Strange Fire?

I've been listening to the uproar that has been John MacArthur's Strange Fire conference. You may have heard about it. MacArthur is releasing (has released) a new book, Strange Fire, a kind of sequel to his 1993 Charismatic Chaos, where he warns about problems in the Charismatic movement. The argument actually goes much further. The question at hand is not specifically "Pentecostalism or not", but "continuationism" or "cessationism".

If you haven't heard these terms, you ought to be aware of them. Here's the question. The gifts of the Holy Spirit seen in the New Testament included such things as healing, tongues, and prophecy. Were these gifts intended to continue ("continuationism"), or were these gifts only for a season and have now ceased ("cessationism")? Now, to be absolutely clear, it needs to be pointed out that no one (at least that I'm aware of) is arguing that there are no more gifts of the Holy Spirit. Please set down that mistaken impression at the start. The cessationists are not saying there are no more gifts, but that there are no more of the miraculous gifts, the "sign gifts". They are not saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't baptize, fill, indwell, or work anymore today. They're saying that gifts like tongues, healing, and prophecy were intended to substantiate the claims of the original Apostles and are no longer necessary since Scripture is now sufficient for that task. When you choose to disagree with them, disagree with what they are claiming, not what they aren't.

Most people answer this question primarily from their experience and background. "Well," they (we) will say, "I have never been in a tongues-speaking, prophesying, miraculous-healing church and, to be honest, I was always taught it wasn't real (or I've always been skeptical), so I'd say that they've ceased." Or they (we) will say, "I've been a part of these kinds of things and seen them so I know they are real." Both sides can mount an experiential defense: "I've seen it" or "Never happened." Both sides can throw out big names of big supporters. The Strange Fire conference boasted such speakers as R.C. Sproul, Steve Lawson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Phil Johnson, and John MacArthur just to name a few. Named within the conference were folks on the other side like Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem (author of such books as The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today and Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?) and John Piper. Both sides, then, can "bring out the big guns." What is rarely offered is any genuine biblical support ... for either side.

By "genuine" I mean that which is clear and straightforward. For instance, one of the most common passages offered is "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away" (1 Cor 13:9-10). Now, I dare you. Guess which side you think throws that one on the table as a prooftext. Don't worry. Whichever answer you offered, you would be right. Because, you see, the continuationists say, "See? The perfect hasn't come, so we still prophesy" and the cessationists say, "See? Since Scripture is the perfect revelation of God then the partial is done away with." And that one is the clearest biblical argument. Everything else after that gets a bit hazy. The pentecostal/charismatic side will give examples like Acts 2 where the disciples received the Spirit after they were saved and that they spoke in tongues and carry that out to mean that everyone should. The cessationists will point to Eph 2:20 where Paul explains that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" and then conclude, "You don't lay a foundation more than once in a building." Okay, fine. These are biblical arguments, but they aren't compelling because none of them say, "The miraculous gifts have ceased" or "All these gifts will continue until we get to heaven." And "But I've spoken in tongues" or "The miraculous gifts of the Spirit vanish after the canon of Scripture is set" are all well and good, but not complete.

"Look," you may want to tell me, "just let it go, okay?" Some may suggest I be more like Gamaliel in Acts. Of the Christians he said, "Keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-39). After all, the single fastest growing religious group in the world is not Islam; it is Pentecostalism. But I still have to ask myself what is the truth here. And I am commanded "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). So, I can't just let it go.

I am troubled by the clear and obvious excesses and abuses of some on the side of the pentecostal/charismatics. Even those within the movement admit that such things can and do occur. I am concerned about the apparent decline in the abilities of the Holy Spirit in His gifting as well. You know, when He gave the gift of tongues at Pentecost, they spoke in languages that could be understood (Acts 2:1-8) and when Paul required that "only two or at most three" speak in tongues and only if there was an interpreter there (1 Cor 14:27-28), it appeared as if the Spirit was providing a useful sign. Now it's "heavenly languages" that no one can understand. When the New Testament disciples healed, it was full and complete, never partial or unsuccessful. Now it's "iffy" at best. When biblical prophets, Old and New Testament, spoke, it was without error. Now it's more of a divine suggestion that could be (maybe likely is?) wrong. What happened to the Gifter? I am troubled by the silence of the lambs, so to speak. I'm troubled that those who defend pentecostal/charismatic views, which is fine if that is your understanding of Scripture, do not speak out against the obvious error within their camp. When a prophet is wrong a large part of the time, why is no one saying, "You know, that goes against Scripture"? When a pentecostal/charismatic leader exhibits immoral behavior, why is no one saying, "You know, that goes against Scripture"? Why the serious silence? And, to be completely fair, I am troubled by the lack of any clear Scripture that tells me that the Holy Spirit ceased giving these gifts. I see the abuses and decry them. I see the errors and evict them. I admit a complete absence of any experience that would support the continuation of these gifts. But all of this is an argument from silence, and that troubles me as well.

Maybe you can see, once again, that I'm on uncertain ground here. I've examined the question and come away lacking. Lacking definite proof. Lacking sure Scripture. Lacking foundational support. I think the questions need to be asked. I think the errors need to be addressed. But, unwilling to base my final conclusion on experience or "the past", I appear to be stuck in the middle here. This is just one of those areas that I can't completely and totally end up "here" or "there" yet because, unlike so many things in Scripture, I just can't see this one clearly. I guess that makes me human, eh?

Contrasts

There are certain things in life that only exist in contrast. That is, without one end of the spectrum, the other end isn't detectable. An obvious example would be darkness and light. Without one, you could not know the other. Shadow only exists where there is light to be blocked. But that's kind of esoteric. What are some other examples?

One of the better examples is bravery. You see, most people think of bravery as the absence of fear. It is not. If there is no fear, bravery cannot exist. If I am not afraid of tigers, then it is not brave of me to face one. (Stupid, perhaps, but not brave.) Bravery only exists when there is genuine fear. Bravery, then, is that quality that allows someone to do something that is frightening. Bravery does not exist without fear.

Very popular today is the concept of tolerance. Ask anyone, even a few dictionaries, and you'll find that it means "acceptance". Tolerance is embracing the beliefs or practices of others. This, of course, is nonsensical. You see, tolerance cannot exist in agreement. In order for tolerance to exist, there must first be a disagreement and it must be a disagreement that cannot be resolved. If you agree with another's view, it is not tolerance; it is agreement. The only place tolerance can exist is where there is a difference. Tolerance, then, permits the difference to continue, but doesn't accept or embrace it ... or it is no longer tolerance, but agreement. If you embrace it, there is no longer a disagreement and no need to tolerate.

How about mercy? If mercy is the withholding of a consequence that justice demands -- clemency -- then we can clearly understand that justice must exist. Without justice, there is no mercy. (Interestingly, justice can exist without mercy.)

In a similar vein, bad cannot exist without the contrasting good. If we do not have a standard by which we measure "good", we cannot say that anything is "bad". This is true whether we are speaking of good pizza or good behavior. "Good" and "bad" are comparative terms that require a standard to meet and a measure of whether or not it was met. No good, no bad.

And so it goes. A lot of people would like to eliminate contrasts. "Why can't there be an absence of evil? Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we eliminate fear?" Well, without evil, how would you know good? Without justice toward evil, how would you know mercy? Without differences, how would you know tolerance? With nothing to be afraid of, you could not know the marvel of courage. It is, in fact, this contrast that the Bible says was the reason that God allowed sin. Paul says that God's will was to demonstrate His wrath and power, an impossibility if there is no sin. Further, God's will was to demonstrate mercy, another impossibility without sin. Grace, mercy, justice, wrath, even love all become meaningless without their counterparts and all are essential elements of the nature of God. Evil? Bad. But not all bad. Without it we wouldn't understand that one who is forgiven much loves much. And that's a good thing to know.

Double Standards

In August the governor of California signed into law a new amendment to the education code that is designed to protect "pupil rights". These rights include the right to use whatever bathroom the student feels is their gender regardless of school records (specifically) (so, essentially, if it was to change from moment to moment, the school would have no recourse) and the absolute right of any pupil to play on any sports team that he or she or it or they or xnash (I don't know ... I'm making up genders like they are) wish. There you go! Their rights are safe. Of course, it made me wonder if any males have sought to play on female teams and, if so, if they could. As it turns out, with very rare exceptions, it isn't happening. While it is certainly evil to prevent any female from playing on any boys' sports teams, it is obviously wrong for any guy to play on any girls' teams. It's just not right. It eliminates opportunities for girls. Boys tend to be better, stronger, larger than girls in these things. It's not fair!

I am not, in this instance, launching a complaint about California or even whether or not guys should play on girls' teams (or vice versa). I'm not even looking at the evils of gender absolution. "Gender? What gender?" What is of interest to me is the problem of the double standard. And it seems to crop up everywhere.

I know a single father who routinely had women over and even live for awhile with him. His daughter is now of age and she is having guys over and even letting them live with them for awhile. He is outraged. How evil! How bad! How ... do you look at yourself straight-faced and say such things? Why was it good and fine for you, but not for her? On what grounds do you say so? That is a double standard.

I know a Christian ethicist who stood up in public (he was asked to do an interview on a television show) and said that in his opinion marriage had a definition, that the definition included only a man and a woman, and that trying to move it to include whatever gender you wished was neither rational nor wise. He has subsequently received death threats for making such outlandish, hateful statements. But tell me this. How is it hateful to say what he said but not hateful to threaten him with death for saying it? That is a double standard.

Christians these days are frequently castigated for holding that this behavior or that perspective is wrong. "You're being intolerant," they tell us, or, more likely, "hateful, judgmental, narrow-minded." That is, "Our viewpoint is right and yours is wrong and you need to change yours because claiming that your viewpoint is right and ours is wrong is intolerant, hateful, judgmental, and narrow-minded." That is a double standard.

Opponents of Christ are not alone in their double standards. Some Christians are quick to pull out the "You homosexuals are sinning" or "the evils of abortion" guns, loaded with Bible bullets, because "It's in the Word." And, to be honest, it is. But so is the command to eliminate "filthiness", "foolish talk", and "crude joking" (Eph 5:4). Slander and gossip are forbidden (2 Cor 12:20). The Bible is clear that those whose "god is their belly" and who have their "minds set on earthly things" (Phil 3:18-19) are enemies of Christ. Perhaps, before we point the fingers at others for their double standard, we ought to be careful of our own.

Double standards exist. Sinners are really good at them. "What you're doing is wrong, but if I do it it's okay." We just have to remember that we're all sinners. That should give each of us pause.

A Bridge Too Far

In 1944 the Allies launched Operation Market Garden, the largest airborne operation in history, to attempt to recover a large portion of Holland from the Nazis. They attempted to seize eight bridges and hold them. The famed Battle of Arnhem was made into a movie in 1977 -- A Bridge Too Far. The assault force, overextended and exhausted, finally retreated in desperation because they had attempted one too many bridges. They had gone "a bridge too far" and it resulted in defeat.

Vision Forum Ministries is an organization dedicated to their understanding of a biblical approach to family and church. They contend for biblical patriarchy, homeschooling, creationism, family-integrated churches, and "Quiverfull"¹. They made the news recently when their president resigned because of an inappropriate relationship with a woman not his wife². (Please note: The media is obviously painting this as an "affair", complete with the sexual baggage of such a relationship. Neither Douglas Phillips, the resigning president, nor his wife nor Vision Forum Ministries are claiming anything more than a relationship that was "inappropriately romantic and affectionate" without a sexual component. This is one more opportunity to see the anti-Christian media at work.) Most of what the organization advocates is simple, biblical truth. The only point at which questions arise (or, rather, should arise) is when you get into the family-oriented issues.

In their "Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family" they have a lot of good stuff. Scripture is sufficient. God created Church and family. Satan is a deceiver. That kind of stuff. A lot of it really is beyond controversy.

They pick up other points that would be currently controversial. They affirm that the leadership of the Church is biblically "a plurality of biblically qualified elders" and reject "the two unbiblical extremes of our day: authoritarian, one-man leadership/one-man ministry that impedes the biblical functioning of the body, and leaderless house churches that disregard the biblical necessity of elders." Now, frankly, I know of a lot of churches and church people that might find one or the other of these two rejections -- either the "one-man leadership" or the "leaderless house church" -- objectionable. Many view the one-man leadership version as not merely beyond question, but as the norm. "That's what everyone does, isn't it? I mean, isn't that in the Bible?" And the fact is that it is not in the Bible. You will note, for instance, that while Peter played a prominent role in the first church in Jerusalem, he is never identified as the sole leader. He is often a mouthpiece, but the leadership was listed as either "the Apostles" or, as a minimum, "Peter, James, and John." Nor are any of Paul's epistles to particular churches ever addressed to the pastors of those churches. Biblical church leadership was always a plurality. Which puts a roadblock in the way of both the one-man leadership concept and the leaderless house church concept.

Vision Forum Ministries makes more claims that might give us pause. They claim "The Church is a family of families." Well, yes, and I would have to agree that "the current trend to value numbers and size more than intimacy and vitality" is a problem, but I'm not sure I can find any biblical references that would argue that churches are a family of families. They may be, but demonstrating it biblically is currently beyond my ability. And their biblical reference intended to say the same is 1 Tim. 3:15 which reads, "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." That's all well and good, but nothing in that text argues for the claim that "the church is a family of families". So while it may be true in practice, I'm not at all sure that we can call it a biblical principle.

In their Article VII which takes the position that the family is the primary building block of the Church (remembering that I couldn't find the biblical principle that held that the Church was a family of families), their biblical support is meager. This time it comes from 2 Tim. 4:19 which states, "Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus." I'm sorry. That is no claim to family as the primary building block. So here's where my first actual problem occurs. Based on this affirmation, they reject "the church's implementation of modern individualism by fragmenting the family through age-graded, peer-oriented, and special-interest classes, thus preventing rather than promoting family unity and inter-generational relationships." Did you catch that? Here's the claim. If your church includes programs that are geared to certain ages or seeks to unite certain peer groups or offers things of interest to particular individuals, it is promoting a disintegration of the family and is in violation of biblical principles. And now, you see, I think they've overstepped.

I have a real kinship with these views. I believe it is biblical to say that the first component of human society is the family. I think it is biblically undeniable that God designed the family with the husband as head of the wife and the father as head of the household -- patriarchy. I believe, further, that the Bible clearly states that God did this as an image of the God-ordained patriarchal hierarchy of life (see, for instance, 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:22-33 with special emphasis on Eph 5:32). God as "Father" is not a mistake or fluke of culture. It is His design. I think that Satan has attacked the family by first attacking fathers. He has attacked the family by twisting good ideas (such as Sunday School) into bad ones (where families are indeed disintegrated on Sundays). He has attacked the family by twisting society's views so that children are now at the top of the food chain and wives and mothers are second with fathers and husbands at the bottom. He has attacked the family by blinding too many churches to this problem so that they never speak out about it or repent of it. He has attacked the family in these last days by redefining marriage, gender, and leadership. I believe these are all attacks of Satan on God's principles and God's people. These are all things that Vision Forum Ministries is concerned about, and so am I. I only ask that we be careful about calling something a sin, a violation of biblical principles, when we can't actually find a command that tells us to do or not do the thing in question or the biblical principle that defines it. I would think that this is a bridge too far.

Postscript: A very good article was written on "One Vital Lesson from Doug Phillips’ Resignation. I offer it as suggested reading.
_________
¹ Quiverfull is a movement among some that holds that children are a blessing and, as such, lots of children are lots of blessing. They avoid all forms of birth control and advocate large families. The "Quiverfull" term comes from Psalm 127:3–5. That is, it's not entirely unbiblical.

² Very important. The failure of Doug Phillips in this area is not an invalidation of any of the principles he or the organization hold. To make such an argument is the classic ad hominem fallacy. You need to evaluate each position for its truth or lack thereof and not judge it based on the success or failure of the one advocating it. Biblical patriarchy, for instance, is not predicated on Doug Phillips' ability to do it properly. Be careful not to make that illogical leap.

Sanctify Me

Elvis sang "Satisfy me." I have a different request: "Sanctify me." Of course, my request isn't merely different in words; it is different in certainty. It is a prayer that I know to be God's will, so it is a prayer I know will be answered.

I am not the first to pray such a prayer, nor will I be the last. The first request for the benefit of Christians came from Christ Himself. In His glorious High Priestly Prayer He asked God on behalf of His disciples, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). Such a simple prayer on the face of it, but it carries tremendous import.

Paul argued with the Galatians, "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-3). We are -- all believers -- in the process of "being perfected" -- sanctified. We were set apart from new birth ("sanctified") and we are being transformed ("sanctified") into the image of Christ. And we are not doing it "by the flesh". How, then? Paul says it is by the Spirit. And Jesus says it is "in the truth". What truth? God's word.

Putting it together, then, here's the plan. Jesus prayed that the Father would sanctify His disciples. How? We are to be set apart and progressively made holy by the work of the Holy Spirit through the infusing of the truth that is found in God's word. Well, now, that seems fairly clear and even comprehensive. And, if it is indeed true, I would suspect that the word of God should be rather important in the life of the believer. We have lots of inputs about how to improve. There are programs and "moves of the Spirit" and obedience paths and self-help procedures. Jesus prayed that we would be sanctified by the truth that is God's word. Something to think about.

In the News

A Phoenix man went on a rampage killing two dogs and an entire family of four who lived next door before killing himself with a shotgun. Authorities suspect he had endured his neighbors' barking dogs for too long. He had complained to his neighbors and posted flyers about pet ordinances and let everyone know he hated dogs. And then he murdered them all and killed himself.

A 16-year-old Gilbert High School student allegedly beat his mother to death with a frying pan and a hammer after she grounded him and confiscated his phone. He put her body in the shed and waited to kill his step-father when he came home, but the man escaped and called the police. He was a good boy, by all accounts. He was a junior ROTC cadet, a "standup guy", a "giant teddy". "You would never suspect that from him; he was very nice." He and a 17-year-old who stood watch are both in jail.

Four boys, ages 8 to 12, were arrested on Sunday and put in juvenile jail. They and two others were caught by a security camera at a playground in a trailer park with a kitten. They kicked, tormented, hit with a soccer ball, slammed to the ground, then tossed the kitten into the pool.

Just a sample from the local news. Now, which story do you think is getting the most outrage? Well, perusing the comments for these stories, here's the kinds of things you'll find. On the first: "I love dogs, but I feel sympathy for that guy." "Some people just can't cope." "It must have been mental issues." On the mother killed by her son: "Probably on drugs." "He was a teddy bear; I never would have guessed." "Sad to hear about." And then the kitten story: "All of them ... should be charged as an adult and sent to prison, never to see freedom ever again!" "Let's do onto them what was done to the kitten." "Heinous inhuman garbage. What monsters. Shame on them and their parents for allowing them to become so cruel. Prosecute them as adults and send them to state prison...they will get a deserved taste of their own medicine. Disgusting children. Utterly revolting." "Tie them together, stick 'em in a hole, douse 'em with gas, throw in a match."

Were you surprised? I doubt it. But did you agree? Hmmm ... something to consider.

Did you hear about this one? In Delaware a 19-year-old woman admitted to cutting the ears off a pit bull puppy. She claimed she did the first one by accident, panicked, and cut off the other. She lied and said she found it that way, but then confessed. The SPCA removed 10 animals from her apartment. She faces animal cruelty charges.

The comments? "Now let's cut her ears off." "People in this country used to be tarred-and-feathered, stuck in a pillory, etc. I don't think a majority of society would consider returning her some favor would be cruel or inhumane, given what she did. " "Put her into a cage of multiple hungry, vicious Pit Bulls!" "I'd like to see her maimed with a dull rusty pair of scissors."

I'm picking up a trend. People ought not kill each other. People who kill someone for an understandable reason aren't all bad. People that do so for poor reasons (or none at all) are pretty bad (but almost always "such a good guy"). But harm an animal and you are a useless waste of human skin who deserves nothing better than to be executed with extreme prejudice.

Now, I get it. I mean, animals are innocent and defenseless (at least for the most part). I am sickened by the cold-heartedness that people demonstrate toward innocent victims, including animals, who they torture and kill without reason. But I am more upset by the murder of innocent children that is vigorously defended by the "Let's torture these people to death for killing the poor little animal" types. I don't know when we decided that animals were of equal (or, apparently, higher) value to humans. And I suspect that our radical devaluing of human life is not remotely compensated for by our "warm hearts" toward those in the animal kingdom. I suspect that we have a serious values problem that won't be fixed by torturing those who harm animals. This problem is one that Christ will have to address -- that of a sick heart.

The Baptism of the Spirit

I recently finished reading David Wilkerson's book, The Cross and the Switchblade. If you're not familiar with it, it's the story of an Assemblies of God pastor in a rural Pennsylvania town who is led by God to minister to New York City gangs and found Teen Challenge. It's an interesting and uplifting story about the power of God in the lives of the worst case people -- drug addicts, gang members, killers, prostitutes, and such -- and about the power of God in directing and providing for His own ministries. It tells of changed lives and changed hearts both among the target group of kids as well as the people involved in the ministry. In the final two chapters of the book, Wilkerson examines the secret of the success of the ministry. Oh, sure, it was all the power of God, but Wilkerson hones in on one particular component. It is, he tells us, the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This baptism of the Holy Spirit is a "Charismatic" thing. By that I mean that, while all of Christianity believes in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, only the Pentecostal/Charismatic wing holds to some special event, subsequent to salvation -- some "second blessing", a special dispensation of power by the Holy Spirit. Non-charismatics believe that all Christians receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion; charismatics see it as something different. Non-charismatics believe in multiple "fillings", special times when the Spirit comes in fresh power for particular events or purposes, but that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" itself occurs only once and is only needed once; charismatics believe that it may never happen to a true believer and should be sought diligently. Non-charismatics believe that this baptism occurs at salvation and may go unnoticed; charismatics believe that some sort of baptism of the Spirit occurs at the point of salvation, but not this particular type. This particular type is always noticed primarily because it is always accompanied with the sign of tongues. And in Wilkerson's mind, this special event was the secret ingredient that produced genuine change in the lives of the drug addicts who came to Christ and kicked the habit.

I am a non-charismatic. The only tongues I've ever spoken in are English, a smattering of Spanish, and a few other words in foreign languages. (For instance, I know karate, jiu jitsu, judo, and several other Japanese words.) I've never had this "second blessing", this special endowment of power of the Holy Spirit accompanied with speaking in tongues. It's not like I'm opposed to it. By no means. If God has some additional blessing, some super power, some special indwelling to offer, then there is nothing I'd like more. And it's not like I haven't tried. I've sought out folks who offered to acquire this for me (certainly not their choice of phraseology), but without success. I followed all the instructions, prayed all the prayers, believed with all my faith, had the laying on of hands ... did all the right things. No joy. I can conclude one of two possibilities. Either God doesn't like me as much as He does others, or there's something fundamentally wrong with the basic concept.

Romans 8 is the pinnacle of the Epistle to Rome. It is the "Holy Spirit chapter". It begins with "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2). Hallelujah! I'm freed from sin because of the work of the Spirit! Paul goes on to say some amazing things in this chapter about the Spirit.

To set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6).

The Spirit is life because of righteousness (Rom 8:10).

If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you (Rom 8:11).

And one of my favorites:

The Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And He who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God (Rom 8:26-27).

Get it? You and I, weak members of a corrupted creation, don't even know how to pray. So the Spirit actually prays on our behalf! He prays in ways we don't grasp. (Note: Some would like to call this their "prayer language". That doesn't fit the text. It is the Spirit doing the interceding, not us.) Not only does He intercede for us, but He does so perfectly because He knows the will of God. So, what's the secret? What does He pray on our behalf? We're not left to guess.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, 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).

There it is. The aim of the Holy Spirit interceding on our behalf in accordance with the will of God is to see to it that all things work together for good so that (the good that all things work together toward) we will be "conformed to the image of His Son." Now that is some good.

David Wilkerson believed that the secret to beating the deep problems in a person's life was a separate and distinct empowerment of the Holy Spirit accompanied by the sign of tongues. To be quite honest, I think that's ... cool. I mean, who wouldn't want that? But if I am completely honest, in the final analysis I don't care. Is there some special "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that I've never received? Well, bring it on. I'd like to have it. More of Christ is always a good thing. But far beyond the ability to handle the mundane, what I really desire of God is to be conformed to the image of His Son. By any means, dear Lord. At any cost.

Halloween?

Welcome to All Hallows' Eve. Tomorrow, on some church calendars, is All Saints' Day. This is the eve of that event.

Halloween has been a dispute among Christians for some time. "It's harmless fun." "It's Satan's night!" The distances can be great. But where did it come from?

Halloween's origins are in an ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain (pronounced "SAH-win"). It was their time to celebrate the harvest and prepare for winter. They believed that on this particular night there was an overlap of the physical world and the spiritual world. So they would try to perform certain ceremonies and practices to keep the spirit world from interfering with their crops or their health or ... you get the idea. They had bonfires to attract insects to attract bats to eat the insects. They wore masks to deceive evil spirits. They put out lighted pumpkins to ward off evil spirits. In the 8th century, the church picked up on the Celtic festival and decided to "redeem it" (the "it" being the conjunction of the two worlds) with a festival of their own. "Let's use the time of remembering the dead to remember the saints who have gone before us."

So they did things that would make the Samhain ritual more conducive to Christian doctrines. Poor people would dress up in costumes and go door to door offering to pray for those in the home on the morrow (All Saints' Day) if they would give them food tonight. (Legend has it that one cook created a food to remind the beggars of eternity by creating a cake with a hole in it and now we have doughnuts with holes in them.) The Roman Catholic belief was that souls were released from Purgatory on All Saints' Day, so this was preparation for that event. They would perform dramas or pantomimes intended to remind people of mortality and the evils of the grave and the need to seek salvation.

Of course, Roman Catholicism was not the prime religious group in early America. At first such celebrations were limited. Eventually they would celebrate the harvest and share stories of those who had gone before with tales or plays or costumes. With the inrush of immigrants, of course -- especially Irish immigrants -- European traditions seeped in. "Trick or treat" wasn't really present until the mid-19th century. By the late 19th century there was a movement to make the holiday more about community and neighbors. This produced a sharp drop in the superstitious concepts of the event and offered a much more secularized version. Towns had harvest festivals. Families shared with families. While "tricks" were typically outlawed, it was considered neighborly to give out treats to kids in costume. While ancient traditions had jack o'lanterns to ward off spirits, masks to avoid being recognized by demons, and giving out of food to help the needy, the American traditions simply became a community fun time.

Today, the debates continue. "No, it's pointless fun." "No! It's Satanic evil!!" Fine. The truth is that a false religion pegged the day as a spirit transition day (which doesn't actually exist) and the ancient church took the false religion's event as a chance to do something more "Christian" with it ... much like they did with December 25th (the ancient pagan winter solstice festival). It once celebrated demons and witches and now makes fun of them. Today's "trick-or-treating" is, at once, both much safer and much more dangerous. It isn't about begging for food or hiding from demons, so that's safer. Today's society, on the other hand, has much less of a moral basis, so "trick" is a very real possibility and, as we all know, so is poisoning food, so that's not so safe. Decorations of ghosts and zombies are popular, but you do know that these aren't real, right? So I'm not going to take a stand here. Like Paul, I'm going to urge, "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Col 2:16). I will remind you that "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23), but I'll let you decide whatever you think on this topic.

Let me just say this. The day belongs to the Lord (Deut 10:14). Whatever your view on enjoying the day or not, remember that. As always, then, "whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).

If-Then

It is said by some that faith and reason are opposed. This is manifest foolishness, of course -- a failure to comprehend the nature of faith. The Bible, instead, embraces reason. For example, when the Pharisees demanded a sign from Jesus, He told them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah" (Matt 16:2-4). His point? "You guys are fully capable of reasoning through the signs when you see them, but now you're demanding a sign after all I've done? You're not getting any more." The Bible embraces reasoning along with -- or rather, as part of -- faith.

I ran across this interesting "if-then" in Colossians the other day. You know what an "if-then" is, right? "If A, then B." It is a logic statement. If the premise is correct, the conclusion must follow. Here's what Paul says:

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth (Col 3:1-2).

The first question: Is the premise correct? Are you raised with Christ? The assumption is "Yes!" So, now what? What should naturally follow? What else ought to be true? If you are raised with Christ, what should the result be? "Seek the things that are above ... Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth."

Now, you have to admit, that is not a typical mindset of your everyday Christian. We are muddling about trying to figure out how to make ends meet, how to pass better laws, how to elect better politicians, how to make a more moral world, how to defend ourselves, a host of concerns that are, perhaps, the moral high ground, but are not based primarily on "things that are above", but, rather, "on things that are on earth."

This is not to say that we shouldn't make ends meet, concern ourselves with the society in which we find ourselves, or any such thing. What does it mean?

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful (Col 3:12-15).

According to this text (connected to the former), setting our minds on things that are above looks like this. It is compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. It is bearing with each other (rather than against) and it is forgiving. Mostly, it is wearing the mantle of love. It is ruled by the peace of God and it is grateful.

Now, remember, this is all with the premise in mind: "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above." Frankly, none of this is reasonable with any other premise. We all know that you have to look out for #1, that the greatest love of all is loving yourself. In a worldview centered on earthly concerns, "compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience" and so on all make no sense. In a worldview centered on Christ -- "on things that are above" -- it makes perfect sense. Thus, a logical "if-then". If you have been raised with Christ, then seek the things that are above. Makes sense.

Raising Knights

For a long time it has seemed as if the church has been pretty good at dispensing information. By that I mean that most churches have had a pretty good system of trying to inform their people about what they believe. Churches have long had "Sunday School", a plan to teach children more about the Bible than may have otherwise been available without the system of Sunday School. Most churches have adult classes and sermons and Bible studies and all sorts of things to provide the facts of Christianity. Now, in our modern day, there is a decline in this fact-giving system, I'm afraid. More and more churches are succumbing to cultural pressure to just make people feel better and to societal pressure to work toward the least common denominator (which, I'm afraid, is likely a term too many people today haven't learned thanks to a declining educational system). So they've "dumbed down" their teaching and worked harder at making things less informative and more entertaining because, after all, if we're going to compete in this modern market of entertainment and electronics, we're going to have to be much more like them, right? So, we are. Modern education is declining, and so is the church's education.

The sad effect of this decline is, obviously, a decline in the education of Christians in all matters spiritual. Worse, there is a watering down of anything substantial for the next generation, leaving them very little substance to work with as they grow into adults. Fortunately, for any conscientious, loving parent, there is a solution. Interestingly, perhaps sadly, it is the same solution that has always been the solution. "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6). Perhaps I need to be more pointed. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). Yes, historically and biblically it is the job of the parents to teach their children and specifically the responsibility of the father to see that it is done. Always has been.

Note that the command is not merely to educate your children. Yes, that is in there. But the primary command is to "discipline" them. (No, this is not another "you need to beat your kids" post.) The word in that verse is paideia and refers not to punishment, but to training. We need to instruct them -- absolutely -- but we need to teach them how to function. And that's a horse of a different color. You see, we can tell them information pretty easily, but teaching them how to manage themselves is much more difficult. Americans are, in general, no longer taught how to think. As a result, neither are our children.

I wanted something different for my sons. In a world taught to feel, not think, I wanted to teach my sons to reason, to examine, to think things through. In a world delighted to raise jesters, I wanted to train knights. So I set out to teach my sons the information they would need to be good, responsible men and the ability to think through things when they encountered, as they surely would, things that I hadn't told them.

First, I made their education my responsibility. Yes, I sent them to school, both for general education and for spiritual education, but I didn't abandon them to school, either general or at church. I monitored, discussed, followed up, assisted, generally made myself a part of all that process. They went to public schools for part of the time (which I'm no longer convinced is a good idea in today's society), and I had to counter some of what they were taught there. They went to private schools part of the time and I had to augment some of what they were taught there. They had decent input from church groups, but I always found myself either correcting or adding to that information as well.

In my view, though, the most important process was what I came to view as "jousting". These boys were "squires" and I needed to give them information, to be sure, but I also needed to teach them how to handle themselves once they had the information and faced their environment. So, appropriate to their current age and information, I would "spar" with them in a safe and controlled atmosphere. I would take on the role of antagonist and argue against what I had taught them to be true in order to teach them the methods of thinking things through rather than simply calling on the data bits they were given. I wanted to teach them to think, not merely to know. I wanted to add a "why" to what they believed and to help them see when error occurred.

A friend of mine had a practice that well illustrated this idea. He told his boys, "You can listen to any music you want ... as long as I've heard it first and we've discussed it." This took effort on his part. They would bring home a CD a friend lent them and on more than one occasion he would throw it away simply because they didn't let him hear it first. "But, Dad," they would complain, "that wasn't mine!" "Well," he would respond, "I guess you're going to have to buy your friend a replacement, aren't you?" So they developed a system of letting him hear it before they made it their own and then discussing what they heard. Eventually his boys would tell him, "I had planned to buy this CD, but I heard the words and decided it wasn't a good idea." Because, you see, they had learned more than "Here are the rules." They had learned to think, to evaluate, to look at things from a Christian worldview beyond the simple information a church group or a classroom or even a parent could give them.

The biblical command is that parents in general and fathers in particular are to be responsible for the training and education of their children. Not schools. Not churches. Not youth groups or clubs. Parents. Fathers. We need to teach them the discipline and instruction of the Lord. We need to disciple them, to teach them to obey all that Christ commands. It is our responsibility. We can use other means, but we are the final responsibility for this process. We're raising children in a hostile world; we need to prepare them with more than mere information. We need to prepare them for life.

Agreeing to Disagree

The Bible sets a high value on the concept of unity among believers. Frankly, we should, too. Division among God's people is a costly and even dangerous thing. Recognizing this fact, many opt to "agree to disagree." You know how that goes. We won't fight about it anymore. We'll just drop this subject and remain friends. And it would seem that this might be the best option. I say "seem" because I think, in Scripture, you'll find that it's not always possible. Jesus didn't "agree to disagree" with the moneychangers in the Temple. He didn't "agree to disagree" with the Pharisees. And Paul didn't "agree to disagree" with Peter when he fell into the judaizers' trap. Indeed, much of the New Testament is written to refuse to get along with error. That is, it would appear that there are times to lay aside conflict and agree to disagree, and there are times that we cannot afford to do so at all. So, how would I determine which is which?

In Scripture there are important issues. Paul warns, for instance, about "a different gospel which is really not another" (Gal 1:6-7). While on some subjects he has happy to say, "If in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you" (Phil 3:15)¹, on the issue of the gospel he says, "If we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" (Gal 1:8) and repeats it for effect (Gal 1:9). There are, then, certain issues that are major and certain issues that are not. We need to learn to major on the majors.

There are certain doctrines, without which Christianity is no longer Christianity. They are referred to as "the essentials". These are the major issues. An unreliable Bible; no Christianity. No Trinity; no Christianity. Some different gospel than "saved by grace through faith"; no Christianity. A different Jesus; no Christianity. No Atonement, no heaven or hell, no end ("eschatology"); no Christianity. There are fundamentals without which you cannot have anything distinctly called "Christianity". These are the majors.

Some of the minors? Do we sleep when we die, or do we go immediately to be with the Lord? Does the Rapture occur before the Great Tribulation, or not? Is there a literal 1,000 year reign ("Millennium")? Does faith precede regeneration or does regeneration precede faith? Yes, that one, too. If you argue for the wrong one while arguing that we are not saved by works and we are saved by faith and Christ alone is our salvation, you can get that source question wrong and still be right. Oh, here's one of recent import: Do the gifts of the Spirit continue, or are they ended? I am quite sure that this is not an issue that determines whether or not you get to heaven. Oh, there are a lot of these kinds of differences, and they draw a lot of fire. How old is the Earth? Is it wrong to smoke? Drink? Do we need to go to church on Sundays? And, of course, which denomination is right? Minors.

The Bible is full of Christians discussing with Christians what is or isn't true. Church history is the same. I'm pretty sure that I have not arrived at the point of perfect doctrine and I'm equally confident that no one else (except Christ, of course) has either. We ought to care enough about the truth to discuss it, debate it, examine it, seek it, pursue it. I suspect that too many too often opt to "agree to disagree" when they shouldn't because the issues are too important. I suspect as well that too many too often divide over nonessentials. Check out most "biblical discernment ministry" organizations and you'll likely find hell and damnation called down on what appears to be every known preacher because of infractions perceived as heresy. (One site I found says outright that prior to their church (of 50) there has never been a true church since the beginning of the Church.)

Christians, according to Christ (you know, the "Christ" of "Christianity"), are to be marked by love for one another (John 13:35). Sometimes that love looks like correction (Gal 6:1-2). Sometimes it looks harsh (1 Cor 5:1-5). More often it looks like bearing one anothers burdens, strengthening the feeble, and praying for one another. Let's try not to take the harsh when support is better. Contend for the faith when the faith is threatened. But let's make our disagreements anchored in love. It may not solve them all, but it will certainly change the face of it.
________
¹ In Philippians, Paul speaks of some who preach the gospel with good intentions and some who preach with selfish motives (Phil 1:12-17). He concludes, "Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice" (Phil 1:18) without bothering to seek to correct bad attitudes.

Running with Endurance

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart (Heb 12:1-3).

Here is, in a nice, neat nutshell, the Christian life: "Let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." Very clear and clean. We get a "why" in there to start with. "Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses." Why? Because so many have done it before and done it well. (For the "great cloud" in mind, read through Hebrews 11, a list of folk "of whom the world was not worthy".) So, because there are so many like us before and today -- people who have run or are running in faith -- let us set aside the weight of sin and whatever else we carry and run with endurance whatever race is set before us.

What I find fascinating is the "how". Frankly, given the popularity of "how to" books and such programs as AA with their 12-step programs, I would think it might have been more complicated. It's not, really. How are we going to set aside those things that slow us down and run with endurance? We are going to do this task by fixing our eyes on Jesus. Now, how hard can that be?

The primary operation of the Christian life is setting aside that which encumbers and running with endurance, and the secret to the success of reaching that primary operation is looking at Jesus. Looking at the One who authored our faith. Looking at the One who perfects our faith. Looking at the One who set aside pride, comfort, even fair treatment in favor of greater joys in God's presence. Looking at the One who endured hostility so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. How hard can that be? Well, actually pretty hard when you realize that it runs contrary to just about every natural (sinful) inclination you have. Make Jesus your mindset and see how your views change. Now ... run like that.

Perhaps now it becomes more reasonable when Paul says, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil 3:8). And, to the extent that we do not see Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith, we do not see Christ as the example, do not see Christ as the entire point of our existence, to that extent we will find that setting aside sin and running with endurance will be very, very difficult.

How are you running? Keeping up okay? Perhaps you're not looking in the right direction. Today would be a good day to start.

Welcoming Our Media Overlords

We all share a common distaste for sheep. Oh, no, not the animal -- the concept. We do not want to be termed "sheep" because, as everyone knows, sheep are just dumb animals that follow the crowd and do whatever they are told to do and we do not want to be that. There are, of course, multiple reasons, but one of the biggest, I suppose, is that the media tells us we shouldn't.

Have you ever thought about how much our reality is determined by our media? Our modern media aims to "inform and entertain", and that's all well and good, but somewhere along the way we've decided that they are also going to be our source of reality. All we, like sheep, have gone astray. We've allowed the media to determine what is real and then live accordingly.

The thing that really highlighted this for me recently was a news story about how "testosterone will improve your love life." Yes, that's right, all this advertisement about testosterone replacement therapies finally made it to the news and they were happy to inform us that by improving your hormones you could improve your love life. Now, in what universe does that even make sense? Does no one realize that "love life" is far more complicated than "hormones"? For instance, infusing a testosterone-deficient single male with new hormones isn't going to give him new relationships. A man with ED isn't going to be better off with hormones that urge him to have more sex. A fellow who has a poor love life because he beats them up will not have a better love life because he has better hormones. This is stupid. But there it is. This hormone replacement therapy will improve your love life.

The news is our primary source of reality today. We don't really analyze it much. We don't consider the fact that the news is defined as the unusual because, after all, it's not news that "98% of those who went to work this morning arrived home safely tonight" or "Not one single child was shot today at schools around the nation". No, no, the news is predicated on those things that are not the normal. So we hear of shootings and killings and kidnappings and crisis after crisis not because they define reality, but because they are unusual. And what effect do these stories have? People are afraid to take their children to the parks because someone was abducted at one and people are arming themselves against the completely bizarre concept that someone might show up at their work and start shooting and ... well, you get the idea. The unusual events that make up the news become the definition in our minds of "normal" -- and they aren't.

In our culture, sexual norms are almost solely determined by our television sets. Start, for instance, with that "testosterone replacement" story I just mentioned. When they say "love life", what do they mean? We're not unclear. It is sex, plain and simple. But I love my mother and I love my daughter and I love my sisters and I have to tell you my love life is doing okay ... but none of it has anything to do with sex. So who told us that "love" and "sex" are synonyms? They aren't. And we know it, yet we forget it. So we allow the media to tell us that sex between any man and any woman is good, regardless of marital relationships or even genuine love. Sex between any human couple is good. Sex is frequent and those of you who aren't having frequent sex need to seek help or, at least, be ridiculed. Our media has assured us that what was once the object of shame and embarrassment is now normal. Pornography, masturbation, multiple sexual partners, even adultery are considered "normal" and even commendable. Our media, without the aid of any objective basis, has determined for our society what is moral in the bedroom (and, of course, wherever else you want to do it).

Our value system for various roles has been skewed by our media overlords. Society once thought that men were at the top of the structure with women taking second place and children -- who should be seen and not heard -- at the bottom. That, of course, is the exact opposite our media is presenting today. Children are the wisest beings on the planet -- the younger, the wiser. Women are only slightly less wise and are sometimes useful in directing the wisdom of children, but their primary role is in deflecting the dangers of the worst human entity known today -- the adult male. These are useless creatures without brains in their heads. Some can be worse than others, of course. The white male, for instance, is bad while the native-American male may actually have some good points. The American white male in general is worse simply because he is, after all, an American. And the American Christian white male is the absolute bottom of the barrel. Without redeeming value, these beings are to be shunned and ridiculed until they no longer dot our landscape. Have at them, oh wise women and children!

Like sheep, we look to our media overlords to tell us what we should like. Environmentalism is all the rage these days. Have you hugged a tree today? (I saw a news item yesterday where police were trying to find someone who cut the ears off a dog. The woman who found the dog was saying, "I just hope they let me do the same to him when I find him" because, as we all know, animals are of at least equal value to humans.) We should like iPads because they tell us we should. Their manifest impracticality and built-in shortcomings are of little concern; the media said we should want them, so we should -- and we do. I'm convinced that the biggest problem with personal electronics is that people use them. But because the media assures us we should, we are glutted with people with their heads down and backs to one another texting and playing games and surfing the web because they can -- to the point of addiction¹. This, of course, makes it all the easier to avoid being around the people we are told not to like. People with conservative views. Politicians. Lawyers. White people. Males. We are told not to like certain groups, so we don't. ("The Republicans in Congress" springs to mind.) And we are told what values to embrace. We know, for instance, thanks to our media overlords, that people with higher levels of education are the best source of wisdom. So a person with a PhD who tells you "There is no god" knows better than anyone else, right? That this is manifest nonsense is beside the point. The media has spoken; thus saith the lord. No, we must value "tolerance" which, rather than any useful meaning like "allowing differences of opinion", now means "eliminating any opinion but ours". And we must value sex. I don't know for sure why, but this is one of the fundamental values the media seems to hold. And while there are more things we ought to value, one thing we must universally hate is religion -- Christianity in particular. I suppose any religion that doesn't seek to offer a different view than the media (or might kill you if you disagree) is okay, but there is no religion on the planet more worthy of ridicule than Christianity. Thus saith the media.

"Amen, brother!" I can hear some of my fellow sheep say. "I hate the liberal media!" So we climb on board the conservative media bandwagon and allow them to determine our reality. We don't even see that the media, regardless of its bias, is biased. Nor do we recognize that, at the core, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) -- that Man is prone to suppress, not present, the truth (Rom 1:18). And we go astray with the rest of the sheep.

I, for one, do not welcome our media overlords. I want something of reality to color my view of reality. I want the truth to define what is real because, after all, truth is defined as that which correlates to reality. From that approach, I know that Christ is "the Truth" (John 14:6), a great starting place. And I know that God's Word is truth (John 17:17). And I can see that using Scripture as a basis for truth will produce huge disparity between what our media overlords tell us and what God tells us. That's okay with me. I'll go with that. It's not an easy path, but I'll go with it.
________
¹ See recent news items from the Huffington Post, The Times-Delphic and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Parenting with a Rod?

A recent study from the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics tells us "Children who get spanked as early as age 5 have demonstrably more aggressive tendencies by the time they reach 9 years old." According to the article in the Medical Daily, "The data is admittedly foggy" (beginning with the fact that the study was solely with "Fragile Families" - families with unmarried parents who are "at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty") but we can still be sure that it's bad. "There's just no evidence that spanking is good for kids,” Professor Elizabeth Gershoff, of the University of Texas at Austin.

No evidence? Interesting claim. Because another study suggests that "children who are spanked may grow up to be happier, more productive adults." Newsmax noted that "Two recent analyses – one psychological, the other legal – may debunk lenient modern parenting." Wait ... two? But didn't we just hear that there is just no evidence that spanking is good for kids? How can this be? Isn't science the god we worship? Odd.

One of those two studies came from Sweden "which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline." Complete ban! Obviously this would produce skyrocketing child abuse rates (since they defined "corporal punishment" as "child abuse") (child abuse rates exploded over 500%). But, as it turns out, this "enlightened" parenting (the phrase, complete with quotation marks, is in the article, not from me) has produced more violent preadolescents and teens. Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics, these other studies are concluding that there can be benefits to corporal punishment. Of course, the U.S. media generally skips this kind of stuff, even when it comes from American sources. Dr. Diana Baumrind of UC Berkeley examined 164 families for over a decade and found that spanking can be helpful and "no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment" was found. "She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers."

Okay, so here we are. You can go with scientism and run into the certain wall of conflicting studies. You can go with tradition and run with whatever that might be for you. Or you can go with Scripture. Oh, now, that would be a horse of a different color, wouldn't it?

Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (Prov 13:24).

Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death (Prov 19:18).

The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother (Prov 29:15).

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him (Prov 22:15).

Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol (Prov 23:13-14).

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (Heb 12:11).

The Bible seems to have a lot of input on the topic of corporal punishment. And it appears to include physical discipline -- spanking. Now, there are some who would like to argue that none of this says anything about spanking. So that whole "if you strike him with a rod, he will not die" is really hyperbole because you should never strike a child and, of course, if you never hit him or her, she will not die from it. Huh? "The problem," they assure me, "is that you're misunderstanding the words."

My problem occurs in Hebrews. Hebrews 12 (Heb 12:4ff) has a passage on discipline ... our discipline. It talks about God's discipline of His children. "The Lord disciplines the one He loves," it says (Heb 12:6). "Oh, that's okay," they tell me, "because 'discipline' simply means 'to teach'." But wait! What it says is "The Lord disciplines the one He loves and chastises every son whom He receives." Now that's a bit different. That second term is not "educates", but "scourges". Yes, with a whip. The context, in fact, begins with striving with sin "to the point of shedding your blood" (Heb 12:4). And this "chastisement" is said to be painful (Heb 12:11). Now, I have to tell you, this doesn't sound much like a "God-given timeout" to me. This passage suggests that God engages in painful means intended to teach us what we need to know. If corporal punishment is evil, then God is evil since this passage says He engages in it. And that, quite obviously, is a problem for me.

Now, I am opposed to child abuse. If child abuse is "physical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child", I'm against it. (But I would consider neglecting a child's education by means of proper discipline as child abuse.) I would consider excessive physical pain abuse. I am opposed to striking a child in anger. I'm opposed to disciplining a child (with corporal punishment or otherwise) without love. And I am absolutely sure that sinful humans of all types can and do abuse this concept. But I would be cautious to make a decision regarding the very important subject of how to raise children -- the gifts God has given me -- based on questionable science, contrary studies, and modern, cultural "wisdom". I think, despite all the loud voices to the contrary, that I'd have to side with the Bible on this one and stand for the careful and measured use of loving corporal punishment. Now, there are voices out there that are arguing against it and I'm sure you can find some that you like better that tell you the Bible does not teach any such thing, but as for me, I'm kind of stuck with it. I can't see any way out of the conclusion that God's Word argues, despite all the studies you might want to cite, that loving parents applying loving discipline will use, on occasion, physical pain carefully applied. But you can check with my kids and see if they disagree now that they're all grown up and on the other side of that principle.

Future Tense

The historical, traditional, orthodox view has always been that God is Omniscient. By that we have always meant that God knows all things -- past, present, and future. Now, today this view is a matter of disagreement. The Open Theism view argues that "omniscience" includes past and present, but not future. Future, you see, hasn't happened yet. Since it does not exist, God cannot know it. He is very wise and very intuitive and He knows all tlhe possibilities, but He cannot actually know what will occur until it does. It begs the question. "So, where do you get the idea that God knows all things including the future?"

There are, of course, general passages of Scripture that speak of His perfect knowledge. God told Job that He was "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16). And there is so much more.

I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand (Exo 3:19).

With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding (Job 12:13).

For a man's ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and He ponders all his paths (Prov 5:21).

The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Prov 15:3).

God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything (1 John 3:20).

Yeah, yeah, we're all in agreement there. He knows all past and present and He knows them perfectly. But is there a reason to say that He knows the future the same way? I think so. First, of course, is that last statement that God "knows everything". But there is more. If God is going to be 100% accurate as a prophet (the biblical standard for a prophet -- Deut 18:22) with statements like that Exodus 3 passage, then it would follow that He would have to know the future. But there is more.

Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it altogether (Psa 139:4).

Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them (Psa 139:16).

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done (Isa 46:9-10).

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jer 1:5).

That's a sampling. Then there are the passages such as Hebrews 13:8 that assure us that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" which cannot be true if He learns something new every day. The Immutability of God (1 Sam 15:29; Mal 3:6; James 1:17) is no longer true if God is constantly learning as time passes. And Ephesians 1:4 says "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world", manifest nonsense if He cannot know the future. These (and more) tell us that God's Omniscience includes a perfect knowledge of the future.

And then we run into this.

⁴ Because the people have forsaken Me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, ⁵ and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into My mind; ⁶ therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter (Jer 19:4-6).

There it is, the perfect "silver bullet" to put an end to this nonsense about "Omniscience" and all that. God Himself says that something did not come into His mind. Isn't that an explicit statement that He didn't know something that did actually happen? And isn't that, therefore, the perfect disproof of Omniscience? QED.

It is at this point that we ought to be careful. If we are going to read Jeremiah 19:5 as proof that God is not perfect in knowledge, not Omniscient, does not know the future, then we are going to have to make several adjustments.

1. Since God claims perfect knowledge for Himself and, yet, didn't have a clue that they would do sacrifices to Baal, there is a serious question regarding God's so-called perfection.

2. Since, as demonstrated above, the Bible makes multiple claims to God knowing things prior to their actually occurring, the Bible must be mistaken on those points.

3. Since the measure of a prophet is 100% accuracy and God cannot be 100% accurate since His knowledge of future events are only wise guesses and not certain, He would need to be disqualified (biblically) as a prophet. Any promises He made regarding future events are possibilities and even, perhaps, probabilities, but certainly not certainties.

4. The Bible quite clearly contradicts itself. Some Scriptures state clearly that God knows the future perfectly and others say that He definitely does not. The Bible, then, cannot be the actual Word of God, reliable, inerrant, trustworthy.

You know what? It's likely time that we switch over to a new religion at this point. This book we thought we could trust is not trustworthy and this God we thought we were serving isn't the God we thought He was and is neither reliable nor worthy of the worship we offer. Time to move on.

Or it might be possible that this one text is being misinterpreted and we would want to reexamine it in light of the many texts that state the opposite. Now that is a possibility. That is, you will either need to jettison the Bible and the God of that Bible, or you will need to make the Bible make sense. In this latter case, however, I don't have a problem. I don't see the text, the words, or the intent requiring ignorance on God's part. Notice, for instance, Green's Literal Translation and Young's Literal Translation say, "nor did it come into My heart." Now that's not the same thing. But even if you continue with "mind", you can see from the context that God is laying the accusation on Judah. "I did not command or decree," God says. "I neither made the command nor even speak of it." In the same vein, then, it would be most reasonable to understand Him to say, "Nor did I even think it was a good idea." "The idea did not come from My mind." "It never occurred to Me that you should do this." "I didn't command it; I didn't hint at it; I didn't even think it might be something you should do." That is, it wasn't God's idea. It was theirs. And they bear the culpability for it.

This is a simple choice, really. Either the Bible consistently claims that God knows all things including the future and this singular text does not disagree, or this text does disagree and all the rest of Scripture on the subject is wrong. The claims of the Omniscience of God are not few. The ramifications are not small. But what you cannot do is embrace the contradiction and go on happily. That's cognative dissonance. That's simply irrational. That's crazy. Let's not do crazy.

Turnabout May Not Be Fair Play

I've been trying to figure this out lately, and I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe you can help.

I'm a Christian. By that I mean that I am a follower of Christ. This Christ whom I follow is the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. As such, the Bible is His Word, so it is incumbent on me, as a follower of Christ -- a Christian -- to follow His Word, the Bible. Okay? Clear so far? Great!

Now, my Bible says without ambiguity that Behavior X is in violation of God's direct commands. Pick an "X". Maybe it's premarital sex. Maybe it's homosexual sex. Maybe it's murdering babies in the womb. Whatever floats your boat. There are a lot of them that are 1) in clear and direct opposition to God's Word and 2) in vogue in our world today. So, I come to a crossroads here. For whatever Behavior X you happen to wish to discuss, I am forced by my prior commitment to Christ to conclude that this behavior is sin while much of the world around me is content to embrace the behavior and even encourage it in others.

Now comes the rub. If I hold that this behavior is sin, I'm a hater, a narrow-minded bigot, intolerant and judgmental. I've got to change my views with the times. I've got to come into the 21st century, get on board with the culture. It is never possible, it seems, that those who argue that Behavior X is not a sin are haters, narrow-minded bigots, intolerant and judgmental, in need of changing to align themselves with the Word of God (the synonym for which, by the way, would be "truth"). Why is that? Why is it never that "Perhaps I need to change my view, not you, Christian"? Or even, "Well, we clearly disagree; let's move on"? No. It is always "You hateful and intolerant Christians need to change ... and we don't!"

But wait! It gets worse. You see, I'm not a big fan of "legislating morality". No, no, I am not confused. I understand that all laws are legislation of what a society is deeming moral or not. That is "legislating morality" no matter what anyone says, and it is unavoidable -- a function of the nature of laws. But I don't believe that by passing good laws we can make good people. I can't pass good laws and make people good-hearted, moral, better. No, those without Christ are, by my understanding of Scripture, sinners, opposed to God, inclined only to evil, and all that. So while I think it might be of some benefit to stem the tide of sin by passing good laws, I don't really think that good laws will ultimately make good people, and I'm in favor of changed hearts which cannot come from good laws. All this to say that, while I may favor laws that make murdering babies in the womb illegal or that protect the longstanding, historical, traditional definition of marriage, for instance, I don't put a lot of trust in them solving society's problems. So I'm not counting on laws to stop you from sinning. When I say, then, that premarital sex is a sin or homosexual behavior is a sin or that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and ought to be respected as such or that it is a sin to murder a child in the womb, I am not saying, "And I'm willing to go to court to put you in jail for it." No. I'm saying, "So, you ought not do it." And how would I recommend you avoid it? "You ought to avoid sin by meeting Jesus on a personal level and having a change of heart." Because, as I said, laws aren't going to do it.

The other side, however, doesn't see it my way. I don't mean they disagree with my position -- obviously they do. I mean they disagree with my approach. They would like to pass laws to make my view illegal. They would like to go to court to force me to change my core beliefs. Oh, sure, at first it would be, "You can have those beliefs in private, but not in public." That, of course, won't hold water for very long. So "private" becomes a shrinking realm until it is nearly nonexistent and certainly ineffective. So they would like to pass laws to outlaw my beliefs. They would like to go to my workplace and get me fired for my beliefs. They would like to go to my community and get me ostracized for my beliefs. The idea is not "You have your views and we have ours." It is "You had better come to agree with us or you will certainly pay!"

And I'm the hater, the intolerant one, the judgmental one, the narrow-minded one.

I've been trying to figure this out lately, and I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe you can help.

Explicit and Implicit

There is a basic principle of biblical interpretation that, I think, may not be so basic as I'd like to think. Here's the basic principle: Always interpret the implicit from the explicit. What does it mean? Well, in Scripture (as in any writing or communication), you will find things that could logically be implied and you will find things that are stated explicitly.

Let's try something silly by way of example. I say, "The house was unoccupied." One person could read that and conclude, "Well, a house is a place where people live, so it implies that it is occupied. Either the word 'unoccupied' is mistaken or the word 'house' is mistaken and we'll have to figure out which." Another would say, "Well, the text is explicit. It is a house. It is unoccupied. Therefore, we have a building intended to be occupied but is not." The first person in this example decided to interpret the explicit ("The house was unoccupied") by the implicit ("A house is a place where people live"). The second interpreted the implicit ("A house is intended to be occupied ...") by the explicit ("... but apparently this one isn't.").

With that concept in mind, let's look at some biblical examples. Here's an all-time favorite:

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).

What is implicit here? What does almost everyone see as implied in this verse? The phrase, "whoever believes", clearly implies that anyone can. So when someone raises the objection, "Humans lack the natural ability to choose Christ", it's a simple matter to point at this verse and say, "See? John 3:16 disagrees!" And, indeed, such a conclusion is a valid implication, but note that it is not an explicit statement. Nothing in the text says, "Anybody can." All it says is "whoever does." And why would we possibly doubt that implied conclusion? Well, because of the multiple texts regarding Man's inability.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (John 6:44).

No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65).

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

So, while John 3:16 might imply "anybody can", it doesn't actually say it (the explicit) while multiple explicit texts say that not anybody can. So you will need to decide. Will you interpret the explicit by the implicit, or will you interpret the implicit by the explicit?

Or take the topic of Free Will. I don't have to go very far to see multiple commands by God for us to obey. We are told over and over that we are supposed to choose to obey God. One of the most famous "choose" verses is found in Joshua.

"If it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Josh 24:15).

Conclusion? We have Free Will. And, indeed, while there is a minority that might argue we don't, most agree that we do indeed have the ability to make choices. But do we have a "sovereign", unlimited ability to make choices? The Bible indicates something different.

The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by Him to do his will (2 Tim 2:24-26).

"You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26).

... No one seeks for God. ... No one does good, not even one (Rom 3:11-12).

... Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5).

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

It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil 2:13).

I know that the implication of "Choose this day whom you will serve" is "anyone can", but the explicit texts indicate that humans lack the natural ability (the moral ability) to do so. A command to choose does not require an ability to choose. It implies the ability, but doesn't explicitly state it.

Or, perhaps, have you heard this one? "Love isn't true love unless it is freely given." And they will point to the command to love God with all your heart as proof. Very popular, I'm sure, but, unfortunately, not biblical. This is what the Bible says: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)" Interesting. Appears to clearly contradict the implied "True love is that which we give freely", doesn't it?

It is good and proper that we should immerse our lives in the Word of God. We ought to "rightly divide" the Word. We ought to be students for life of the Word. But we need to be careful, given the deceitfulness of the human heart, not to get turned around by implications that contradict explicit statements of Scripture. Always interpret the implicit from the explicit. It will work much better that way.

Omniscience and Sovereignty

The Sovereignty of God is not an easy topic. It often generates sparks, arguments, disagreements among believers. One side argues that God is Sovereign and, by that, means that God works all things after the counsel of His will, and the other side says that God is sovereign, but in a self-limiting sense so that Man's Free Will can rise to the top (so to speak). There are, of course, shades and gradations in these perspectives, but that's the general idea. God is either actually Sovereign, ordaining all that comes to pass (without necessarily causing all that comes to pass), or He is not.

Rarely discussed in this question is the concept of Omniscience. Traditional, historical orthodoxy argues that Omniscience, like Sovereignty, is absolute. That is, God knows all things -- past, present, and future. There is nothing that has, is, or will happen that He does not know. He knows all contingencies, but He doesn't know anything contingently. That is, there is no "Plan B", no "what ifs". He knows what might have happened, but He knows perfectly what will happen.

The collision here, of course, is again with Man's Free Will. If we admit that God knows all future events, then God knows perfectly what you will choose to do tomorrow. And if His knowledge is perfect, you cannot, in a sense, choose anything different. Doesn't this contradict Free Will?

It does, I suppose, if free will is defined in a libertarian sense -- without coercion, influence, or predetermination. The complaint is that even though free will is theoretically in play tomorrow -- you could choose something different -- the fact that you will not because God knows it in advance means that free will is a myth.

I would beg to differ. Let's look at it from the perspective of humans (who, we understand, are not perfect). I know that if I place a cookie in front of my granddaughter and tell her "You can choose to eat this or not", she will eat it. I know it. But is there any doubt that it was her free will? "True," someone will argue, "but there is still the slightest possibility that she may not." Okay, so let's say that a group of us are doing an experiment and we place the cookie in front of her and let her choose. I say, "She will surely eat it" and someone wiser than me says, "Oh, no, she won't. I happen to know she's not feeling well, so on this quite rare occasion, she will refuse it." And she does. Free will. So the more perfect the knowledge is, the more perfect the predicted outcome will be. And perfect knowledge does not negate free will. So when we have a God who is Omniscient by biblical standards -- perfect knowledge -- then His predicted outcome cannot err. Again, without interfering with free will, God would know perfectly the choices any of us would make without error and without doing violence to free will. From a human perspective, all options are on the table and we can choose whatever we want. From a divine perspective, the choice we will make is sure.

You see, then, that Sovereignty and Omniscience are tightly linked. God, knowing perfectly the choices we will make (Omniscience), can choose to allow or disallow those choices (Sovereignty) so that, without necessarily making our choices for us, He would end up working all things after the counsel of His will. You know, like Scripture says.

Greatly to be Praised

Perhaps, by far, the most common objection to either the existence of God or the goodness of God is the reality of evil. The unpleasant, the tragic, the sad, the immoral, the truly evil things in this world do in fact exist. Why? If God is good, how can this be?

There have been lots of people (myself included) who have ventured to provide answers to this dilemma. This is not such a one.

The Bible is quite clear that God is true even if every man is a liar (Rom 3:4), that humans have the nasty tendency to suppress the truth (Rom 1:18), and we all suffer from deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). It begs the question, then. Is it actually true that evil is real? I would affirm without a doubt that it is indeed true from the human perspective, but David says this:

The LORD is good to all,
And His mercies are over all His works.
All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD,
And Your godly ones shall bless You (Psa 145:9-10).

Now, does that give pause? "The Lord is good to all." Without exception. Compassion marks all He does. Without exception. That's the claim. And the further assertion is that all God's works will thank Him. Without exception. It's kind of like Paul's words in Philippians: "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10-11). Without exception. At least eventually.

We all know that things can be unpleasant here on earth. May I suggest that we are deceived? From an earthly perspective it is surely true. But from a heavenly perspective God does good to all, all He does is covered by compassion, and in the end all His works will praise Him.

Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable (Psa 145:3).

The sooner we figure that out, the better off we'll be. Today would be a good day to start.

Common Sense Rules

I get to spend time on occasion with our granddaughter. (My wife babysits her during the week.) The other day, my wife was not well, so I got the duty. At one point we were watching one of those educational kids shows. "Today," they told us, "we're going to learn about safety." Oh, yeah, this ought to be good.

The teacher in the show explained to the kids in the show, "The first rule of safety when you're out walking is 'Stop, look, and listen.'" Well, I thought that made sense. You know, helpful for young children to know. "The second rule," she went on to say, "is to never run on the sidewalk; you might get hurt."

What? When did this become helpful safety instructions? And if it is the standard of safety -- "you might get hurt" -- how would we apply that? Let's see. Well, clearly you should never ride in a car because you might get hurt. In fact, walking on the sidewalk could potentially be dangerous as well by that same measure. On the other hand, they tell me that most accidents occur in the home, so being in the home is probably not safe either. You might get hurt. Now, hold on a minute. Is there anywhere that you cannot get hurt? Okay, this is going to get complicated.

This kind of nonsense is the product of a foolish world. There is some sort of idea that nothing unpleasant should ever happen. You can see this in the constant lawyer commercials suing medical companies because something went wrong. No, not malpractice. No, not malfeasance. Something unpleasant happened and someone is going to pay. You can see it in the "ban guns" response to incidents where bad people do bad things with the tool they're carrying called a "gun". You know, if there were no guns, no one would kill anyone ... right? Silly, of course, because on the very same day as the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut a Chinese man stabbed 22 school children in a village in China. For some reason they're not banning knives. What's up with that?

Where do we end up? We end up suspending two 7th graders for playing with toy guns at home. We ban the game of tag from schools. We suspend one boy for drawing a picture of a gun and another for waving a pop tart like a gun. Hugging gets banned. All sorts of insanity ensues. Luckily when a high school teacher tried to introduce a play to a drama class involving bestiality, pedophilia, and incest, the teacher was suspended. Oh, wait, that was only temporary. Students and parents rallied to his cause.

The Bible says that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). The Bible says that sin leads to a "depraved mind" (Rom 1:28). Sin isn't merely immorality; it is insanity. So when a feminized society tells us that we shouldn't run on the sidewalk with the rationale "you might get hurt" or a school suspends a kid for playing legally at home or parents defend a teacher exposing his students to rank immorality, you should be able to see where sin is leading us. Insanity. Maybe now you can see why we are to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). It is probably something of real importance if sin is rampant and sin breeds insanity. Lots of evidence around us says it does.