Equality

The year was 1965 when Hollywood came out with a witty attempt to advance gender equality. The movie title was Billie, starring Patty Duke and Jim Backus. Patty played the tomboy daughter, Billie, who competed on the high school boy's track team because she was better at it than any of them, and Jim played her father, Howard Carol, a mayoral candidate, tentatively supporting his daughter's efforts. Her boyfriend, Mike (played by Warren Berlinger), is torn. He loves his girlfriend's abilities, but is concerned that she's not female enough. At some point in the movie this comes to a head. He argues that she should quit the team and she argues that he doesn't believe in equality. He argues that he does, but that men and women are different. "Then you don't believe in equality," she counters. Clearly the subtext was aimed at arguing for gender equality. Oddly enough, there wasn't a single definition of equality in the subtext or the script.

What is this equality of which they speak? Is it a physical equality? No, clearly not. Everyone agrees that the male sex and the female sex are not the same. Anyone with eyes can tell that. Statistics agree.

Average male height: 5'9"
Average female height: 5'4"
Average male weight: 190 lbs
Average female weight: 160 lbs

So without even examining the crass, this is not equality. If equality is the aim here, women are going to have to get on the stick and start gaining weight ... and height.

That, of course, is silly. That's not the equality of which they speak. No, no, it is equal treatment.

So when an 18-year-old male wishes to engage in sexual relations with a 14-year-old female, they call it rape, but when an 18-year-old female wishes to engage in sexual relations with a 14-year-old female, they call it something wonderful. You can find lots of headline cases where females are seeking to play on boys' sports teams (which would, quite obviously, nullify the term "boys'"), but not one of a male seeking to play on a girls' team. There are numerous and large campaigns to fight women's breast cancer but hardly a story to be found indicating that men get breast cancer as well. And, of course, there's the whole gender disparity in sentencing for crimes. One study indicated that chivalry is not dead in the realm of the death penalty. In cases that should result in capital punishment, men are overwhelmingly sentenced to death more often than women for the same crime.

So, what am I saying? Is there no inequality? No, clearly I'm not saying that. There is no problem? No, not that either. The problem of gender inequality is a myth? Not at all. All I'm asking is for a little consideration. When you call for "gender equality", just what do you mean? Are you calling for equal mistreatment as well? Is it a bizarre suggestion that there is no difference between the genders? Is it a demand for equal treatment (which is difficult to fathom when the call appears to be for preferential treatment of women over men)? And if equal treatment, are you sure that's what you want? Because, in all honesty, given the differences between men and women, I'm not sure that anyone really wants that. No, I'm saying that men and women are different and ought to be treated accordingly. And I'm saying that I'm pretty sure that the loud and common and apparently outraged voices that are demanding "gender equality" have not put a lot of thought into exactly what that means. And I'd like them to do that. Because telling me I don't believe in equality is meaningless if you can't really put your finger on just what "equality" means.

Agreed?

Most people have heard of the "Five Points of Calvinism" (a lousy name, if I may say so). They are encapsulated (poorly in my opinion) in the acronym, TULIP. That would be Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. These have been contested for a long time, formally since the Synod of Dort where followers of Jacobus Arminius brought complaints to the Dutch church that said, "We disagree on these points."

Interestingly, these are 5 points and 5 points only. That is, of the entire set of theology that these seminary students were given and that Arminius taught, there were only five contentions. So, we're starting out here with vast agreement. And yet, at the end of the day, we're told that there is vast disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. You can see on the surface it isn't true. But what about the actual disagreements? Well, here's what we find.

Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that Man is, by birth and by practice, sinful. He is, at his core, depraved. You will find this agreement in the Statement of Faith of both Arminian and Calvinist churches, of Baptists and Presbyterians, of all genuine Christians. It's in the Bible. We're in agreement. Based on passages like Eph 2:1-3, Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21, Rom 8:7, and so many more, the Reformed view says that this depravity is too deep for Man to bridge on his own. Oh, and we're all in agreement on that point as well. But the Reformed view goes on to say that when Paul wrote that we were "dead in trespasses and sin" (Eph 2:1), he meant that we were dead in trespasses and sin. Arminians see it as more like a serious sickness, a metaphorical "dead" that doesn't actually prevent Man from making the right spiritual choice. A disagreement. Still, notice that we are agreed that Man is depraved at his core and incapable of saving himself.

Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God chooses whom He will save. It is, again, biblically unavoidable. A smattering of example Scriptures would necessarily include John 15:16, John 17:6, Eph 1:4, Eph 2:10, 2 Thess 2:13, John 13:18, John 15:19, and Jude 1:4 (which speaks of a reverse election). Paul seemed to take it for granted in many of his epistles (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1). A quick search of the word, "chosen", includes texts like Matt 22:14, Luke 9:35, Acts 9:15, Col 3:12, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:4, 9, and Rev 17:14. And you don't have to go far at all to find the "elect" (e.g., Matt 24:31, Rom 8:33, 1 Peter 1:1). But the clearest text on the topic is in Romans.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good fto those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified (Rom 8:28-30).

You can squirm and deny and retranslate all you want, but the text is not avoidable. God predestines some to be conformed to the image of His Son and calls them. They come. This isn't "Calvinism"; it's the Bible. And every Arminian agrees. The question, then, is not whether or not God chooses whom He will save -- we all agree that He does -- but how God chooses. And you have to admit, how God chooses is, in all honesty, up to God. So we're stuck with a vast agreement here, coming to different conclusions on how, but agreeing that He does choose.

All genuine believers are convinced that Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6). All genuine believers understand (at least eventually) that Christ paid the price for our sin (Rom 3:23-26). This is what we call "Atonement". And, as it turns out, all genuine believers agree on the extent of the Atonement. Various outliers will argue that the Atonement is universal, covering all sin and, therefore, saving everyone. But this can't be supported with Scripture, starting with the words of Christ who tells us, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). No, no, universal atonement doesn't work. We are agreed. So in that sense we all agree that the Atonement is limited in its extent. The disagreement, then, only occurs when discussing the intent. Did Christ come to save everyone and not succeed, or did He come to save the Elect and succeed? Without offering an answer, it should be clear that we all hold that the Atonement has limitations since not everyone is saved, and we are, again, in agreement.

The question of "Irresistible Grace" seems to be a sticky one. It's funny, though, because both Arminians and Calvinists agree that humans resist God's grace continually. The question, then, is whether there is a point that God can overcome Man's resistance. Arminians say no but pray for it. Calvinists say yes. So we're largely in agreement ... again.

In the end, then, it is this last point that brings contention. Is it possible for a believer, once in Christ, to lose that salvation? The Calvinist says no, absolutely not. The thoughtful Calvinist says, "But we must persevere in faith." The Arminian says, "Yes, you can", but won't actually hold that position for all cases since he believes you can always get it back even when Scripture says otherwise. (There are, in fact, a large number of "Four Point Arminians" who disagree with the Calvinist's first four points but agree on this last that salvation cannot be lost.) The typical Calvinist will point to the myriad of texts where God cannot lose what He has, and the typical Arminian will point to the multiple texts where Man must persevere. In order to be biblical on the topic, both sides will need to put the two ideas together or remain only half biblical, a dangerous place to stand.

So, as it turns out, even on the contentious "Five Points", we are largely in agreement. As it turns out, it is mere details in question. How bad is depravity? How does God choose whom He will save? What was the intent of the Atonement? Can God ever override Man's resistance? And exactly how do we correlate both "you must persevere" and "God cannot fail"? Details, my friends. You'd think, with all this agreement, we'd be better able to discuss this amicably. Go figure.

Far More Abundantly Beyond All

For your Sunday worship, how about considering a passage like this.

¹⁴ I bow my knees before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, ¹⁶ that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, ¹⁷ so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, ¹⁸ may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, ¹⁹ and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. ²⁰ Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, ²¹ to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen (Eph 3:14-21).

Here's Paul's prayer for the church at Ephesus. His request? He asked God to grant them strength. This isn't normal strength. It is the strength of the Spirit. It is the strength required for Christ to dwell in your heart.

His second request is actually a bit confusing. He asks that, rooted and grounded in love, believers would be able to comprehend "what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ." So, what's so confusing? Well, his prayer is that would have a comprehensive knowledge of the vast love of Christ "which surpasses knowledge". His prayer is that we would know the unknowable. I get a picture of a man in a row boat in the middle of Lake Superior. Give him a cup and tell him, "Here, dip this into Lake Superior and have a taste. Do you understand Lake Superior now?" Yes ... and clearly no.

So Paul is asking the clearly impossible. That's why we end up where this chapter ends up. It is an adoration of Him who is able to do more. If you read the text, you can see that Paul is having trouble with words. God, Paul asserts, is able to do more than you could ask or think. But that's not what he says. He says that God is able to do "far more abundantly beyond all" that you could ask or even think. In Greek it's huper ek perissos huper -- above and beyond superabundance above -- because, after all, one huper isn't enough. "Do you think God can do a lot? He can do above and beyond superabundantly beyond what you can even imagine!" That's what Paul said.

This God can supply the superior power required to allow Christ to dwell in you. This God can give the ability to know the unknowable love of God in all its vast dimensions. This God ... well, this God can do far more abundantly beyond all you could ask ... or even imagine.

But here's the question: Why? Why do this? Paul says it is "according to the riches of His glory" (Eph 3:16) and redounds to His glory (Eph 3:21). Or, in other words, God is carrying through on that which we are commanded: "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). To the God who can do far more abundantly beyond all you can even imagine, to Him be all glory! Amen!

Who Is To Blame?

So, we've endured a "government shutdown" thanks to the GOP in general and the Tea Party in particular. That's what they're telling us. That's what the media has said. That's what the President has said. It's those dirty, rotten, despicable Republicans in the House that are the problem. Why can't they just get on the bandwagon and get done what we need done? Who is to blame? We've got this. It's those rotten Republicans, the evil conservatives in particular.

And if that was your conclusion, it wouldn't be a reasonable one.

Nor is it "partisan politics". Partisan politics would be, "We will disagree with whatever a person of the opposing political party suggests." This is not the case here.

What we have here is an argument, a disagreement, a difference of opinion. Consider for a moment the basics of what that means. It means that Entity A believes "X" and Entity B believes "Not-X" and now we have two views that cannot be reconciled. The argument of the president and his media is that Entity B is the problem, but they (the president and his media) have failed to understand the nature of a disagreement and jumped right across to assigning blame.

Here's reality. If Entity A (for the sake of discussion, let's call them "Democrats") believes that the "THIS" is the right way the budget should go and Entity B (we'll call them "Republicans") believes that "THAT" is the right way the budget should go, then the answer is not "It's Republican's fault!" It is "They disagree!" Thus Democrats and Republicans (in this simplified example) disagree and that is the cause of the problem.

The remedy to this problem is either compromise or acquiesence. The two sides can give in a little on their positions (that's called compromise) and come to a less-than-perfect-but-workable agreement. Or one side, by force of argument or force of arms or some other force, can bring the other side to agree to its position. That's acquiesence. Note, by the way, that the president's idea (and the media and, therefore, far too many Americans) is "Agree with me or you are the problem." And they call that "compromise". "The Republicans refused to compromise" is the accusation. "Agree with me or not" is not compromise.

We can debate ad infinitum who is to blame in ideological terms. Maybe it's the left with their demand for "Affordable Health Care" or maybe it's the right with the suggestion that this "affordable" health care isn't really affordable. Maybe it's the left with their budget plans or maybe it's the right with their budget plans. And if you believe that "X" is right you will blame the "Not-X" side or vice versa. But, please, let's not be unfair and deceitful in laying blame at the foot of one side without considering the facts.

The fact is that Congress is to blame. Not the liberals or the conservatives. Not the Democrats or the Republicans. Two viewpoints have collided and they -- both sides -- were unable to arrive at an acceptable compromise or to argue the other side to their position. That is not a failure of one side. That is a failure of Congress. And let's not forget the fact that lurked behind Congress's failure. If Congress had gone ahead with a plan to defund some of the president's health care plan, the president promised to veto it. So that compromise was off the table. And the president himself in that case is also to blame.

This is not a failure of the right. It is a failure of the two branches of government -- the legislative branch and the executive branch. Since all sides determined an "all or nothing" approach, all sides caused this problem. Agree or disagree with the position of either side, but don't falsely lay the blame at the feet of one side. It just doesn't work.

Empty Words

I've been reading Ephesians for the past few weeks. I found this quite interesting.

¹ Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. ² And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. ³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Eph 5:1-6).

I apologize for the length. I had to put the whole thing there to get the entire thought, the whole context.

The aim, then, is to "be imitators of God" on the basis of the reality that those who belong to Christ are God's "beloved children." The way in which we imitate God is to "walk in love", and not merely as the world "loves", but "as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us" -- a self-sacrificing love.

Contrasting to imitating God and walking in love, we have another set of options. These include sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness (which, by the way, Paul defines as "idolatry"). These include "filthiness", "foolish talk", "crude jokes" ... oh, wait, am I meddling too much? (That's what my old pastor would say when he started applying Scripture too close to home.) Paul is not ambiguous here. He's not dancing around. "Well, we've got to be accepting, tolerant, non-judgmental. You don't want to alienate people." Instead, he offers, "Everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Oh, really, Paul? Come on. Tell us what you really think.

It's interesting today that we -- even many who are self-professed Christians -- find ourselves on the opposing side of this discussion. When the Bible defines "sexual immorality" as "any sexual behavior outside of marriage" (and good luck finding any biblical definition of "marriage" as anything but the union of a man and a woman) and so-called brothers are telling us, "No, no, that's not at issue", there is a problem. When purity is ridiculed among those who call themselves Christians, there is a problem. When covetousness is encouraged (I'm thinking of things like the "health and wealth" types, for instance), there is a problem. Paul says these "must not even be named among you." Named? In some circles, they're the standard!

According to Paul, "because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." That is, this is serious. It's not a matter of "judgmentalism" or "intolerance". It's not a case of "preferences" -- "Oh, sure, it's wrong for you, but don't go all high and mighty on us and think it's wrong for everyone." It's the reason that God visits wrath on humans. No small issue. Interesting, then, is the warning Paul offers. Given that these things ought not be even hinted at among Christians and given that these things are so very dangerous as to prevent a person from entering the kingdom and bring about, instead, God's wrath, what should we be careful of? "Let no one deceive you with empty words."

Empty words. That's what you get. "Why are you defending this particular sexual immorality?" The answer is only empty words. "It works for them" or "Who are you to oppose the love of two people?" or "Did God say ...?" Lies. Empty words. "Why are you coveting what your neighbor has?" The only answer is empty words. "What's wrong with wanting more? It's the American way!" "Don't be so judgmental!" Empty words. "Let no one deceive you with empty words." Because that which is considered damnable in this passage is considered normal and even commendable by so many around us. It's not a small issue.

Patriocentrism

I like words. I like "anthropocentrism" which refers to a view that holds "anthropos" -- Man -- as the center of the universe. You know, the natural (and utterly false) view of sinful humans. I like words like that. So when I came across "patriocentrism", I had to stop and take a look.

The word is hard to define from Internet searches. I can find "patricentrism" which is the view that holds that the father is central to the family. One website apparently dedicated to the concept says that patriocentrism is the belief that "the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church." Of course, if I'm going to properly attribute the quote, it would come first from Paul (Eph 5:23), not some radical or even recent movement. And, of course, folks like Karen Campbell find the idea "extreme", reckless, and certainly outside of Church tradition.

It is interesting when doing a search for the concept that seven of the first eight entries (in Bing) were protests against the concept and all women. When Karen Campbell reviews a book attacking the (biblical) premise of patriarchy, she urges Christian homeschoolers to read the book (which, by the way, is written by a self-professed unbeliever) and concludes that if you do, "it will be a mother who brings sanity and control to what may become an out of control situation." Because, you see, biblical patriarchy is not sane and is out of control. In the links I followed, none of the objections offered were given with biblical support. Instead, they were, on the surface, based on "How can you say it's bad when it's working for me?" and always coupled with Feminism. The idea appears to be that our understanding of Scripture is first accountable to Feminism. If it disagrees with the feminist perspective, it must be wrong. The patriarchy found in the pages of Scripture is not a violation of Scripture; it is a violation of modern culture.

Patriarchy is not a popular view. The idea that "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" doesn't score points with our culture. The notion of God as Father over all isn't really cool today. (Indeed, there are not merely a few voices out there that prefer to refer to God as "she" and "Mother".) So in thinking this through, you will need to decide. Do you determine your perspective by the dictates of Feminism and culture or by the pages of Scripture? These do not coincide.

The Family-Integrated Church Movement

I try to keep up, I suppose, but there are still a lot of things going on in the world of which I'm wholly unaware. One of these is a concept of which I've just learned -- the "family-integrated church". There is a National Center for Family-Integrated Churches and websites dedicated to the proposition that "the biblical partnership between church and home, which is offered in what is commonly called the Family-Integrated Church model, affords a greater potential for a more effective implementation of the Great Commission –- both in witnessing to the world, and in making life-long disciples."

Okay, fine ... huh? No, I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm wondering what the question is. I mean, in what ways does the "family-integrated church" differ from other churches of the day? Most of it is pretty standard. Where is it not?

The family is the basic unit of society, as well as God’s intended "incubator" of healthy and responsible members of church and state.

No, that doesn't seem controversial. Of course, many these days infected with the self-centeredness of the world in which we live might think, without voicing it, "I am the basic unit of society and the church", but that can't really hold up very long, can it?

God has ordained unique roles for men & women in Scripture.

Okay, now that isn't nearly the popular certainty that it once was, is it? I mean, it is absolutely biblical, but no longer popular.

Marriage is the core family relational dynamic and is to be a picture and a reflection of the love relationship between Christ (the Groom) and the Church (His Bride).

Again, this is a biblical fact and irrefutable without dismantling Scripture. Of course, again, if you're going to operate from a worldly perspective, then terms like "marriage" and "family" will be redefined ... essentially into oblivion. But prior to our current culture, these questions of the centrality of the family, the unique roles of men and women, and the core family dynamic of marriage have never been in question.

(Note: For a clear and concise statement on what exactly the "Family-Integrated Church" movement is about, see NCFIC's Confession on the subject.)

It is, I suppose, then, these values of patriarchy, complementarianism (the notion that men and women are different and are given different roles), marriage and family that are all the sticking points, the defining issues of the "family-integrated church". That is, these are the issues with which people take issue. Because without these "issues" (which, oh, by the way, are biblical), I just don't see the point.

I suppose my real confusion comes when folks like Karen Campbell, in reviewing the concept, try to contrast the "family-integrated church" concept with "traditional churches". I grew up in a "traditional church" and we didn't actually segregate families. Our parents taught us how to behave in church and we learned not to disrupt it. Sure, there were special things -- Sunday school or youth activities-- along with it, but I don't think anyone is objecting to the church and the family cooperating. So this false dichotomy of "traditional" versus "family-integrated" is, well, misguided. On the other hand, I'm equally confused by churches that have decided to make this their "distinctive". "What makes you different than the church down the street?" "Well, we include families and they don't." I'm not sure that's accurate or helpful. Should churches do better at teaching parents to parent and holding fathers responsible to be fathers? Absolutely! Do churches that are "family-integrated" excel at this? Well, I can't tell. Is there a problem today between churches and family? I would say that, far more than most people recognize, there certainly is. But I'm not at all sure that labeling a church "family-integrated" solves those problems.

I don't know. Maybe all this is why I haven't heard of this until now.

Turn It Around

Have you ever noticed how often arguments can simply be turned around on the one making the argument? Perhaps you've seen this before:

If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems. - Bill Nye

I've always wondered about rants like this. You know, "You Christians are so judgmental and intolerant!!!" "Oh? Sounds very judgmental and intolerant of you." So, why does Nye's quote not work in reverse?

If you want to deny God's existence and live in your world that completely ignores everything in the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. Our future requires people with a genuine sense of purpose, with a basis for morality, with real-world answers for the hard things that happen. We need Christians that can love people beyond the best enlightened self-interest of your minimal materialism. We need much more than mere scientific literacy.

Nye goes on to say, "In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it."

Again, in reverse, "This evolutionary worldview has been around for merely a century and denies much of what science finds and most of what the Bible says. It offers no morality, no purpose, no hope. Scientifically, it keeps getting moved from its moorings, including such theories as Darwinism, gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, quantum evolution, Lamarckianism, zoogenesis, orthogenesis, pangenesis, and neo-Darwinism. Christianity, on the other hand, has survived executions, persecution, assaults, heresies, and time all the while remaining, at its core, unchanged from the first century, built solidly on 4,000 prior years of biblical history. I suppose you might think that Christianity will vanish in a couple of centuries, but there's no evidence for it."

Sometimes these "well thought out arguments" don't seem that hard to handle.

What Difference Does it Make?

As anyone should easily be able to tell from my writings, I think that marriage is defined by tradition, by history, and by Scripture and is, therefore, not inclusive of the concept of "same-sex". You should also be quite aware that I believe that sexual relations outside of marriage -- which would (based clearly on that first notion) necessarily include all sexual relations between people of the same gender -- are sinful. I believe that human life is of great value and terminating it just because it hasn't reached open air yet is evil. I believe, in other words, many things that today are unpopular and offensive.

A very common response to my beliefs is this simple question: "What difference is it to you?" You understand how that goes. "What difference would it make to you if we marry?" or "How does it hurt you if we have sex?" or "How does it affect you if women have a procedure you don't like?" That sort of thing.

The first response I would have, of course, is to try to answer the question, but there is, behind the question, something deeply disturbing to me. And, I think, something that gets to the very core of the problem. Here's the question: "How does it hurt you?" What is the inference of the question? It is plain. "The only concern you need to have is your own welfare. If the things that other people are doing hurt you, then you might be concerned. If not, don't be." It is, quite obviously, a form of "Mind your own business", I understand, but it is also an indication of a serious deficiency.

Here's the idea. "The only thing that should concern you is you." Why? "Because the only thing that concerns me is me." Right? Well, maybe not, but it isn't an irrational conclusion nor is it likely far off. It isn't likely concious, but it is likely the underlying mode of thinking. The notion that I might be concerned about your behavior, views, lifestyle, choices, and the like because I care about you seems completely foreign.

This doesn't work in other applications, does it? "Hey, I'm going to walk down this path that I don't know has a sudden cliff at the end but you do, but since it won't make any difference to you -- you're not walking down this path -- you shouldn't care." "Look, I'm planning on swallowing this tasty fluid that you know to be poison and I don't, but since you're not drinking it, it won't matter to you, right?" Worse, if I do care and do wish to warn my companion on the road of life that the path he's taking can kill him or the drink she's planning to take could kill her, I'm not only "nosey", I'm a "hater". "What difference is it to you?"

What difference is it to me? I care, that's what difference it is. I am commanded to love my neighbor. That requires that I want the very best for my neighbor. So if my neighbor suffers, so do I. If my neighbor suffers unawares, it doesn't make it any better for me. If I know there is delayed consequences, it hurts me. Because I care. What difference does it make to me? That's what difference. Not to my life. Not to my well-being. Not to my comfort. Not to my choices, lifestyle, decisions, views. But it hurts me to have the people I care about suffer, and if I know that's certain, I would like to help them to avoid it.

Ultimately, of course, avoiding this sin or that is only going to provide temporary remedies. Making a more moral neighbor only makes a briefly happier neighbor. The only way to really provide a permanent difference for my neighbor is to introduce him or her to Christ. In the former -- worldly morality -- there is a short term gain with ultimate loss. In the latter, there is eternal life. That, then, would be my ultimate aim. Of course, that still gets me labeled as "arrogant" and "offensive" for suggesting that they need Christ. "What difference is it to you?" I care, that's what. So Christians will continue to bear the epithets of "homophobe" and "hater" and "narrowminded" and "religious crackpot" not because it makes us feel better, but because we have God within us to will and to do His good pleasure, including loving our neighbors. That's the difference.

Wired for Worship

Let's face it. Human beings are wired for worship. We do it by nature. We cannot not worship. It's just what we do.

We normally think of worship as "reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage", and that is reasonable. But we know it's much more. It is not strange for us to hear of a man who loves a woman, "He worships the ground she walks on." And that has nothing to do with God or "a sacred personage". Thus, worship is, more broadly, "adoring reverence or regard" of anyone or anything. (So isn't it strange that some people hear the word "worship" and think "the singing we do just before the sermon"?)

John Calvin wrote, "The human heart is a factory of idols." We're good at it. We worship by nature and it might be the true God or it might be any other substitute, but we will worship. We laugh at the ancient pagans who cut up a piece of wood into the figure of their favorite god and then worshiped it, but we're not too far from that ourselves. We make money and worship it. We strive for the power we worship. We make fast cars and worship them. Maybe it's "Mr. Right", a model of a man who in all likelihood doesn't actually exist or maybe it's the woman of your dreams. In almost all cases, theists or atheists, it includes self. Theists add in God and atheists idolize materialism. We all worship.

What we worship has serious ramifications. Paul wrote,

²⁰ Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. ²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Rom 1:20-25).

In this passage, we understand the problem. Man, in his sin nature, serves the creature rather than the Creator. The result is a foolish heart and a surrender to "the lusts of their hearts to impurity." The final outcome is death (Rom 6:23). Nadab and Abihu were priests of God. They offered "strange fire" and God instantly killed them for it (Lev 10:1-2). Worship of that which is not God or the wrong worship of that which is God has serious consequences.

On the other hand,

⁹ We have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ¹⁰ so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; ¹¹ strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously ¹² giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. ¹³ For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ¹⁶ For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ¹⁸ He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything (Col 1:9-18).

Recognizing, then, that "in Him all things hold together" -- nothing exists without Him -- and "all things have been created through Him and for Him" -- recognizing ultimately that "He Himself will come to have first place in everything" -- changes how you live. "You will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light."

The rightly offered worship of God who alone deserves it has great benefits. It changes how you walk. It changes your aims. It bears fruit, increases knowledge of God, strengthens, and causes joy and gratitude. Who wouldn't want all that? We are wired to worship. Let's do it right for the One who deserves it, the one "who is blessed forever. Amen."

Church Men

I tried a new church a few weeks back. It promised "a blend of traditional and contemporary worship" and expository teaching. Expository preaching is a big thing. "Great," I can hear readers saying, "so what is that?" (They probably won't even try to pronounce it.) Most preaching today is topical. They'll cover marriage, politics, evangelism, and the entire gamut of self-help topics and pull their answers from Scripture (hopefully ... not always). Expository preaching is preaching the Word. It is a verse-by-verse, line-by-line preaching of Scripture. Topics come and go in this approach; the Word of God is central.

Well, this new church really did provide decent expository preaching. But I have to say I was left confused on their definition of "a blend of traditional and contemporary worship". What they had was a fairly talented worship band -- all young people -- singing songs I've never heard to tunes I've never heard. They did put the lyrics on the overhead (because it's not church without an overhead, right?), but trying to actually follow the stuff without knowing the songs or the tunes was hardly possible. And it's not that I'm an old fuddy-duddy (which is an admission that I am). When I looked around I saw the fairly crowded room full of people mostly listening. Maybe half the women were trying to sing along. I didn't see any of the men singing.

It made me wonder. Where are we now? There has been stuff written over recent years about men in the church and the problems therein. There is, in fact, an an entire website on the problem. Some complain about the feminization of the church, making more toward women than men. Some complain that there is precious little effort to include men because, after all, we all know that men are violent and women are loving and, seriously, ask yourself, which of those two options rightly represents Christ? I mean, come on! How hard can this be? Most complain that it's just too boring for men. Oh, sure, there are still men there, but their numbers are dwindling and their interest is dwindling. It looks bad for guys and the church.

After all, why are they there? It used to be that churches were patriarchal. Our enlightened times have put an end to that. It used to be that men were the ones doing most of the work while women played a supporting role. The decline of males in society has put an end to that. It used to be that men could at least sing in church. The modern "praise band" seems to have put an end to that. So where are we?

Men used to be able to lead, but that's being diminished and it has always been a limited number of leaders anyway. At least they could lead their families, but not so much these days. We know better now. They used to be able participate in Communion, but nowadays if it takes place at all, it takes place at relatively large intervals. They used to be able to participate in worship, but with the current climate, it appears that the idea is "Come for a concert and a sermon!" (I understand that in no small number of churches the concept of a "sermon" is no longer fashionable. Shall we go with "homily"?) So what is a man who is eager to do to do?

For a Reason

You cannot visit a difficult circumstance without hearing someone say, "Everything happens for a reason." At first glance, it is obviously intended to be comforting. A second look, of course, makes it pretty stupid. I mean, this is simple physics. Everything does happen for a reason. Nothing (except God) is self-made. Everything that has come into being has a cause. So in the light of this fact, you might wonder exactly how comforting "Everything happens for a reason" is really going to be. But let's take a look anyway.

The atheist will assure me that this is all nonsense. "Don't be silly. We are the product of natural forces at work. It is not true that everything happens for a higher-purpose kind of reason. It just ... happens." Oh, good. So now what do I do with my "difficult circumstance." Just grin and bear it, I suppose. No, no help there.

A large portion of Christianity today is quite convinced -- they will tell you -- "Everything happens for a reason" and that reason may not be God. The range of things that happen without God varies. Some are quite sure that anything bad (meaning anything unpleasant) is not caused by God. That would include everything from the passing of a loved one to the passing of a hurricane. These are on the "deist" edge, with the (unspoken) idea that God takes a kind of "hands off" approach and stuff ... just ... happens. But most use the idea to indicate that God doesn't have any input on sin -- the evil that men do. This group will likely avoid the question of natural disasters -- "Did God do that?" "Well, let's not talk about that." -- but are adamant that Man sins and God would like to stop it but just ... what, can't? Won't? Not sure here. The notion most often advanced is that God has a prior commitment to Man's Free Will and has limited Himself in order to allow Man's Free Will to operate because, after all, true love doesn't exist if it's not a product of Free Will. "Oh, really?" I will ask. "Can you give me a biblical reference for that or, perhaps, a dictionary reference that equates 'love' with 'Free Will' by definition?" No, they can't, but everyone knows it's true, so it must be. "I read it on the Internet, and they can't put it on the Internet if it's not true." That sort of thing.

So we come up to our "difficult circumstance" and we're looking for some comfort and are told, "It wasn't God. It was Man's evil." Keeping in mind that "Everything happens for a reason" (which is a necessary fact, even if it's not how most people mean it when they say it), what can I conclude? Well, apparently the reason that this happened is that God has a higher prior commitment to Man's Free Will than He has for my well-being. He could have stopped it, but, too bad, He is dedicated to limited sovereignty and letting Man do as he pleases, so, sorry, you're out of luck. And I ask, "That's supposed to bring me comfort?" "Yeah! God didn't do it." Okay, so the fact that God's commitment to the Free Will of sinners who hate Him insures that they will do bad things to me is supposed to make me feel better? When God saw that terrorists were flying aircraft into buildings to kill thousands and did nothing because He wanted their Free Will rather than His will, that's supposed to make me feel better? That's a good reason?

The God I see in the Bible is not self-limiting. He is Sovereign. He doesn't make the same mistake that we make, placing the interests of Man above the interests of God. He isn't an idolater, serving the created rather than the Creator. Everything that is done is done for His glory. And He does everything for His glory that He intends to do. The answer of this perspective to the "difficult circumstances" is, without fail, "God allowed it, planned for it, and saw to it for good. He works all things together for good -- even this." Now, I understand that this may not comfort some. They might think that God is obligated to be nice to them. I've heard of the "omnibenevolence of God" as if it's a real thing. I've heard of it, but I can't find it in my Bible. They might think that God is a megalomaniac, focusing so much on His own glory. But if He is the center of the universe, the reason for all existence, the One from whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, then I'd call it "expected" and "reality", not "megalomania". (Megalomania is a disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. With God, it is no fantasy.)

I find great comfort in the Sovereignty of God. Others may not. I would be loath to surrender that precious doctrine because it is of such great comfort to me. But I don't believe it because it is comforting. I believe it because I've become convinced of it in the pages of my Bible. It was there that I first found this concept, somewhat against my will even. However, when I embraced it, I could find little comfort anywhere else. For what reason does God allow -- even cause -- unpleasant things to occur? Because of His great glory. You know what? That's good enough for me. To God be the glory.

The Exception Clause

There is a well-known account of the Pharisees testing Jesus with a particularly difficult argument they themselves were having (Matt 19:1-12). "Is it right to divorce for any reason whatsoever?" Most Christians who have spent any time in their Bibles or in church have heard this story and know Jesus's answer. "What God has joined together let no man separate" (Matt 19:6). I would guess, however, that even more prevalent than that answer is the other answer Jesus gave. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Indeed, it is that phrase, beginning with "except", that is best known. You see, Jesus wasn't ambiguous. "Is divorce ever okay?" "No!" He didn't pull any punches or offer any escape. When pressed, He mentions in passing this singular phrase that we have come to call "the Exception Clause". Our typical aim is not full agreement with God's best, but "Is there an exception to this rule?"

It seems as if this concept is a primary thrust among believers. Among unbelievers an "exception clause" isn't needed; they just defy God. But believers, while on one hand aiming to obey God and do what pleases Him, seem to hope for exceptions. "I want to please God, but not too much." It's as if we're afraid we'll get to heaven after years of sacrificing personal pleasure in favor of pleasing God and find, "Oh, no! I didn't have to give that up!" Like we gave God too much.

Take, for instance, this very exception clause from Matt 19. Jesus states His position clearly and plainly: "What God has put together let no man separate." Next! "But ... but ...!" That is not satisfactory. Or, as His disciples put it, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). "Oh, whew! He has an exception clause. There is a method whereby we can divorce our wives and remarry! What a relief! You see, Jesus, for a moment there it looked like You were saying that we should remain with our wives for life, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, 'til death do us part. Nice to know we have an out." Now, I don't think that phrase, "except for sexual immorality", can be taken nearly as far as we do, but we do. Wives will say, "He's a disgusting pig in bed; that's sexual immorality. I'm out of here." Husbands will say, "She refuses to do normal stuff in bed and that makes her sexually immoral." And having negated "Can we divorce for any reason?" Jesus appears to have come back around to "Well, yes, you can." And we don't stop there. We expand it to other things like "desertion" and "abuse" (which gets further expanded to "physical abuse" and then "emotional abuse" and then "I just feel abused" because he didn't thank her for fixing him dinner). And then we take it to the next step where the "innocent party" is free to remarry. And we've managed to take a narrow (and, I would suggest, in our day non-existent) exception and expanded it to cover almost every possibility.

Sadly, we even seem to find exception clauses where they don't exist. "Yeah, I know the Bible says not to forsake gathering together," (the command) "but I can't find a good church in my area, so I won't go." Or "My wife or my husband isn't interested, so I won't go." Odd. I don't find that exception clause in the command. "Of course we're not to commit adultery," (the command) "but I'm not actually committing adultery by looking at pornography, looking at other women/men, or dreaming about other sexual relationships." Jesus's "I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28) doesn't seem to leave room for this exception clause. Or, perhaps the most common, "I know that we are to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that Christ commands," (the command) "and I'm going to do it ... except, well, isn't 'disciple' a bit cultish? And isn't it a bit arrogant to think that I could disciple someone else? And, look, I'm no teacher, so don't expect me to teach anyone to obey Christ. But, like I said, I'm going to do it. Well, I'm going to share the Gospel. That is, unless it's inconvenient. Or it's uncomfortable. Or it is embarrassing. I'll get right around to doing that at my earliest opportunity ... after this show ... and the game ... and whatever else comes up ..." Lots and lots of exceptions.

After awhile you begin to wonder if there is any command given that doesn't have an exception clause. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." "Well, I can't do that, so I am not going to worry about it." "Husbands, love your wives." "You don't know my wife." "Wives, submit to your husbands." "Me? Submit to him?? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain." "I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over men." "What? What about gifted women? That can't be right." Personal experience, personal feelings, cultural clamor, a distaste for doing a particular command, all of this can serve as grounds for an exception clause in which we feel justified to go ahead with a particular sin (or sins) while still claiming to love God and long to serve Him.

Brothers, these things ought not be. We are supposed to be dead to sin (Rom 6:6; 1 Peter 2:24). We are called to die to self, to "take up your cross" (Mark 8:34-35). We are to kill our passions and desires (Gal 5:24). We are to die to this world (Col 3:5). We are supposed to think differently (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23; Col 3:2). We are supposed to be different. It would seem to me that scrambling around for exception clauses wherever they might lie and making them up where they don't would be counterproductive to our aims as followers of Christ. Obeying too much isn't possible. Giving up too much isn't reasonable. Loving God too much isn't even conceivable. However, setting our minds on the interests of Man rather than the interests of God (Mark 8:33) is a real possibility for us. We don't want that now, do we?

Biblical Free Will

I gave you my understanding of free will. I'd like to look for a few moments at the biblical input on the topic. After all, we know that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked", so getting God's input on a subject is always a good idea.

The question is whether or not actual Ultimate Self-Determination exists. Is there such a thing as Libertarian Free Will? We all agree that Man makes choices. There is no question about that. We also agree that God doesn't (necessarily) coerce those choices. We're all on the same page there. Because if we didn't have the ability to make some choices or if those choices were coerced, there is no sense in which God could hold us responsible for our choices -- for our sin. So let's all agree that human beings do, in fact, make choices without external coercion.

But does this necessitate Libertarian Free Will? Is it necessary, agreeing that humans make choices, that there be no influence, no inclination, indeed, no predestination? Does that kind of free will (which would, in the end, be Free Will with capital letters) actually exist among mankind? The argument is that God has committed Himself to that kind of Free Will and does not interfere. And what I'm asking is, is that what we find in the Bible?

A very famous passage in Proverbs assures us of this:

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will (Prov 21:1).

Now, that's a problem to the Libertarian Free Will concept. If God turns the king's heart wherever He will, then it cannot be argued that, at least, the king has Ultimate Self-Determination. The text requires that God is influencing the king.

If we wanted to limit this to "the king", we'd run up against other passages:

I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps (Jer 10:23).

The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps (Prov 16:9).

The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations (Prov 33:10-11).

Well, now, that puts a crimp in things, doesn't it? It appears that God influences everyone's choices. Routinely. Solomon wrote, "A man's steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?" (Prov 20:24).

At this point you have to decide. Am I going to remain committed to Ultimate Self-Determination/Libertarian Free Will or am I going to give in to Scripture? Your choice.

Some may say, "Okay, fine, God influences choices, but is completely outside of Man's sin. He does not ordain sin." Is that so? In Revelation we read:

And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled (Rev 17:16-17).

It is abundantly clear here that the efforts of "the beast" here and "the ten horns" are not godly efforts. They are sin. And yet it says here that "God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose", and that purpose is accomplished by their evil.

"Now, wait! Are you saying that, in some sense, God ordains evil?" Well, no, I'm not. That's what I find in the Bible. It's the Bible that says, "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). I'm simply pointing it out.

But, look, we don't need to go to some obscure, future version or even guess at what some possibly odd texts mean. How about the singularly worst sin in all the history of mankind -- the murder of the Son of God? There is no worse sin than that. What does the Bible say about that?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed -- for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28).

It is abundantly clear here -- irrefutably clear -- that God "predestined to take place" the murder of His Son and that He planned for "both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" to carry out His predestined plan. If that isn't a plan for sin, I don't know what is.

The Bible isn't vague on the Sovereignty of God. While there is not doubt that humans have the ability to make choices without coercion, nothing happens without God's permission and ultimate will. Thus, the only being that actually has Ultimate Self-Determination -- Libertarian Free Will -- is God. He allows humans free choices within His plan, choices for which we are responsible either for good or bad, but we do not possess that form of Free Will that is so highly prized among sinful Man. God will even intervene in our choice to sin when it is required. So He told Abimelech, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against Me. Therefore I did not let you touch her" (Gen 20:6). That is not Ultimate Free Will.

If you're going to have a biblical worldview, you're going to have to work out in your mind some version of free will that allows humans to make choices, but only within the bounds of God's Sovereign Will and not without His permission. On the other hand, if you're going to remain committed to Man's Free Will as an ultimate good and a requirement on God, you're going to have to do so against the pages of Scripture.

Free Will

One of the most debated concepts in Christianity is the concept of Free Will. One side says that God is Sovereign and Man's Free Will doesn't exist. The other side says that God's Sovereignty is limited and Man's Free Will rules. Between the two extemes are all sorts of shades of variation. Hard determinism eliminates choice, but soft determinism (or compatibilism) allows the two to both exist. Libertarianism demands ultimate self-determination. Incompatibilists argue that neither free will nor determinism exist. (And, by the way, this isn't only a Christian discussion. Some of those most hard over on the side of both hard determinism and indeterminism are atheists who say that free will is an illusion and we're making choices based on the chemicals in our brains, or something like it.)

The difficulty I'm having is trying to pin down a definition. You know me and words. If we're going to argue about something, I think it would be a good idea to argue about the same thing. And, as hard as it may be to believe, "Free Will" does not have a standard definition. There appears to be a range of definitions, and that (obviously) makes it very hard to discuss.

Some argue that it is the power of independent action and choice. Okay. But others argue that it is the power of independent action and choice specifically to the exclusion of compulsion or predestination. That is, "If predestination exists, then there is no Free Will." Some think it's just "the ability to make a choice without coercion" and others think it is Ultimate Self-Determination. There are even some (more than a few) that suggest that it requires the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition". I'm actually surprised at how popular this one is, primarily because it's such nonsense. If there is nothing influencing a choice, a choice cannot be made. The best we can do is ... random. And, in fact, no one makes choices without at least internal influences. We always choose according to our inclinations.

If Free Will means that God cannot predetermine anything in any way, then I'm going to have to deny the existence of that Free Will because it contradicts the Bible. If Free Will means "Ultimate Self-Determinism", I'm going to have to deny the existence of that version as well because it contradicts the Bible. But if we're talking about the capacity to make choices uncoerced, I don't see an issue. This must exist if God is going to hold us responsible for our choices (read "sin"). And in order for that version to exist it doesn't even have to be continuous. That is, if God intervenes in Man's free will on occasion (like in Gen 20:6 where God says, "I kept you from sinning."), that doesn't eliminate all free will.

To me, free will is simply the ability to choose to do what you want to do. Clearly this is a limited concept. No one can choose what they want to do when what they want to do is impossible. "I want to flap my arms and fly to the moon" is all well and good, but it ain't gonna happen, and that's not a failure of the will. But here's the concept that makes the most sense to me. If free will is the ability to choose what you want to do -- to follow your own inclinations -- then God doesn't have to coerce anyone in order to change their choices. He simply has to change their "want to do". Here, let's couch this in biblical terms. If free will is the ability to follow your own inclinations and humans are inclined only to sin (Gen 6:5; 8:21), than humans freely and continually choose to sin. The remedy for this problem is a "new heart" (Ezek 36:26). "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor 5:17) and has God at work in him to will to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:13). If free will is the ability to choose to do what I want to do and God changes what I want to do, then He doesn't have to coerce me to make choices; I choose them because I want to. Is there something wrong with that version of free will?

The Theology of Sex

It is standard morality in today's society that sex is primarily a recreational pastime that carries no special meaning and ought to be enjoyed fully without any meddling from backward, moral prudes. "You stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of your church." Even among self-declared Christians there is a sense that we've been too narrow on our sexual ethics and we need to lighten up a bit. So more couples are "living together in sin" to use a euphemism from an earlier era. More self-professed believers are arguing for the morality of homosexual sex (which, by some bizarre convolutions, then becomes the basis for arguing for the redefinition of marriage -- "Well, if you don't want them to have sex outside marriage, you'd better let them get married!"). We're losing our rudder on the whole thing and losing track of where we're coming from and where we're going.

Is it right? Is our society correct? Is sex just a pleasurable process? I've seen Christians (even people I regard as genuine Christians) make such an argument. "Sex is for pleasure." If so, on what possible grounds can we argue that sex outside of marriage is sin? And, seriously, folks, what's the big deal? Why is sex an issue while we're not sounding the alarm on gossip, gluttony, or greed? Surely a bit of personal pleasure isn't that big of a deal, right? Or is it?

The Bible is not vague on its sexual ethics. Sex outside of marriage is sin. End of discussion. I've seen pretty little dances performed to try to explain how thousands of years of Bible readers from Israel through the Church all got it wrong. It's not wrong. Biblically sex is reserved for marriage and for marriage alone. That's the biblical standard and, as such, ought to be supported if only for that reason alone by followers of Christ. But is that it? Are we done? Or is there something more significant here? The question is the purpose of the sexual relationship. What does the Bible have to say?

I think we can see clearly that God intended for us to enjoy sexual relations with our spouses. It is, in fact, the only time that God tells us to be drunk.

Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love (Prov 5:18-19).

It is impossible to read that with anything less than a clear understanding that husbands are to fully and completely enjoy their wives. We read in Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth that sex is, in fact, a right in marriage (1 Cor 7:3-4). (Some translations refer to "conjugal rights", but even the King James speaks of "due benevolence", where "due" is a key word.) Biblically, then, sex between a married man and his wife are for both mutual pleasure and giving what is due -- duty.

The other obvious intent by God for the sexual relationship is reproduction. In today's world this is sorely misrepresented and ignored. On the other hand, read about Onan (Gen 38:4-10). Onan's brother was killed by God for his evil. Judah, Onan's father, instructed Onan to "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Onan went in and took the pleasure of sex, but refused the responsibility of reproduction. The Bible concludes, "And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and He put him to death also" (Gen 38:10). Now, I don't think it is defensible to suggest that every sexual encounter in a marriage should be aimed at reproduction, but clearly a primary purpose for sex in marriage is reproduction and refusing to recognize and honor this particular God-given purpose is "wicked in the sight of the Lord".

We're not done, though. The Bible doesn't leave us with just that. Paul, in warning against various sins among the Corinthians, comes to this line of thinking.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."(1 Cor 6:15-16)

This puts a new spin on sex from God's perspective. Apparently there is more than mere friction going on. The original, God-given description of marriage included "they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). The language here appears to be referring to something much more than mere metaphorical union. It's not that they're "one in mind" or "a family unit", but more. Our bodies (in the Corinthian text) can be made "members of a prostitute". Indeed, Paul describes sex with a prostitute as becoming "one body with her". And it isn't, apparently, a temporary union. So he warns with all seriousness, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body" (1 Cor 6:18). Biblically, then, sex is more than pleasure or even duty. It is a real union of bodies.

Paul doesn't end with that. He incorporates it into the intended image.

He who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17).

Now we're talking some serious imagery. Elsewhere we learn that the marriage union is a God-given display of the union of Christ with the Church (Eph 5:25-32). Here we see that the union within marriage (sex) is a God-given image of the union of Christ to each of us. Both images are mysterious. Both are serious. Both are spiritual and both are very real.

In summary, then, we see from Scripture that sex is God's plan for married couples. He intends it for mutual pleasure, to be sure, but not merely that. Sex is for reproduction and we ignore this at our own risk. It is also intended as an actual union of two people (which, when you think about it, gets really complicated with multiple partners). It is intended as a very real representation of the union between Christ and each of us. As such, it is, again, an actual union, not mere metaphor. Neither between two humans or between Christ and His own is it ever temporary. This is why we are commanded to "let the marriage bed be undefiled" (Heb 13:4). It isn't some prudish Victorian morality. It is the Maker warning us that misuse of this gift will result in serious harm to humans. As it turns out, sex does have a theological content and does (when intended to) give glory to God. "So glorify God in your body" (1 Cor 6:20).

Eager to Go Home

Some time ago I was having a conversation with a couple of Christian coworkers. We were discussing our eagerness to leave this world and join our Savior. Another coworker was walking by just when I was telling my friends how badly I wanted to go home.

"What's the matter?" she asked, stopping in her tracks. "Do you hate this life so much?"

So I tried to explain. "You live in a nice house with a good husband and a decent life, don't you?"

Indeed, she lived in a rather nice house in a rather nice city by the beach.

"Well, imagine one day a fellow comes to your door. You answer and he tells you, 'I have good news for you. You are the winners of a random contest recently held. Your name was drawn out of a hat. Let me tell you what you've won. We will be giving you the house of your dreams. You choose the location, the lot, the design, everything. We will build the house for you and then we will furnish it with whatever you wish to include. This prize includes servants to run the house at no expense to you. It also includes new cars for both you and your husband. You choose the cars. We will maintain the house and the staff and pay for the house, the upkeep, and whatever else is needed for the house.'"

"So," I concluded, "would you take it?"

"Oh, yes!" she answered excitedly. "That sounds wonderful!"

"What's the matter?" I answered. "Do you hate this life so much?"

In truth, any believer who grasps the truth of this life and the next is eager to go home. Some are confused. It's not because we're tired of living here. For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil 1:21). Living here is good. Living here is a blessing. I'm very grateful for this life and all its gifts from God. It's just that there -- to be with Christ, to cease to sin, to dwell in His presence, to finally and fully see Him as He is -- is so wonderful that this really good life we live here pales in comparison. Do I hate my life so much? Not at all. "But purer, and higher, and greater will be our wonder, our transport, when Jesus we see."

The Gospel in a Paragraph

Try to find out what the Gospel is and you'll get a lot of different answers. There is the social gospel and there is the street-corner gospel and there is the "Romans Way" and so on. Some agree, but trying to actually pin down the essential pieces can be tough. So I thought I'd do it from a single paragraph in Scripture. For your consideration, then, here is the Gospel in one paragraph:

¹⁹ Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; ²⁰ because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. ²¹ But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; ²⁵ whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; ²⁶ for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom 3:19-26).

There. So let's see what we can find in there.

First, the initial problem. All are accountable to God. All have sinned. This is not a small problem. The violation isn't "bad things", but an assault on the glory of God. As a result, all have sinned and are accountable to God for attacking His glory. Bad news. Oh, and, I hate to break it to you, but no amount of "being good" -- obeying the Law -- is going to help. No one makes it that way either.

Now the good news. God has figured out a way to demonstrate His own righteousness and satisfy His own demands for justice while securing a solution to our sin problem. It isn't a method of earning it. (Didn't we just see that that won't work?) It is a matter of grace -- unmerited favor. Nor is it a matter of simply dropping the charges. That would violate justice. No, this plan of God's includes paying the price (referred to here as "redemption") and setting aside the righteous wrath of God (referred to here as "propitiation") by the death of Christ Jesus. His blood paid on your behalf for your sins, allowing God to be both just and justifier. Thus, by faith, we can be judicially declared righteous on the basis of Christ's payment for our sin.

Believe that -- place your trust in that -- and you have received the Gospel.

Losing My Religion - Final Questions

I've offered a series of Scriptures that argue both that we must persevere and that God insures that He keeps His own. And I've offered a way to put them together. Because, you see, if you go with either the "Conditional Security" or the "Unconditional Security" views, you wind up slightly askew. Either you work out your salvation and have something to boast about or you don't and have dead faith. So, what about those who fall away? I mean, we all know there are those who do. How do you explain that?

The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3-23) describes several types of soil. There is, of course, the hard soil that never gets the Word and there is the good soil that bears fruit, but between these two there are two others. One is the "rocky soil" that "receives it with joy" when he hears the Word, but affliction kills it. And there is the "thorny soil" that hears the Word, but it is choked out by the world. The key thing in both cases is that they appear to make a start. They appear to "come in faith", to "receive Christ". And in both cases they fail. They "fall away". If God insures that He loses none, how do we explain this?

According to the Bible, those who "fall away" were never "of us".

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us (1 John 2:19).

No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him (1 John 3:6).

Notice that it isn't unclear. "If they had been of us, they would have remained with us." This is agreement that those who are in Christ will remain in Christ. So what about these who left? "They went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Pretty clear. John says that the one who is perfectly happy remaining in sin has never seen Him or known Him. This isn't vague.

Look at this one from Hebrews:

But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end (Heb 3:13).

Yeah, I know. Verb tense again. We have this phrase, "have become partakers of Christ", which is in the present perfect tense. Present perfect shows actions that were finished recently or ones that were completed at an indefinite time in the past. It's done. You are "partakers of Christ". End of discussion. But wait! There is an "if" clause: "if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." Now that's interesting. That's future tense. It's something we don't know about now. But what we can say with certainty (because we assume the Bible is true) is that if you will not hold fast until the end, you are not now a partaker of Christ. See how that works?

So what are we to do? "Be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10). "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor 13:5). How? Well, there is the internal evidence. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor 12:3). No one willingly, joyfully submits to Christ as Lord unless the Holy Spirit does it. And there is the external evidence of works (2 Peter 1:5-9). Making sure you are in Christ is a good idea. Assuming you are without evidence is not wise. Ultimately, we trust to a Sovereign God, and I can think of no safer place to rest.

Losing My Religion - Putting it all Together

The Bible is full of commands that we need to persevere, to hold fast, to stand firm, to obey. God's Word contains many warnings that we need to remain faithful to the end. There is no doubt. On the other hand, Scripture is equally filled with assurances that we can know that we have eternal life, that we are saved by faith apart from works, that those who are once in Christ are kept in Christ.

The Bible seems to be bipolar on the subject. "Yes, yes, absolutely you need to persevere to the end! No, no, you're not saved by works! You are justified by faith ... apart from works! Of course, faith without works is dead. But Christ will surely lose none; He will certainly save those who come to Him." How do we put these together? We need to persevere ... but we will surely be saved.

It's interesting in examining the texts on the subject that you will find a perspective shift. There are two points of view being offered in these passages. One is Man's and the other is God's. The verses that call on us to persevere call on us to persevere. It's what we do. The passages that assure us that salvation is sure are all from God's point of view. It's what He does. Two different angles.

As it turns out, that's how it actually works, at least according to Scripture.

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but He who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him (1 John 5:18).

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:6).

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

Do you see what's going on here? These are putting both views together. Believers must persevere -- and they will. God does it. God insures it. God accomplishes it. How does that look in the Christian's life? It looks like perseverance. It looks like good works and obedience. It looks like

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).

It's all there. Work out your salvation. Work it out with fear and trembling. This is a serious and solemn warning. Work! How? Well, it is God who is at work in you. And what is He doing? He is giving you two things: the will and the power. "Willing and able." The two necessities to do what God wants. He provides it. You see, then, that we work and He provides the ability to do so. In the end, then, we work but He gets the glory. We work but we have no room for boasting. We work but it's not us, but Christ living in us.

Look, I don't know about you. I know me. I am horrible at being constantly godly. When things go badly, it's easy to doubt. When things go well, it's easy to forget. It is my tendency to slip off either side. If I were trusting in my own faithfulness and my own will and my own determination to keep my salvation, I think I could say with relative certainty that at some point I'd lose it. Thanks be to God that I'm not the one in charge. You see, this is why I am so pleased with my Sovereign God. Yes, I need to persevere. Yes, I need to obey. Yes, I need to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. But it is of the greatest comfort to me that it is God who is at work in me to will and to do His good pleasure. He is able to keep me from stumbling. He will not allow me to ultimately and fatally fall. Instead, He will keep me growing, improving, more and more willing and able to do that which pleases Him. So, you can hang onto your "Conditional Security" and work on it yourself. Or you can place your confidence on a faith without works -- the version that James calls "dead" faith. I'm going to go with this middle version ... you know, the one I find in the pages of Scripture.