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me'!", you might see, "I think that the KJV is the best, but I couldn't imagine imposing that on you." with the response, "Oh, no, I prefer more modern translations, but if it is more edifying to you to read the KJV, I'll read that with you."

It works in lots of places. "I believe that the best church music is the old church music, but if you are best able to glorify God with newer instruments and tunes, who am I to say no?" "Oh, my, if my drums and musical style offend your more traditional worship style, I can't imagine using them to hinder your worship." A host of things. When I was growing up there were some who were offended by playing cards, dice, or even going to movies and others who were not. Today we would include vegetarianism and the like. I even know those today who believe it's a great sin to swim in "mixed company"--men and women together. Matters of opinion over which we could compete to favor others over ourselves.

Mac and Tosh had an interesting approach. On matters of opinion and preference, "you first" is the first response. A genuine preferring of the other over self was the rule. It does not work in matters of clarity. "Well, the Bible clearly says that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I wouldn't want to offend you over that." No, that won't work. "I know that Jesus said He was the only way, but if that kind of exclusiveness is a problem for you, we can just assume that all roads lead to God." That isn't going to fly. But I think it would be amazing if, in matters of preference or opinion not clearly described in Scripture, we could wage reverse war, so to speak, seeking to "outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom 12:10). Seems somewhat "Bibley" to me. Of course, the trick is finding out what Scripture really says. Maybe being biblical is just too much work? That can't be good.

The Answer is Blowing in the Wind

The president asked Congress for authorization to go to war with ISIS. Or ISIL. Depends on who is saying it. "Boots on the ground" is the term you'll hear. Apparently he's asking for a three-year war. And he intends to cross national boundaries to do it.

What, I wonder, is the target? I mean, you're going to hand weapons to soldiers and tell them to shoot ... what? The experts are saying that ISIS is everywhere. We even have them in the United States. So, who are they shooting? It's interesting that it's a war with a schedule. "Yeah, three years ought to do it." The target must be pretty clearly defined for that kind of timetable accuracy.

I'm being somewhat flippant, I know, but I'm not sure what we're doing. I haven't been for some time. Sending troops to fight ISIS is like putting a ring around the BP oil spill. Sure, you may contain the oil, but you haven't touched the source. And if you don't shut off the source of the spill, containment is pointless and will fail. Like a band aid on a flesh-eating virus.

The problem is not armament and ammunition. The problem is ideology. But the president hasn't seemed to notice. It is "terrorists" without apparent ideology. Like incoherent criminals, killing people without purpose. So if they're not "Islamic terrorists"--just "terrorists"--then there is no ideology behind it and guns ought to solve that problem. Anyone can tell you this isn't the case ... except maybe the president.

Do I think we need troops in the Middle East to combat the ISIS threat? Can't really say. Maybe we have an ideology spill that needs to be contained. But how do we stop the ideology leak? It appears to be pouring out of the Middle East (despite the president's claim that only 0.1% buy that kind of thinking). And if it's everywhere, exactly how does sending troops to the Middle East contain everywhere?

We've waged a "war on drugs" that aimed to catch drug dealers. It hasn't particularly worked because the dealers are supplying customers. As long as there are customers, there will be dealers. We've waged a "war on terror", as if that makes any sense at all. I mean, I have trouble identifying just what a "terrorist" is when I hear the terrifying things they tell me on the evening news. Aren't they terrorists, too? And the goal is to ... what ... shoot the terrorists? So we've contained drugs to some small degree and we've contained terrorists to some small degree, but these are wars without termination because they aren't fighting the problem. So is the solution to the ISIS problem to send troops to shoot people who think like that? Seems like an odd and useless (at best) approach. But, hey, I'm not in the government making these calls. Maybe they know something about thought control and "boots on the ground" that I don't. So if you don't mind, I think I'll put my trust Somewhere Else.

Update
The president has announced that he does not intend to put "boots on the ground". This doesn't change my point. It does bring into question exactly how the president plans to contain the ideology spill without any real containment methods, but apparently he is not planning to do it with troops.

Did God Know?

In the whole discussion of God and the existence of evil, there is this constant intent to rescue God from the skeptic who seems to be bent on assigning evil to God. We can't have that. We'll argue it out of existence. I've come across a question, though, that might give you something to think about.

We read in Genesis "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) and, ultimately, "behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) In the third chapter of Genesis, then, we are introduced to the serpent who "was more crafty than any other beast." (Gen 3:1) Well, you know the story. He tempts Eve. Eve succumbs and gives of the fruit to Adam. God is not pleased. Oh, wait. What fruit? Well, it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9), the tree that God put in the garden and the fruit that God forbade Adam to eat (Gen 2:17).

Okay, so Adam and Eve are now sinners because they choose to violate God's direct command not to eat of the fruit of the tree that He put in the garden. So far, so good. Here's the question. Did God know they would do that before they did?

You see, if God knew, then God planned for it. No, He didn't make them choose to eat the fruit. Nothing would suggest that in the slightest. But if He knew they would and there was no demand that He put that tree in the garden (and there was no such demand because He is the ultimate authority), it would seem to be inescapable that, regardless of your conclusions as to why or how, God planned the sequence that occurred. "Here's the tree; don't eat of it." They did. There are consequences. That is, evil occurred at the hands of the creation, but with the prior knowledge and, therefore, allowance (for whatever purposes He might have) of the evil that occurred. He didn't cause it, but it was part of His design.

We all agree that God is not the cause of sin. No question (James 1:13-14). But then we use terms like "author of sin" and I'm not sure what is meant. If you believe in the Omniscience of God, you're going to have to think through how it is that God would know what Adam would do with the fruit if God put it there and why, knowing that, He would do it. Of course, if you don't believe in the Omniscience of God, but prefer the "guess" of God like some today ("God knows every possibility but can only guess as to what will actually happen.), then you're home free. Oh, a different God than what the Bible portrays, but yours is home free. ("I didn't know that would happen. I couldn't do anything to stop it. I'll have to figure out how to clean up this mess somehow.") For the rest, however, is it possible that God knew, allowed it anyway, and did so with His good purposes in mind? If so, that is an answer to the objection of "capricious evil". Doesn't exist. Evil has a purpose (and is, therefore, not capricious). Don't know for sure what it is, but God does and, as such, it must be a good one. Or maybe you have another answer?

Origins

We can debate the origins of the universe till the cows come home (and where did they come from before they came home?). I have a suspicion that we have a bigger problem. Sure, we can't agree on the origins of the universe, but I am convinced that an inordinate number of people today can't figure out where lots of ordinary things come from, and that can be seriously detrimental.

I'm dismayed at the failure of too many people today to grasp the origins of simple things like food. When an Internet personage showed a photo of herself standing next to a buck she shot, the Internet was outraged. "Why don't you go buy your meat in a store where no animals are killed?" was actually among the comments. The dispute over "processed foods" (as if there are foods that aren't actually processed in some sense) versus "GMOs" (genetically modified organisms, as if something we are eating has never had any modifications at all) versus "organic foods" (without any really clear definition) and "health foods" (with even less definition) indicates that we don't know where that stuff is coming from and all we really want is for you to label it so we will feel better about it.

I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people today do not grasp basic economics. That paper that you use to pay for your Starbucks has almost no value. Even less the bits of data you use to transfer funds from your bank to the website to buy the book you want. Even less the air you use to purchase on credit the things you can't afford. That's worth only potential. No, paper is only valued insofar as it represents shared value of something else. Work you did, goods you sold, valuable metals (like gold), something of genuine value. The paper in your wallet is only valuable as far as it represents something real. Oh, and that "real" keeps changing. A dollar in 1950 would buy what $9.95 would in 2015 money. Inflation, you know. Yet, the government keeps printing money (or just transfers "it"--is if "it" was something real--electronically) and the national debt keeps rising and demands for increased minimum wages never cease. A popular bookstore in San Francisco is closing its doors in March because San Franciscans voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour as if the money is just sitting in a pile somewhere and any business that needs it can go draw from it to pay their employees ... and any that doesn't is a dirty, rotten, miserly company. Over and over on the topic of economics people seem to fail to grasp that economics is the management of limited resources. It is a balance of income and outflow and takes all sorts of variations and vagaries into account. Separated from those limited resources by paper money, electronic transfers, and credit cards, they think it just exists and anyone who wants it should be able to have it.

The question of origins isn't limited to a confused society. I also find it in Christian circles. Where does doctrine come from? (I hear people calling themselves Christians arguing that "We need to change our beliefs" as if truth is something on which we can vote.) Where do traditions come from? (Protestants like to dismiss tradition as if it's a Catholic evil, but Paul encouraged it (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6).) We all know that Christianity is a religion of morals, right? I mean, aren't all religions about morality? I actually find Christians holding to this idea. In nearly violent response, I'll also find other Christians who say, "No! There is nothing about morality in Christianity! We are free from the law!" Both sides are missing it. Christianity begins with the Gospel. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). That means we need saving, first, and, second, that we can't do it ourselves (the bad news). But Christ died on our behalf and rose again and faith in Him can save because of His grace. Let's see ... so far ... nope, nothing about "be good". But, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Cause and effect. "You love Me" produces "you will keep My commandments." Necessarily. John wrote that he who is born of God cannot sin continually "because the seed of God abides in him" (1 John 3:9). "Cannot". So the ethic of salvation is grace through faith and the ethic of Christian living is a grateful heart necessarily producing obedience. But too many Christians don't get that. So they're either working to be a good Christian or refusing to work at all in order to be a good Christian. Both fail to see origins.

It's everywhere. We don't know where it came from and, thus, what it means or how it works. Ignorance or apathy, it isn't good. The problems this failure causes are manifold. And going down these trails without origins only leads to more ignorance and apathy. It can't be a good thing.

Extremists

The President started a conflagration over his comparison of Christianity with Islam or, to be more precise, comparing the Crusades with ISIS. (Is that finally an admission that ISIS is Islamic? Naw.) But he still defends Islam. In an interview with CNN, President Obama suggested that less than 1% of Muslims agree with Islamic terrorists.

"You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam, and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world,” said Obama.

It's a difficult argument to make if you ask me. I would suggest that studies say something quite different. It would seem that those who live under an Islamic government are much more likely to agree with Islamic rule, and genuine Islamic rule calls for violence against infidels. That's why CNN could film people cheering for the 9/11 attack. It wasn't a minority. It was a crowd.

That, in fact, is the real difficulty in the argument. Here, let's see if I can reword the president to help you see the problem.

"You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Christian communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced an interpretation of Christianity that goes back to its origins, and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world.”

Do you see it now?

The truth is that when you compare the "instruction manual" for each religion--the Bible for Christianity or the Quran for Islam--you find two different religions going on. In the case of Christianity, the fundamental commands are "repent" and "love God" and "love your neighbor" (Of these last two Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:40).) On the notion of using any sort of violence to promote the religion, everything in Scripture screams against it. We arrive by faith, not by coercion. We are called to turn the other cheek, to love sacrificially, to love our enemies. Nothing in fundamental Christianity allows for terrorism or violence in the furtherance of the Gospel. Contrast that with Islam. The commands are repeated to kill, to shun, to defeat infidels. Pleasantries like "Strike off their heads" and "strike off the very tips of their fingers" are included. They are commanded to "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" and to "make war on unbelievers."

So, we have two religions and two sets of adherents of these religions. In Christendom, you have those who offer violence in the name of Christ, but they do so against the biblical teachings. In Islam, you have those who offer violence in the name of Allah, and they do so in accordance with the Quran. In Christendom, you have those who seek first to love in the name of Christ, and they do so in accordance with biblical teachings. In Islam you have those who seek peace with others, but they do so in violation of the teachings of the Quran. In summary, then, both religions have their violent followers. In Christianity they violate Christ's teachings and in Islam they agree with Mohammed.

If "Muslim extremist" means "those who carefully follow the Quran and kill infidels", then "Christian extremist" refers to "those who follow the Bible and love God and their neighbors." Somehow these two do not seem to be the same thing.

Postscript

I need to clarify this. Here are two other angles from which to see my point.

Fundamentalists
In Christendom, there are the "liberals", people who have taken the Bible and altered orthodoxy in order to align it with modern views. Thus, clear texts like "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) or "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3) do not mean what they clearly say ... as they have always been understood. These have "helpfully" redefined Scripture to mean something new.

In Islam there are those (and I've known some) who have taken the Quran and altered its meaning. Clear texts have become mystical, allegorical, myth, but certainly not literal. "Yes," they tell me, "it says to cut off the head of the infidel, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to do that." These are the "liberals" of the Islamic world.

Both religions have them. Both have "fundamentalists" who say, "Oh, no, we're sticking with the original texts and their original meanings and we're not going to allow anyone to redefine the faith for us."

For Islam, those fundamentalists will kill infidels. For Christianity those fundamentalists will turn the other cheek. Really not the same thing.

Reformation
By "reformation" I mean returning to the original. For Islam that would be the 7th century. For Christianity that would be the first couple of centuries of the modern era. The president said that some 0.1% of Muslims (and I seriously question that number) want to return Islam to a "medieval interpretation of Islam"--it's origins. In the Reformation (and in many current circles of Christianity), the aim was to return Christianity to its origins--the first couple of centuries.

What was original Christianity like? They shared all things in common. They were marked by their detractors as people who loved one another. They were pacifists, almost to the extreme. When Roman emperors declared that those who didn't bow to the emperor as God would be executed, they volunteered for execution.

What was original Islam like? Mohammed was a warrior (among other things). His followers carried on his legacy, expanding Islam by force of arms. The Crusades were not an incursion, but an effort to stop Islamic incursion.

The president pointed to the Crusades and the Inquisition and Christians today point with him at an evil, not a good. Islamic jihadists point to the death and destruction of their past and to that of today's warriors and applaud it. Not the same thing. A number of Christians today long to turn Christianity back to its original form. Millions (and the number is growing) of Muslims today want to return Islam back to its original form. Those two forms are diametrically opposed. The only comparison that can be made is not in their similarity, but in their vast differences.

Fear

I suspect that every one of us has something we fear. At least one. For children it's easy things like "the dark" or "that thing under the bed" or something like that. As we age, we become more sophisticated. Mostly it's the unknown. The more you know, the more sophisticated your fears become. We understand "the dark" and we know there is no "thing under the bed", but marriage or money or position or prestige or pain or employment or ... these things--these unknowns--can be really scary. I read genuine Christians who tell me "I'll never get married" because they see all the hardships and heartaches that occur these days from marital difficulties and divorce. I hear genuine believers who tell me, "I'm afraid of the future because I don't know if I can prepare for it" in things like economic security or retirement. We, even Christians, all have fears.

Interesting, then, that the Bible says over and over "fear not". Further, almost every "fear not" verse you can find is predicated on "I will help them"--God's work. Over and over we read that we have no need to fear because God is on our side, God is at work, God will take care of us. This thinking is epitomized in Paul's "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." (Phil 4:6) Nice to know.

Equally interesting is this one verse that says to "fear not" and to fear. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28) That is, what's going on in this world isn't anything to fear. On the other hand, that is not to say that there is nothing to fear. Fear God. Indeed, that command/warning is another repeated theme in Scripture. God is someone to fear. In a positive sense, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov 9:10) In a negative sense, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18) (That's a bad thing.) James writes, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!" (James 2:19) That is, humans (believers and unbelievers) have no problem with God--"no fear"--but demons are smart enough to be afraid of Him.

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Lucy heard of Aslan, she asked if He was safe. Mrs. Beaver replied, "Safe? Oh, no. But He is good." That's the God we serve. The right response of sinful Man to a Holy God is fear. Anything less isn't sane. Not mind-numbing fear. Not crippling fear. But to fail to recognize that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31) is not safe or wise. God is someone indeed to fear.

We all have things we fear. I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't actually deserve the fear we give them. Strange, then, that the One who rightly deserves our fear seems to get so little of it. Something to work on, I think.

As Predicted

You can't make this stuff up. Filed under the 'told you so heading, a woman in Houston married herself.

I've complained (often) in the past that the definition of marriage being imposed on us by the 2.5% and the courts has no substance. This redefining of marriage is removing a definition. Here, look in any dictionary for a definition. Regardless of which one you take, there is a common core--union. Whether it is interpersonal relationships or some sort of melding of, say, technology and art, for instance, it is a union. But as this woman illustrates, our version today is without definition.

It would appear that I have been wrong all along. I've claimed consistently that it is a redefinition of marriage to include "gay marriage". It is not. It is an undefinition. It is a removal of definition. So when they ask, "What difference will it make if we allow gay marriage?" I will point to that. It isn't inclusion. It is dissolution. Marriage itself is being dissolved. And I find no one offering any rationale to suggest that marrying herself or marrying your pet or marrying three other people should not be included since we appear to no longer have a definition of the term. Oh, the humanity! Who will stand up for the rights of those who wish to marry their fence?? Whatever "marry" might mean.

Love Is

Last year Psychology Today published an article entitled 7 Reasons Most People Are Afraid of Love. (Interesting ... is it true that "most people are afraid to love", or are they intending to say "For those who are afraid to love, here are the 7 common reasons"?) The truth everyone knows that "love hurts". I mean, didn't Nazareth tell us so? (The band, not the place.) How many songs have been written about how tough it is to love and lose? And we have to be constantly reminded, "It's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all." All very noble sounding. Because, as everyone knows, love hurts.

I wonder if our modern concept of "love" has caused more harm than good. We've come to believe that "romance" = love. We're quite sure that love is that warm feeling, that ache in the pit of your stomach, that goo-goo eyes thing going on between ... well, we're not sure about that anymore. Two people of the opposite sex? Same sex? More than two? Hey, maybe it's that woman and her 12 cats. She loves them, doesn't she? Who knows? But we know what it is. Of one thing we are quite certain. There is only one "right person" for any one of us. That's why the 5th Dimension could sing "I'll never get married" because, after all, his one true love was marrying someone else. And we weep for them.

Except ... no one seems to ask if it's true.

According to that Psychology Today article, there are lots of reason we're afraid to love. There is the vulnerability of love. There are the past hurts of love. There is the threat of pain that joy brings. There is the fear of unrequited love. There is the fear of disconnection from family or friends. There is (inexplicably) the fear of having too much. It's interesting to me that all the fears listed are predicated on ... me. What will I feel? How will I hurt? What will I lose? What will it cost me? Is that love?

Well, it's surely love today. But the biblical version includes such things as "does not pursue its own things," "believes all things," and "bears all things." (1 Cor 13:4-8). In fact, in that description, I can't find a single reference to "what I get out of it." That seems quite in contradiction to our modern version of love. All about "how I feel" and "what I get", that version seems to be "what I have to contribute" and "what you gain."

I think that, perhaps, our present version of love has created a monster never intended or required by the biblical version. The Puritans, for instance, "married for love", not because they were "in love", but because they could love. The question was "Are you mature enough to give of yourself to another person?" That version of love was a sacrificial attempt to obtain what was in the best interests of the other person. Oddly enough, that doesn't require warm feelings or the loss of appetite. Giving to another for that other, not for what you will gain, can't be nearly as painful as our current version. A marriage predicated on "I will give of myself to get what is best for you" can achieve a "100%" status rather than the hopeful "50-50" version we desire today. A marriage where both spouses do this, then, achieve a "200%" marriage, so to speak, where both give their all for each other regardless of the return.

Personally, I would hope that God doesn't suffer from our version of love. If He only loved those from whom He could get a satisfactory return, we'd be in real trouble. But He doesn't. And we can only be relieved and overjoyed at that. But us? We seem to think that love is some sort of unknown chemistry from which all important decisions--who to care about, who to marry, with whom to have children, even who to discard--are made. Based almost exclusively on "if it feels good, do it", we Christians go through life seeking to "feel affectionately toward our neighbors as we feel affectionately toward ourselves" and to "feel warmly toward God" as if these were the intent.

I suspect we've slipped a cog here and don't recognize it. Sure, warm feelings will likely result from pouring yourself into the best interests of another, but is that the definition of love? Or have we succumbed to a watered down version that only vaguely connects to the one God intended but is guaranteed to cause you great pain in life? If so, is that really God's intent or is it possible that an enemy of God is behind this?

The Religion Du Jour

The movie Ironclad (2011) stars James Purefoy as a Knight Templar who sets out with a small band of men to defend a castle against an invasion after the signing of the Magna Carta (1215). Now, the Knights Templar were a kind of hybrid between priest and soldier, technically called "the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" (thus, Templar Knights), who took vows of poverty, chastity, piety, and obedience while fighting for Christ (at least in theory). So we have this Knight Templar who, at the castle he is defending, meets the wife of the lord of the castle, a pretty young thing married by convenience without love. And there is, behind the gruesome physical conflict, an equally gruesome spiritual one. Will he stay true to his vows, or will he succumb to the pretty young thing who wants him?

Of course, at the peak of the physical conflict the young wife decides to urge this soldier of Christ to sleep with her because, as all Hollywood knows, that's what young women do. They seduce men every chance they get. She doesn't argue, however, against his apathy toward her. No, he's not apathetic. She argues against his faith. She asks why he allows his vows to outweigh his desires.

And there, folks, you have it. This (fictional) character (a clear product of Hollywood in this day and age) has stated the primary religion in America (and beyond) today. I mean, sure, there are important things in life. Marriage, causes, God ... there are important things. But nothing--not spouse or family or country or God should come in the way of your desires. That's the religion of the day.

Kind of like what Peter said.

The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:9-10)

That's our world, our religion du jour. Indulging the flesh in its corrupt desires and despising authority. If only it didn't also describe a large portion of people who call themselves Christians but indulge corrupt desires and despise the authority of the Word and the church.

Scripture

Now this is interesting. I have been repeatedly assured that the Bible is not as reliable as I seem to think, that all references in the New Testament to "Scriptures" are to the Old Testament (bringing into question whether or not they believed the New Testament was actually "Scripture"), and the Bible makes no claim to being God's Word. All of this is intended to assure us that we do not have a reliable source document for the Christian faith, thank you very much.

As it turns out, this isn't actually accurate.

First, we know that Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (2 Tim 3:16) So, "Scripture" is "inspired by God"--literally "God-breathed". Then we have this interesting text in one of Peter's epistles where he groups Paul's writings with "the rest of Scripture" (2 Peter 3:14-16). So, we do have precedent where a New Testament writer refers to another New Testament writing as "Scripture". And, remember, "All Scripture is inspired by God."

Then there's this, that "interesting" thing I referenced at the beginning. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that elders are worthy of double honor. He tells why.

For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." (1 Tim 5:18)

We know that first quote comes from the Old Testament because it's in all capital letters. Okay, not really. That's just a New American Standard method of pointing out Old Testament references. It comes directly from Deuteronomy 25:4, word for word. Fine. We get that the Old Testament was "Scripture" in the New Testament times. No problem. But what about that second reference? Look all you want. It's not in the Old Testament. Do you know where we find it?

"Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. (Luke 10:7)

Wait, that's New Testament. It is Jesus talking. Now, remember, Luke was Paul's traveling companion. So Paul is referring to Luke here as "Scripture".

Okay, so we know that "All Scripture is inspired by God", and no one disputes that the Old Testament we use today was referenced by New Testament characters (including Jesus) as "Scripture". But we also have two references here to New Testament writings as "Scripture", included, then, as "God-breathed".

Don't think you're doing us any favors by trying to undercut the Bible as the God-breathed truth from God.

Liar Liar

Have you ever seen the movie, Liar Liar? Jim Carrey plays a lawyer without apparent scruples who finds himself the victim of his son's birthday wish that he couldn't lie for 24 hours. What follows is funny and, behind it, thought provoking.

Have you ever considered what your life would be like if you could not lie? I don't mean what many might mean. There are those (no small number, I think) that believe that "not lying" means "always saying everything". If you withhold information that no one requested, that's a lie. If you don't tell your spouse about a childhood friend, you're a liar. I'm not talking about that kind of honesty. I'm simply talking about no longer being deceptive. You wouldn't embellish stories to make yourself look better or someone else worse. You wouldn't make up excuses that aren't true because the true reason you're not going to that family gathering is you can't stand Aunt Mavis. You wouldn't lie to your customers about the quality of the product or to your boss about the hours you've worked. You wouldn't pass the blame for things you were responsible for. Instead of "No, honey, those pants don't make your butt look big," you'd tell the truth. (I'm leaving that open for you to come up with a possible truthful answer without requiring that you upset your wife.) Of real importance, you wouldn't lie to yourself. Are you fudging your diet because you're actually too hungry not to, or is it because of something else? Are you complimenting your spouse because you really believe it is due, or are you doing it to get something in return (or avoid something in return)? When you think down this path, there seems to be no limits to the lies we tell or, at least, for our opportunities to do so.

We are commanded to "put away falsehood" and "speak the truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25). We are told to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Indeed, this is part of our process of growing up into Christ (Eph 4:15-16). I'm not suggesting "brutal honesty", as if that's a virtue. But if we're supposed to put away falsehood and speak the truth, we should do it. We should do it regularly. We should do it in love. Even to ourselves.