Can We Talk?

Have you ever noticed that there are some things that we can't talk about?

I recently read a piece on why it is that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and Christians should back off and let it be because it's normal and biblical -- so there. Now, if I were to respond to this line of thinking, there is only one possible conclusion -- I'm a homophobe. I could explain the biblical perspective. I could tell why the Bible is against homosexual behavior. I could respond to the piece point by point. And I could even state with all clarity that God doesn't hate homosexuals and neither do I. Love the sinner; hate the sin. You know. But it doesn't matter. I would be branded a right wing anti-gay. The only way to avoid this kind of slander is to agree with the piece.

I recently read a piece on why it is that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches and anyone who disagrees is a throwback to the Dark Ages. If I were to respond to this line of thinking, I'd be shot down from two directions. First, I'm a male. Males are not allowed to comment on things about females if they are perceived to be "keeping the woman down". If my position from Scripture is not that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches, I would be a male chauvinist, a power-mad fool trying to keep women in their place and prevent them from being all that God intended. Second, I'd be a "traditionalist", a throwback, too narrow-minded and too steeped in history and tradition to see the truth. Even in a discussion of the merits of the arguments and the reasons why Scripture appears to contradict the idea that women should be allowed to be head pastors, I'd be branded "backward". Clearly I am placing on Scripture my own twisted perspective, as every enlightened person (male and female) can tell. How do you know who is enlightened? Well, you're clearly enlightened if you agree with the idea that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches.

I float these two, without merit of discussion, points of Scripture, or real explanation of the ideas on either side, as illustrations of things that we can't talk about. To do so would be narrow-minded, bigoted, sexist, and so on and so forth. The merits of the arguments are not up for discussion. Why the Bible might disagree is not an allowable course of conversation. And heaven help the ones who disagree with the current "new views". You're simply being disagreeable. You don't like "seeker-sensitive services"? Clearly you're not progressive enough. You think that churches should have a biblical government? You're obviously not keeping up with the times. And that limited idea that the Bible is the Word of God ... come on ... where are you from? No, no, we won't be discussing the merits of any of those ideas. They disagree with the majority; therefore, they have no merits and there is nothing to discuss. If you do decide to discuss it, you're just being argumentative and mean-spirited. And you call yourself a Christian? Troublemaker! We're just not going to talk about it. You're too judgmental and intolerant.

Or take this example. There is a young lady where I work with whom I have occasional conversations. She lives with her boyfriend whom she followed from her home of origin back on the east coast. Now, me, being the curious type ... I simply want to ask "Why?" I don't mean it as judgmental. I'm just curious what would make someone choose to live together, especially with that amount of conviction, and not marry. But try asking that question without sounding like some outraged parent-type or offended moralist. Try asking that without sounding like, "What in the world were you possibly thinking???!!!" I don't know. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's that I would possibly be thinking that very question. Maybe it's because in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "What would make you do such a foolish thing?" But I wouldn't mean it that way. I just want to know ... you know, like a survey question. It's not like the answer impacts me in any significant way. A data point, that's all. But I will likely never ask that question because it cannot be asked without sounding jugmental and intolerant. One thing I cannot tolerate is intolerant people.

Maybe not. Maybe we can't talk. But I suppose I'll keep trying.

Why Do I Do It?

Scripture is replete with pleas and commands for unity. Time and again we see the Bible asking us to "be of the same mind." Instead, we see division. There are thousands of denominations and probably an exponentially larger number of theological viewpoints. Some have complained that this kind of ongoing discussion and division simply tarnishes Christianity to the world. Still, undaunted, we continue to set forth what we believe to be the truth and explain why opposing views are not.

Why do we do it? I suspect that the answers to that is as varied as our theology. Some want to be right. Some want to argue. Some want to defend the truth. And lots of other reasons. I wouldn't be so grandiose as to try to answer that question for anyone else, but I feel I need to answer it for myself, else I would need to stop.

Why do I continue to defend the truth? If it was simply because I want to be right, I'd have given up long ago. I've seen too many times where I am defending my position only to be overwhelmed with the irrefutable logic of the opposing position. I've had to admit that I was wrong and change my view. If "being right" was my aim, I'd be a dismal failure. No, it's not about that. Nor is it because I like to argue. I don't. I tend to be a "peace at all costs" kind of person. So why do I do it?

The answer isn't a simple one. I have multiple reasons. I do it because we are commanded to "contend for the faith" (Jude 1:3). I don't always enjoy it, but I am commanded to do it, so I do. We are commanded to "be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2). We are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). As much as some would like to silence the dialog, it appears to be a command from God, so I do it.

I do it because it is the history of the Church. Almost every single doctrine of Christianity is born out of controversy. Starting with Paul's letters to the churches, reaching throughout the New Testament writings, and continuing through all of Church History, nearly every major doctrine was marked out because of the counterfeits that showed up on the scene. Indeed, the New Testament has multiple warnings that false teachers will appear, and it was right. So, as if God intended this mechanism, godly people have arisen each time to make a defense for the truth. Paul shot down gnosticism (Colossians), legalism (Galatians), experientialism (Corinthians), and more. John addressed antinomianism (1 John) and other topics. The author of Hebrews defended the deity of Christ against some "created being" concept. The Council of Nicea explained the Trinity against the heretics. Luther and Calvin took on the established church at the time to push it back toward biblical doctrine. And on and on. It is the history of the Church. I do it because it is biblically and historically required.

I do it because I want to be right. I mean this different than earlier. I want to be right, even if I am not currently. I want to think correctly. I want to alter my views as need be to bring my ideas into line with the truth. None of us are 100% correct. I don't do it because I think I am. But if I never submit my ideas to the "marketplace", so to speak, then I can never have my thinking corrected. And I want to be transformed by the renewing of my mind. So where I think wrong (i.e., I know that I do), I want to correct it.

Finally, I do it because I think it is important. I think that there is absolute truth. I think that truth matters. I think that faulty thinking leads to faulty living. For those who are mistaken where I am correct, I hope to point to the truth for them to correct their thinking. The truth, you see, isn't mine. It's the truth. If I can point an erring brother or sister to the truth, I have done them a service. And for those who are correct where I am mistaken, I want to see the truth. This only happens when dialog occurs. So I examine viewpoints contrary to my own. I look at ideas not my own. I test my thoughts against Scripture and evident reason. All because I think that the truth is real and that it matters.

Why do I do it? Why do I maintain this dialog? I do it because we are commanded to do it. I do it because historically it has been the way the Church has operated. I do it because I want to correct my own thinking. I do it because ultimately I believe truth is important. I can't answer for anyone else, but I think these are sufficient reasons to continue the conversation.

Disproving Election

Proof that the concept of "the elect" is a lie!

⁸ Do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8-9).

There you have it, in plain black and white. It is God's will to save all. How can anyone think that God chooses to save some? Is "all" all or not?

I've been fascinated by this matter-of-fact approach to this passage, as if it's "clear as day." So very, very few seem to recognize the problems. There are a couple of difficulties here. First, we have the problem of a Sovereign God who wills to save all ... but cannot, for some reason or another. It cannot be that He will not because we've already determined that it's His will to save all. So it must be something preventing Him. This, in fact, is a skeptic's dream. Either God is unable or unwilling to save everyone. Apparently He is willing, so He is unable. Therefore, God is not sovereign or not omnipotent. So the nature of God is in question.

Second, there is the problem of the language. Note that the passage doesn't say that God is "not willing for anyone to perish." It is a blank "any". There is no explanatory term after the "any". Now, we can assume that the "all" is in terms of the "any" -- that is, "all" of the "any" are part of God's will to come to repentance. But people are randomly filling in the descriptive to "any" without any examination of what should go there. Here, let me see if I can explain. In the absence of a definitive term, people are filling in "one" or "men" or some such. But why can't I make it "cats" or "pigs" or "trees"? God is "not willing for any dogs to perish" is just as possible as anything else, isn't it?

Well, of course this isn't the case. The "any" is determined by the context. You can't just fill in whatever you want for "any"; you have to do it from the context. I'm not allowed to fill in "dogs" because it's not in the context. So what is the context? Peter is saying that God "is patient toward you." "You" is the context. Who is "you"? It is the ones to whom this is written. It is the "beloved" of verse 8, the "beloved" of 2 Peter 3:1. And who is the "beloved" of 2 Peter 3:1? "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you ..." It would be the same people to whom 1 Peter was written. Who is that? "To those who are elect." Now we can go back to the "any" and fill in a descriptive term to explain it. Just as we couldn't insert "dogs", we must not insert "one". We can only insert what the context requires. So it would say that God is "not willing for any of you (the elect, the beloved) to perish but for all (of that same set of people) to come to repentance."

Now, those who are in denial of the doctrine of Election will still stand there shaking their heads and saying, "No!" So, if context doesn't help, is there any other reason to think this is the case? As it turns out, there is. As it is with any passage in question, it is good to look at the language used, so let's look at the language used here. The first word in question is "any". The Greek word used here is tis. The dictionary says this word means, "a certain one, some one". Now, that's interesting, isn't it? Apparently it isn't intended as much of a catch-all, but as a separator. So the word here would say, "God is not willing that certain ones perish." That's very much like "any of you" versus "anyone at all." The second word in question is "all". The Greek word here is pas. Strong's says it means "collectively, some of all types." Oh, my, that's too close to one of the popular Calvinist interpretations in which "all" means "some from all types of people." Let's see if we can avoid that. Strong goes on to illustrate ways in which the term is used without meaning "each and every one."

"the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile

It seems as if this "all" may not mean "each and every individual" after all. It does, however, fit into the "all of the elect" reading.

What is the ramification of this passage if this be so? Going back to the first problem -- the question of the nature of God -- we are able to reinsert a sovereign, omnipotent God. It is His will, then, that each and every one of His elect come to repentance, and being the sovereign, omnipotent God that He is, they will. This verse, instead of weakening God's character and giving a blanket "wish" that all be saved, provides instead assurance to "the beloved" that every single one whom God intends to save will indeed be saved. That is what we are waiting for ... which is the intent of the passage in the first place. The Lord is not slow about His promise; He is waiting until every single person He intends to save is indeed saved. Instead of disproving Election, then, it seems as if this passage defends Election and Eternal Security. Now, that's not a bad thing.

Fear God?

In his horrible diatribe against the condition of natural man, Paul concludes with this accusation: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:18). Lest you think that this is a commentary on Paul's time, he borrows it from Scripture. David writes, "Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes" (Psa. 36:1). Instead of an isolated description, it appears to be a common problem of Man.

What is this "fear"? We often try to mitigate it. Many translations like to use "reverence" instead of "fear". We aren't supposed to fear God, are we? No, of course not. And yet, it seems as if the universal response of human beings who experience the true presence of God is ... abject fear.

Jacob had a dream of angels descending and ascending into heaven. He awoke and his immediate response was to be afraid. "'Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.' And he was afraid and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven'" (Gen. 28:16-17). Isaiah was a prophet of God. In Isaiah 6 he describes his encounter with God in a vision. His response was, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa. 6:5).

These aren't just "Old Testament" responses. When Jesus told the fishermen, "Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch" (Luke 5:4), Peter recognized Deity. He didn't suggest a deal; he begged for distance. "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" (Luke 5:8). And when the seasoned fishermen experienced a storm on the Sea of Galilee, they were frightened, but when the Son of God silenced the storm with a command, "they became very much afraid" (Mark 4:41).

It appears that the normal response of humans to God is fear. Not "reverence" -- fear. Paul capitalizes on this when he says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). That can't be rewritten to "reverence". It is fear. In Greek, it is phobos (from which we get our concept of "phobia") and in Hebrew, pachad. In both languages it is a sense of dread, alarm ... fear. Yet, to even suggest that people should actually, literally fear God draws fire from Christians.

The primary source of this objection is found in 1 John:

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love (1 John 4:18).

There it is. We have no need to fear God. But is that what it says? Well, I suppose it could be, if we don't mind reinterpretting the "fear" concept found throughout Scripture. Or could it be that this is not what it says?

Look at the context. John writes, "God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16). It would appear from this statement that "perfect love" is only arrived at when we abide perfectly in Him. It seems to me, then, that this isn't saying, "Don't fear God." Instead, it seems to be saying that when we arrive at perfect love for God we will have no need to fear consequences. Until we arrive at that point, we have this promise: Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives" (Heb. 12:6).

We live in a time that epitomizes Paul's accusation. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Unfortunately, Christians are eager to include themselves in this accusation. "We don't need to fear God; we need to reverence Him." And we fall into the very same category that Paul bemoans as the evil state of Man. Are we really sure we want to stand on this ground?

Correlate the "alls"

As a quick recap, so far we've defined "atonement" as all the necessary components -- expiation and propitiation -- that provide reconciliation. That is, atonement means that one is "at one" with God. I also explained why it cannot be that all sins are covered under this term "atonement". So we need to address the "all" passages that seem to say that the atonement was unlimited.

What was paid for at the Cross? This is the key question. We find many passages that are "all" passages. Now, it's important that this be done carefully. Some of the "all" passages, properly understood, have a limit to the "all" in mind. This isn't contradictory. The term "all" is always limited to the set in question. "All of my family" would limit this "all" to "my family". "All of you" would limit this "all" to the set that is being addressed -- "you". In Heb. 10:10, for instance, we read, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." There it is. He offered His body "for all". However, verse 14 of the same chapter limits this "all". "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). So the "all" in mind here isn't "each and every person", but all of "those who are sanctified." We need to be aware, then, that sometimes "all" doesn't mean "each and every human being". We need to be aware of the "all" being referenced.

Another thing to be aware of is emphasis. What is the point? Is the "all" the point, or is there something else? A prime example would be a number of passages that include the phrase we see above: "once for all." The point here is not the "all", but the "once". A prime example of this is Heb. 7:26-27 -- "For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." The point is not the scope of the sacrifice, but the singularity of it. This "all" isn't necessarily any more than "all that it covers" because the view is not "each and every person" but "once".

All well and good, but there are still more passages that state or imply "all" that aren't managed by their content.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men (Rom. 5:18).

Two verses in particular are most often trotted out to prove without any doubt that "Limited Atonement" cannot be:

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

There are certainly more, and we should list them as well:

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:5-6).

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).

We do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).

And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).

Now, let's take a look at this problem.

We've already seen that "Unlimited Atonement" is an oxymoron. If "atonement" means "at one with God", "Unlimited Atonement" means "everyone is at one with God". It necessitates Universalism. On the other hand, we have these passages that seem to speak of "unlimited atonement". What do we do with this? First, we do not delete them. Although some might be tempted to highlight them with that special black highlight pen, that's not the answer. The answer is careful analysis.

Some of these, as I said, don't fit the mold. They may look at first blush like universalist passages, but simple context fixes that problem. Some aren't so easily dismissed. Look at 1 John 2:2. Some are tempted to say, "It's about the elect", but John goes out of his way to shoot them down. "Not for ours only (the elect), but also for those of the whole world." However, if we think this through, John is either saying that all sins for all people for all time are "propitiated" and, therefore, all people are saved, or he has something else in mind despite the best efforts of the anti-Limited Atonement folks. So what is John saying? He is clearly speaking of "the whole world", but what he says here is not about what is accomplished, but about Christ. Here, let's shorten it to make it clear: "He Himself is the propitiation." Does that help? Think of the old West with the one-room schoolhouse and the single teacher. She was "the town teacher". That didn't mean that she taught everyone. It meant that if anyone was going to be taught, they had to go to her. John is saying that if any sin is going to be propitiated, it is going to happen through Christ alone. No one has any other means by which to gain the favor of God. Christ is the propitiation not of our sins only, but of the sins of the whole world. Nothing in the statement suggests that all sins are atoned for.

I would suggest that several of the favorite "all" passages fall in that category. Jesus is "the Savior of the world", which is to say He is the only available Savior the world has. He "takes away the sins of the world", which is to say that all sins in all the world that are taken away are taken away by Him. So we have this other category of "all" passages that indeed mean "all" but do not mean that atonement has actually occurred.

Still, what about that pesky 2 Peter passage? This one refers to "false prophets" and places their purchase ("the Master who bought them") in the past tense. This seems like we're up against it here. Might as well give up. Universalism, here we come. But wait ... maybe there is an alternative.

Satan is sometimes described in Scripture in terms of authority. He is called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2) and "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). He is obviously limited in his reign, but he has, nonetheless, God-given rights. He has the rights to the world. When Jesus was in the wilderness, he offered Him all the kingdoms of the world. But after Christ died and rose again, He said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). What happened?

A couple of the terms that Scripture uses to describe our salvation are along the lines of "redemption". They are "purchase" terms. They refer to "buying back". Could it be that Christ "bought the world"? Now, understand, purchasing the debt doesn't mean that the debt is paid. Imagine a mortgage on a house. It is very common for a mortgage company to buy a mortgage from another company. The homeowner doesn't suddenly find that his debt is paid. He simply owes a different creditor. Could it be that when Christ paid the price on the cross, He purchased all the mortgages? It sounds somewhat similar to the parable of the treasure in the field. Remember? The man sold all he had to buy the field because there was a treasure in it. He wanted the treasure; he bought the field.

This would make sense of 2 Peter 2:1. When it says that He was "the Master who bought them", it doesn't mean that their debt was paid, but that their debt was purchased. Indeed, in this sense Christ "taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9). This would largely expand the idea of what Christ accomplished on the cross. It would more fully explain the sufficiency of the sacrifice while keeping it distinct from the efficacy of the sacrifice. It would agree more fully with some of the "all" concepts without lapsing into Universalism. It actually maintains "Limited Atonement" while agreeing with a universal effect of the cross.

Maybe you don't like it. It makes utmost sense to me. But you let me know if you can come up with a different satisfying way to correlate the "all" passages with the certainty of judgment and Hell. Remember ... no fair redefining "atonement" for you anti-Limited Atonement folks or "all" for you pro-Limited Atonement folks. And no fair simply deleting the ones you don't like. I find this a satisfying correlation. What about you?

How Limited is Atonement?

Now that we've explained "Atonement," let's look at "Limited Atonement." Yes, it's a hot topic -- "hot" in the sense that it really draws fire. (Yes, that was a pun.) It is commonly misunderstood and even when it is understood properly, it is still largely the object of dislike (at best) of many Christians.

The problem arises in the term, "limited." Most Christians agree with this proposition: "Christ's death was sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, but efficient in paying for the sins of some men." To suggest that the atonement paid for all sin for all men for all time is simply to affirm Universalism, and very few who call themselves "Christians" can hold to that position very long. So both the "Limited Atonement" folks and their opponents agree on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as well as the efficiency of Christ's atonement. The truth is, unfortunately, before we ever get to this agreement, the shooting has started and few realize that they are in agreement thus far.

Let's start with an easy agreement. Unless you are a Universalist -- everyone gets saved -- we are all in agreement that the Atonement, the "at-one-ment" is not unlimited. That is, if anyone goes to Hell, then there is a limit on the sin for which Christ's death atones. I think we can all agree on that. Unfortunately, that is not the contention of "Limited Atonement."

What is the contention of "Limited Atonement"? The idea is that when Christ died for us, He died with the intent of saving some. He intended, on the cross, to actually pay off the debt of "the elect". Now, we can debate "the elect" 'til the cows come home, but let's not go there right now. The question at hand isn't "the elect". The question is "What did Christ actually accomplish on the cross?" The pro-"Limited Atonement" folks say that He actually paid in full the sin debt of those who would be saved. The anti-"Limited Atonement" folks say that He potentially paid in full the sin debt of all mankind, but actual payment in any individual case is pending until the individual accepts the payment on his or her behalf.

What causes this difference of opinion? Well, if we're fair, we'd realize it's the Bible. You see, we find both positions in Scripture, clearly stated, explicit. We know, for instance, that there will be people who are judged for their sin, so it cannot be that all sin for all people for all time is paid for. Yet we also find too many passages that use terminology like "all" in the context of Christ's death and payment for sin. It appears that the Bible supports Limited and Unlimited Atonement.

The trick, then, is not to argue it, but to align it. You can't make sense of it by ignoring part. And simply redefining terms doesn't help, as is often the case ... from both sides. Some well-meaning Calvinists will tell you "'all' doesn't mean 'all'." What does that mean? On the other hand, those opposed to the idea will also hold to unlimited atonement ... with limits. Maybe they redefine "atonement" -- "Well, it was potential payment" -- or they redefine "unlimited" -- "It was not limited to anyone, but not everyone gets the benefit." Some will just turn a blind eye to one group of Scriptures or another to avoid the problem. But this doesn't solve the problem. What we need is a solution. What we need is a way to align the "all" of the atonement with the "few" of salvation.

This is likely a lengthy discussion, so I'll do it in two parts. The first part I will address here. Why not "unlimited atonement"? The second part I'll address tomorrow. What about the "all" passages? I'm addressing first the problem with unlimited atonement because if there is no problem with unlimited atonement, then there is no question in regards to the "all" passages.

Remember, now ... we've covered "atonement." It is a market term, mostly. It refers to payment of debt, of balancing the books. The word in English was actually an invention of William Tyndale. He recognized that English didn't have a word that encompassed "reconciliation" and "expiation" and "propitiation" and "forgiveness", so he coined "atonement" to factor in all these parts. In the New American Standard Bible, the word in its various forms only appears in the Old Testament. The New Testament carries words with individualized meaning, all playing into the idea of "atonement". It includes the concepts of sin covered, sin paid in full, a removal of debt and a return to a right standing. All of this is incorporated into the concept of "atonement".

Since "atonement" contains all these factors, if it is universal and "unlimited", we would all need to subscribe to Universalism. There are no sins not paid for. Now, I know the popular idea is that "the payment is in the bank and you need to draw it out before it is actually paid." This, however pleasant it sounds, places atonement as potential, not actual. And no matter how you decide to word it, if the factors that make up "atonement" -- reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, forgiveness -- are not actually applied, then it cannot be said that Christ atoned for all sin. You could say that He could atone for all sin (scope), but you can't put it in the past tense because it isn't done (effect). And if it isn't done, then He wasn't quite accurate when He said, "It is finished" or "Paid in full."

But there are other reasons by which we can know that the atonement is limited -- that not all sin is paid for. One of the easiest is Jesus's warning to the Pharisees. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (Matt. 12:31). Without even digging about or delving into what exactly that means (I do that here), we can say without any doubt that there is some sin that "shall not be forgiven." Therefore, it cannot be that all sin is forgiven, potentially or actually.

The other reason is found in the assurance from multiple Scriptures that there will be judgment and that there will be those found wanting. If atonement is unlimited, then God cannot judge sin that is paid for. That is unjust. And God is not unjust. The only sin that can be judged is the sin still pending payment. The only debt that can be collected is the debt still pending payment. Expiated sin is not pending. Sin atoned for is no longer "on the books". If there are those who will face judgment and found wanting, it cannot be true that all sin is paid for, else God is unjust.

Logic lends its own little hand here as well, clearly explained in John Owen's Triple Choice. There are a few possibilities with the atonement. Assuming the reality of atonement, it can cover:

1. All sin for all men.
2. Some sin for all men.
3. All sin for some men.

One of these is obviously problematic at the outset. If the atonement covers some sin for all men, then no men have all sin covered ... and no one is saved. We can eliminate #2 if the Bible accurately portrays anyone as "saved". That leaves us with two options. Either the atonement covers all sin for all men, or it covers all sin for some men. If it covers all sin for all men, then no one has sin needing to be covered. Of course, the popular response is that unbelief prevents this from happening. But if the sin of unbelief is what keeps all sin from being covered for all men, then it is a sin that is not covered, and the first option cannot be true, nor is unlimited atonement.

The only possible option, given Scripture and reason, is that the atonement covered all sin for some men. "Limited Atonement" would say that it actually covered all sin for some men (the elect). Regardless, Unlimited Atonement cannot be true. We would first have to redefine terms like "atonement" or "sin", or we would have to be Universalists.

Christianese: "Atonement", et al.

Several common terms are tossed about as if we know what they mean, but I'm not so sure we do. Let's make a brief trek through Christianese to see if we can figure out some of these concepts.

We've likely all heard these terms: atonement, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation. We generally nod as if we know exactly what is being said. We do that because we're unwilling to admit that we don't really know what is being said, but, hey, we're Christians so we should be able to speak the language. Wouldn't admitting that we don't really know the differences or actual meanings be an admission that we are "outsiders"?

Well, I'm offering a different solution. Let's see if we can actually determine what they mean. Then we won't be lying when we nod as if we know what is being said.

In the New American Standard Bible, the word, "atonement" and its various forms only appear in the Old Testament. Other words offer the same concept in the New Testament. "Expiation" only occurs in Num. 35:33. "Propitiation" occurs in four places in the New Testament:

²¹ But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; ²⁵ whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith (Rom. 3:21-25).

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17).

¹ My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; ² and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

That leaves "reconciliation." Now, this word appears more often and in more forms in the New Testament.

¹⁰If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled , we shall be saved by His life. ¹¹ We also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation (Rom. 5:10-11).

¹³ But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, ¹⁴ if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. ¹⁵ For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Rom. 11:13-15).

¹⁸ Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation , ¹⁹ namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. ²⁰ Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

¹⁴ For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, ¹⁵ by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, ¹⁶ and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity (Eph. 2:14-16).

¹⁹ For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, ²⁰ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. ²¹ And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, ²² yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach. (Col. 1:19-22).

Good. Now we have the references. So ... what are we talking about?

The Old Testament concept of "atonement" encompasses the New Testament concept of "reconciliation", "expiation", and "propitiation". The Old Testament concept includes all aspects. Now, if you look up "expiation" in an English dictionary, you'll find that "atonement" is a synonym. If you look up "propitiation" you'll find ties to both "atonement" and "expiation". In other words, all of these words are very similar. So what is the difference?

It has often been said and is, in fact, accurate that "atonement" essentially means "at-one-ment." The concept is that the debt is paid, the gap is closed, the two parties are reconciled. There is no end of discussion in various quarters about the mechanism and the process, but there is little disagreement about the meaning. There are nuances, however, in these various terms -- shades of meaning that we don't want to miss.

To "expiate" is to make amends. The idea is that the error is corrected. Expiation occurs when a debt is repaid, or when the punishment is handed out and the matter is ended. To "propitiate" is similar, but there is a difference. Propitiation is to favorably incline. It is an appeasement, a removal of anger. It was the idea behind the barbaric practice of offering a virgin to the volcano god. Appease the angry god -- propitiation. Note that the two are linked and rather similar, but not exactly the same. One is removing the blockage and the other is inclining to favor. They are two halves of the equation. One removes the problem and the other restores the relationship. Together these provide "reconciliation." Reconciliation is when the debt is paid and the relationship is restored. These three concepts -- "expiation", "propitiation", and "reconciliation" -- form the singular concept of "atonement."

Now that we have this, I think it's a good idea to proceed with other conclusions.

Coop'ed Up

Meet my friend, Coop. Okay, that's not his name. Coop is my local Cooper's Hawk.

Coop is a regular around here. He appears to be a juvenile, as the adults have redder eyes, but his are turning. We see him weekly at irregular intervals. And when Coop is in town, the birding goes quiet.

We thought for some time that he might be a Sharp-shinned Hawk. But the Sharpie is typically jay sized, and this bad boy, well, he's bigger than that.

Cooper's Hawks are magnificent birds. They eat medium-sized birds and mammals. That means that the pretty little sparrows and finches around are safe (yeah, right) ... but watch out pigeons! The domestic pigeon, it seems, is one of their favorite treats. A single Cooper's Hawk can wipe out an entire colony of pigeons if left alone. In other parts of the country it is known as the "chicken hawk." You can guess why. Cooper's Hawks capture and kill their prey using their feet. They won't bite their prey like a falcon does, but simply hold it away from their bodies until it stops wriggling. Sometimes the mere impact kills their prey. Some have been known to drown their catch!

These are swift fliers. They catch their prey by surprise, making sudden dashes at high speed. They will chase their target into the trees. Estimates are that nearly a quarter of all Cooper's Hawks have healed from broken bones suffered in these hunting forays. And they are tricky. They will hide behind things or sneak around things to give them the element of surprise. One of the interesting accounts of the Cooper's Hawk hunting skills includes a hawk hunting a quail. The quail was flying as fast as it could, but when it got over a thicket that could give it some cover, it folded its wings to drop into the protective cover. Not to be outdone, the Cooper's Hawk dove under the falling bird, rolled onto its back, and caught the quail as it fell into his claws. Indeed, some have reported that these birds might attack for the mere sport of it.

Cooper's Hawks and Sharp-shinned Hawks are in the acipiter family. There is such competition between them that they cannot tolerate each other. The larger hawks, known as buteos, don't seem to have such a conflict, and Coopers have been known to nest within the hunting range of a buteo without any problems.

Cooper's Hawks are vicious defenders of their nests. When there are young in the nest, they will become quite aggressive, attacking larger, more dangerous birds to ward them off. They use their impressive speed and agility to harass their opponent until they give up and leave. In a local community near us there is a nest that is occupied annually by a pair of these hawks. The nest, unfortunately for the residents, is located in the vicinity of the community mail box. Therefore, at a certain time of the year, for a few weeks, you take your life in your hands when you go to retrieve your mail. Many people have suffered bird strikes from these aggressive parents, willing to take on even humans to protect their young.

Cooper's Hawks are living demonstrations that nature is red of tooth and claw. That doesn't stop me from admiring them ... and their Maker.

"Real"ize

In the book of Job we find, in my opinion, a terrifying story. Don't misunderstand -- it's a good thing, but it's frightening, just the same.

The story begins with Satan in God's courts. (Get that? Most people don't realize it, but Satan even in his rebellion is still subject to God.) God has a conversation with Satan, in which God brings up "My servant Job" (Job 1:8). (Now, if I were Job, and I heard that, I'd be trying to shush God. "No, no! Don't mention me to Satan! Please!!) It is God, then, who starts all of Job's famous suffering. It is also God who controls it.

Satan decides to show God that Job only trusts God based on God's goodness to Job. God allows this test (He knows the truth), but carefully regulates it (Job 1:12; 2:6). Satan is wrong. "'Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' In all this Job did not sin with his lips" (Job 2:10).

The vast majority of the rest of the book is a dialogue between Job and his three "friends". These guys gather around to "console" him, but their "consolation" is by way of affirming beyond any shadow of a doubt that This kind of torment doesn't happen to anyone but the worst of sinners. Job, of course, defends himself against the accusation.

In Job 38, God comes on the scene, and thus begins one of the worst possible Inquisitions of all time: God asking the questions. Have you ever wondered what took God so long? Why didn't He speak up earlier? Why didn't He explain it to Job earlier on? Since God is perfect, and His timing is perfect, I have to assume that He waited for the right moment. What moment?

In Job 31:35, at the end of Job's responses, we read:

"Oh that I had one to hear me!
Behold, here is my signature;
Let the Almighty answer me!"

Now, there are five chapters of dialogue that follow this statement, all from Eliphaz, the youngest friend who hadn't yet expressed his views. But this is the last thing we hear from Job.

I believe that God was waiting for Job to realize the truth. What do I mean by "realize the truth"? I use the term in a specific sense. There is truth out there all the time. Sometimes we know it; sometimes we don't. But sometimes, even when we know it, we don't "realize" it. I mean, we don't make it real to ourselves. Let me give an example by way of illustration. We all know that there is a war in Iraq, and that Americans are dying there. Fine. Truth. But do we realize it? Is it real to you? When you are acquainted with one who is there, or a parent of one of those who die, or one of those who is actually there, then it is no longer abstract truth: you realize it. That which is true externally becomes true internally to you.

What truth was God waiting for Job to realize? Job had a problem with sin. Job knew that. How do we know Job knew that? When we meet Job, he is introduced as one who was "turning away from evil" (Job 1:1). You can't turn from evil if you don't recognize it. And note that it was an ongoing, present tense concept. Further, he regularly sacrificed for his sins and the sins of his family (Job 1:5). Job was not blind to sin. It was "real" to him. But there was sin that, even with his recognition of the truth of it, hadn't been realized. What was that sin? The sin was that of pride. Job believed that, despite his sin problem, he was righteous enough to demand of God an accounting. It was only when Job got to this reality that God was able to step up and respond, both to him and to his misguided friends.

Job gets the message. After several chapters of interrogation by the Most High, Job responds:

"I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask Thee, and do Thou instruct me.' I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees Thee; Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:2-6).

Job got it. He got the true nature of his sin. He got the true nature of God. He got the true relationship between the creature and the Creator. He realized his pride and repented. He realized the problem.

What's my point? The point -- the reason I started with the "frightening" statement -- is that this is true for all of us. God will do what God will do to make His children what He wants them to be. With Job it was the loss of his health, family, and belongings. But God will do what He will do. "No purpose of Thine can be thwarted." The author of Hebrews assures us of the same:

"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him; for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives."

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Heb. 12:5-11).

Are you encountering trials? Are you enduring hardship? Have you lost a loved one? Maybe you're suffering from a broken marriage? Financial difficulties? There are a variety of reasons for these difficulties, but ultimately, to the believer, God is working to help you to realize things. We need to realize, for instance, that God is sufficient, and often the only way to do that is to lack sufficiency on our own. We need to realize that we make people (spouses, family, friends, etc.) into idols, pouring our whole existence into them, and sometimes the only way to realize that is to lose them. We need to realize the secret sins that even we may not see, and sometimes that takes painful surgery on the part of the Master Physician. But ultimately, "afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness". That's something else we don't often realize.

Being Ready Always ...

It is said that the Christian army is the only army that shoots its wounded. I don't know that the "only" part is accurate, but the point is well taken. Often we tend to snipe at our fallen brethren rather than attempt to heal them. But don't assume that this means that it is only our wounded who we shoot. Oh, no. Christians are good at taking shots at just about anything that moves. We'll pick off our opponents with grim accuracy and then turn the weapon on our allies if we don't rightly understand their point. We do it with glee, sometimes, making it our life's mission to point out how wrong those who we perceive don't agree with us really are ... and possibly damned.

The tone of too many Christian conversations, be they verbal or electronic, is one of anger. Well, we call it "righteous indignation", but, truth be told, it's anger. Peter says we are to always be prepared to "make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you," (1 Peter 3:15) but he adds, "yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). "Gentleness and respect," that should be obvious. Peter says it is "so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16).

Have you ever tried to call a Christian who is not operating out of gentleness and respect on this? I don't recommend it. As I said, Christians are good at turning their guns on just about anyone. And this one meets with seriously stiff resistance. You see, many see themselves as "Paul to the Galatians" or "Paul to Cephas" or even "Jesus to the Pharisees", where tough words are trotted out to correct serious error. So if you suggest that they are not being gentle or respectful, they simply tell you that they are acting as Paul or Jesus, and to butt out. In other words, as long as you have "righteous indignation", it's okay to be unkind, unfair, and disrespectful.

"Gentleness and respect" -- what are these terms? King James calls the first "meekness". About this word Vines says, "It is an inwrought grace of the soul; and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God. It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting." But the word differs from the English "meekness" because that word expresses weakness. The Greek word expresses no such thing. Instead, this term comes from strength. It suggest enormous power under control. The idea behind "gentleness" or "meekness" here is that there is such power available that there is no need to defend myself. Here, let me try this. In the world of stereo equipment, the rule of thumb is to get a system with high power output. The purpose isn't so that you can create a civil disturbance with the equipment. The idea is that when there is an overwhelming availability of power, the fidelity is extremely good at low volume. If the power isn't there, then there is distortion, but with available power, reproducing the sound is easy. That's "gentleness" or "meekness". When we remember the power behind the truth, we don't need to wield a sword or fire a cannon to get it across.

"Respect" is the other term ... and this one is very interesting. The NASB translates it "reverence". Others give us "respect". The King James says, "fear", and, interestingly, that's exactly the word used here -- phobos. The word refers to fear, dread, terror. It is rooted in the concept of flight, as in fear that makes you flee. It is one of the motivational influences of the Christian life: "the fear of the Lord". Most object to this concept and turn into "reverential awe". I suppose this isn't too far off ... if we hadn't moved "awe" from its original concept. You see, "awe" originally meant "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like" (Random House). It included the idea of "dread". The word is used in Paul's instructions to women's attitude toward their husbands: "respect" (Eph. 5:33). It is a term rooted in fear and includes the ideas of respect and reverence and awe.

Look around you. Listen to believers' dialogues or examine Christian blogs. Do these bespeak "gentleness and respect"? Is there a sense that "We don't really need to come across harsh because there is such power in the truth"? Is there a sense that these communications are respectful, even fearful? Or is it that while we "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 1:3) we have become more bold than even Michael the archangel disputing with Satan and "did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" (Jude 1:9)?

Well, here's what I suspect. Those of you who are equally concerned about Christian communications, some of the mean-spirited and unkind approaches some Christians take, and the sad lack of gentleness and respect being displayed in the name of Christ will say, "Amen!" The rest will be indignant. "Would you tell Christ He was lacking gentleness and respect?" True. Paul did use some harsh words at times. Jesus wasn't polite in His scathing rebuke of the Pharisees. But if you examine their overall approach and the overall approach of too many Christians today, it would seem that while they spoke softly and carried a big stick, we too often wield a big stick and have forgotten that a soft answer turns away wrath.

Stay Safe

Here are some statistics:

1. Riding in automobiles is responsible for 20% of all fatal accidents.

2. Seventeen percent of all accidents occur in the home.

3. Fourteen percent of all accidents happen to pedestrians.

4. Sixteen percent of all accidents involve air, rail, or water forms of transportation.

5. Of the remaining 33%, 32% die in hospitals.

BUT, you will be pleased to learn that only .001% of all deaths occur in worship services at church, and these are usually related to previous conditions. Therefore, logic tells us that the safest place for us to be at any given point in time is at church.

And, Bible study is safe, too. The percentage of deaths during Bible study is even less.

So, for SAFETY'S sake, attend church, and read your Bible; IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE.

Church Attire

Does what you wear to church matter?

Debates shuffle back and forth on this topic here and there. I would say "rage", but they don't. Most people have decided that what you wear to church isn't of any importance at all, so it's just a few squeaking voices out there trying to raise the flag on this one.

What are the arguments? Why is it that most people believe that what we wear to church is of no real importance? Mark Driscoll writes "Why should we press for formal dress in church when one of the only passages in the New Testament that speaks about what to wear to church rebukes women for dressing up to the degree that they turned church into a fashion show (1 Timothy 2:9–10)?" The thinking is that we are always in the presence of God, so what's so special about church? God is our Father, so we should be comfortable in His presence. There's nothing sacred about a church. Churches are supposed to welcome everyone, so why make someone feel uncomfortable because they didn't dress up? One of the very common things you might here is "What about those without formal attire? Do you want to exclude them just because they don't have the right kind of clothes?" And, of course, the very common, "We shouldn't be looking around at what other people are wearing. We should just be focusing on God."

There is a lot of sense in these arguments. Surely someone without means shouldn't feel like they're an outsider just because they cannot afford a suit and tie. And certainly God is our Father -- referred to as "Abba", "Daddy" -- and we should be comfortable in His presence. And the church is populated with our brothers and sisters. We shouldn't be concerned about what we wear around our family, right? And we really are in the presence of God all the time. So ... what's so special about church? And why would anyone suggest anything other than weekend casual attire for Sunday morning service?

Well, here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that what I wear to church on Sunday morning betrays what I think of God and this special gathering of the saints. It's not so much what you wear that matters, but what I wear. You see, what I wear tells you what I think.

We know this to be the case. No one goes to a job interview in shorts and a t-shirt. It is inappropriate. It tells the interviewer, "I don't really care what you think. I have no respect for you. I'm only thinking of myself." We don't attend funerals or grand balls in jeans because it isn't appropriate. We show proper respect. So imagine with me for a moment a parallel situation. Meet the King and his son, the prince. The King loves his son, and the son loves his father, the King. When the King sits with the prince in the library and talks, they are comfortably attired. When the King and the prince go for a ride in the forest, they are suitably attired. The prince is not required to refer to his father as "your highness" when they meet in the halls of the castle nor wear particular clothing when they sit down to breakfast. But when the King is in his court, things change. The prince is now required to show respect. He will not show up to the King's court in a bathrobe. He will dress appropriately and show proper honor ... to the King, not his father. How he appears in this instance to the King betrays what he thinks of the King. Are they "buddies", or is there also a relationship of fear and respect?

You see, it isn't what you wear to church that matters. It's what you think. When the poorest man puts on his cleanest pair of jeans and cleanest shirt to go to church, it says, "I'm dressing the best I can to come into this formal presence of the King." It is driven by an attitude, not an income. On the other hand, when a man with means puts on shorts and a shirt to go to church, he is saying, "God and I are pals; there is no need for additional respect in this formal setting." What we wear to the gathering of the saints in the presence of the King reflects an attitude of the heart.

What attitude does it reflect when we say, "It doesn't matter"? It reflects the terrifying, yet actually defended position, "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:18).

Exploding on the Scene

Okay, this is just for fun.

I was standing on my front porch the other day, surveying the driveway, and trying to figure out a mystery. Here and there, scattered at random, were a particular type of seed. My first thought was that these were pebbles, but they were all identical in size, smooth surfaced, and all the same color. No, these were seeds. So, the mystery: Why are they scattered around my driveway?

I was mentally running through hypotheses. Kids had come through and tossed them. No, that didn't make any sense. Maybe a bird had dropped them. No, too many for that. A drive by fruiting? That wasn't even reasonably funny, let alone practical.

Suddenly there was a POP! A couple of these mystery seeds came dancing across the driveway. Well, now I knew their direction. But exploding seeds? The mystery was afoot. I hunted around the yard and the neighbor's yard. Various possibilities presented themselves, but I finally found the explosive culprit.

The plant is native to South and Central America, but it is very popular here. We call it the Mexican Bird of Paradise, but those who know better tell me it's the Red Bird of Paradise or the Caesalpinia pulcherrima. Yeah, you probably already knew that. Or not.

The desert here is full of the standard fare -- cactus, brush, desert trees and the like -- but we also have some beautiful blooms, and this Bird of Paradise is one of them. When they're done, they form seed pods, like so many of the plants here in the desert. These pods contain several seeds. They ripen, then dry out, and then, as I have just discovered, explode, scattering their seed ... quite literally.

I thought it was fascinating, a marvelous design. They are very happy here in the desert and grow prolifically. They bloom multiple times and add their beauty to the desert landscape more than once a year. And now I know ... the rest of the story.

A Brief Picture Gallery

And now for something completely different ...

Just thought I'd share a few of my recent photos from home.

The dreaded "Sonoran Parakeet". Obviously not a wild bird, but it's the second such "out of state" visitor.

This was the stunning view at sunset from our backyard.

Witness the awesome Arizona monsoon. At irregular intervals without much predictability we'll get these massive downpours. Indeed, this one, just a couple miles north of us, never actually got to us.

Postmodern Politics

In the words of Taggart (Slim Pickens) from Blazing Saddles, "I am depressed." Perhaps it is blind optimism on my part. Maybe I just hoped that the country's fathers were wrong when they suggested that the average citizen wasn't intelligent enough to be trusted to vote on important matters. Or maybe it's not about intelligence at all. Maybe it's the times in which we live. But I had hoped for something better. I had hoped for some reasoning on the part of the voting public. I didn't get it.

It has been argued that we live in a "postmodern" world. What does that mean? Well, modernism placed a heavy emphasis on rationality and logic. Postmodernism questions whether that exists at all. Postmodernism rejects traditional structures and truth, opting instead for relativism and what is called "non-binary truth". "Binary truth" is the idea that something is either true or false. Postmodernism rejects that and prefers "true for you, but not for me" thinking. That semi-trailer hurdling toward you at 60 miles per hour doesn't have to be a threat if you don't believe it to be. Okay, that doesn't work, but you get the idea. Or not.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but Arizona cast its postmodern vote yesterday. I'm disappointed that many of the issues I cared about failed, but that's not the point here. I'm talking about ... insanity. In general, this can be seen when people are in favor of protecting trees but defend murdering babies. Here in Arizona it's just like that. Let me illustrate.

Arizonans voted to ban smoking and then passed a measure that would charge smokers to pay for early childhood education. They voted to protect cows and pigs, but not to protect marriage. That's not merely mistaken in my estimation; that's crazy. That's contradictory. That's ... postmodern voting.

We had two ballot measures to block smoking in public buildings. One, 201, would forbid it in all public places and included a 2 cent per pack tax on cigarettes (a projected $5 million a year) to pay for enforcement. The other, 206, would forbid it in all public places ... except for the bar in which the owner opted to allow it. No additional taxes were called for. Voters opted for 201, adding 2 cents to every pack of cigarettes (I guess cigar and pipe smokers aren't involved?) and blocking individual bar owners from allowing adults to smoke in their establishments. Okay. Fine. So be it. But we also had Proposition 203 on the ballot. This one wants to take control of our children from birth to 5 years old and mold them ... to the government's standard. They want to pay for this by charging smokers 80 cents per pack of cigarettes. (Doing the math, if 2 cents per pack was projected to raise $5 million for non-smoking enforcement, then this tax would raise $200 million a year to control our children.) Now, assuming that Arizonans have approved the concept -- take our children and teach them -- then they also are working against their own best interests by passing smoking bans. "We want you smokers to pay for this plan we have to take away children and have the government teach them, but we don't want you smokers to actually smoke anywhere, and we hope to diminish your smoking by boosting your cost by more than 20% per pack. So there!"

You may (or may not) recall that I spent some time discussing Proposition 107 here, here, and here. I didn't mention Proposition 204. Proposition 204 was aimed at making farm animals comfortable. They argued that some animals like pigs and cows were raised in cramped spaces and they should be allowed to be more comfortable. Well, Prop 204 passed, but Prop 107 lost by a margin of 48.5% for to 51.5% against. We need to protect farm animals, but marriage is of no importance.

I'm not stating that lightly. The outcome is deceptive, and I suspect it will come back later to bite us. Polls suggested that a proposition to ban homosexual marriage would have been approved by 75% of the voters. Arizonans didn't shoot down Prop 107 because they want to legalize homosexual marriage. None of the "No on Prop 107" arguments were predicated on "legalize homosexual marriage" or the like. No! The push against Prop 107 came from the second line in the proposition that said, in essence, "We do not have to recognize as married anyone who is not married." The proposition suggested that marriage has its privileges, and those who are unwilling to marry shouldn't expect those privileges. Arizona said, "No!" This was indeed a referendum on whether or not we should protect marriage. It wasn't merely protecting marriage against homosexual incursion; it was protecting marriage from those who have equated non-marriage with marriage. And marriage lost.

On the other hand, it's not that Arizona is consistently "pro-environment" or any such thing. They didn't vote to protect animals because they want to protect the environment. No! We had not one but two competing measures that would have preserved land. Proposition 105 would have saved about 400,000 acres from builders, and Proposition 106 would have saved about 700,000 acres. Both failed. So we need to protect cows and pigs, but the wilds and marriage ... they're on their own. Oh, and by the way, hand over your kids. Don't worry, the smokers we've just banned will pay for it.

Even in voting for offices Arizonans were schizophrenic. All the pundits have said that this was a referendum on President Bush -- that Americans were going to vote out Republicans. (They weren't intending to vote in Democrats; they just wanted to fire the existing party. You know, ABS.) So what did Arizona do? Well, they kept some of their Republicans and they fired some of their Republicans. They didn't even give a clear statement on that.

I anticipated the passage of Prop 204 protecting animals and the failure of Prop 107 protecting marriage. I had already written a post bemoaning that sad state of affairs. I deleted it. That was opinion. This is insanity. There is no rationale, no reason behind what many Arizona voters have decided to do. Too much of Arizona, like most of America I suspect, has passed into postmodern politics. There is no right or wrong, no reason, no logic. They voted with their hearts. "Save the piggies." "Save the children." "Keep those nasty smokers away." And unfortunately it appears that they left their heads in some dark closet somewhere.

Obeying the Impossible

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a series of impossible commands given to us in the Bible?

Let's start with the most obvious.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).

There! Simple as that. You keep these two, simple laws and you've kept all of them. But do we even have the slightest clue how to "love the Lord your God with all your heart"?

How about this one? "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Oh, good. Another simple command. Nothing less than absolute perfection. Easy, right?

Now, we can try to mitigate it. "Well, He didn't actually mean perfect. He meant 'complete'" or "He meant that we would be made perfect" or some such. But it seems to me that the more you look at the commands of Scripture, the more you see a series of impossible commands.

It's not that they're impossible in and of themselves. That's not what I mean. I just mean "impossible" in the sense that none of us ever fully obey them. We suffer from what Paul calls "the flesh", "sin that dwells within me" (Rom. 7:14, 20). Being imperfect beings, we will obey imperfectly despite all of our best intentions.

So what's the point? The point is that we don't spend time looking at the impossible. Instead, we reach for the "impossible". Recently I wrote a post entitled "I Love My Wife". In that post I spoke of a love for my wife that exceeds human capabilities. That love is one of those "impossible commands": "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church" (Eph. 5:25). One easy response is "I do not think it is possible for a human being to be able to unconditionally love another person." And I'd have to confess I think this is true.

However, are we going to look at what is possible, or are we going to reach for the impossible? Are we going to conclude, "It can't be done" and so not try, or are we going to boast in our weakness so the power of Christ can dwell in us (2 Cor. 12:9)?

It is true, I think. We have a lot of commands that are indeed outside of our human capacity to obey. That doesn't absolve us from obeying them or at least trying. And when you find that you have, if only on occasion, actually done the impossible, oh, what joy that brings the soul ... knowing you have been in the presence of the one with Whom all things are possible.

When Murder is Okay

When is it okay to murder a human being? Most of society would say, "Never", but they don't seem to actually think that's true. And I'm just not getting it.

During World War II, a famous Nazi doctor by the name of Josef Mengele earned the nickname "the Angel of Death". He, of course, didn't see himself that way. He was merely a doctor, working for the good of his country and his people. Dr. Mengele used men, women, and children from the Nazi death camps for his experiments. He put them in pressure chambers, froze them to death, performed surgeries without anesthesia, tested isolation endurance, experimented with blood transfusions, injected them with lethal bacteria, and removed organs and limbs. But it was all right, because he was simply trying to figure out ways to save soldiers in the field or test the human ability to withstand conditions or further the field of medical science. How effective were the German incendiary weapons? Try them out on some of their Jewish prisoners. How high can a pilot fly? Put some prisoners in low-pressure chambers and find out when they die. How do you treat the soldiers on the Russian front who have been subjected to extreme cold? Freeze some prisoners and experiment. Can we make drinkable water out of salt water? Try it out and then give it to some prisoners. How effective are the malaria immunizations? How do you treat victims of a gas attack? Simply inflict the problem on some of your millions of prisoners and then see if you can treat them. All in the name of science.

Well, we know better than that. Mengele was a monster. The world knows that. You can't torture and kill little children even for the advancement of medicine. Or can you?

Peter Singer is a philosophy professor specializing in bioethics. On one hand, Dr. Singer is an avid animal rights advocate. He argues against "speciesism", the belief that humans are more valuable than animals. He thinks they should have equal rights with humans, another animal species. On the other hand, he advocates that humans shouldn't have any more rights than animals. The upshot of his view is this: If it furthers the welfare of others, it is acceptable to use humans to experiment on and even kill in the experimentation. He advocates using not only embryonic stem cells, but the disabled, very young, or very old for this advancement of medicine.

Singer's ideas suffer from many problems, perhaps, but they don't have the problem that most like him have: inconsistency. Singer is clearly wrong, but he is consistent. The standard "pro-choice" activist doesn't have that to commend him.

In a commercial against the incumbent senator here, his opponent bemoans the fact that John Kyl wants to make abortion illegal. He assures us, "I support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions." And the point is missed entirely. It's not a "medical decision" to murder an unborn child. In Missouri and here in Arizona, political ads are hitting the airways about how it's wrong to block embryonic stem cell research. Some of these ads are catching some real press. But they're not answering the question: When is it okay to murder a human being? Is Mengele right? Is it okay if it advances medicine? Is Singer right? The majority may approve of infanticide in the case of the unborn, but they're not answering the question. Why stop at the unborn? What makes their lives less valuable? Singer holds that the right to life is tied to one's ability to feel pain and participate in planning your own future. Animals, then, cannot be killed for food because they feel pain and live their lives. But the severely disabled can't participate in the planning of their future, so they can be used for medical research. On what possible basis can the "pro-choice" side disagree with Dr. Singer? Why is "birth" the artificial line drawn to say "You can kill them prior to this event in their lives, but not after"? When is it okay to murder a human being?

Signs and Wonders

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3).

Did you get that? It is quite amazing when you pay attention to all it says.

We start with a "prophet". We are to test this "prophet". How are we to test this "prophet"? This "prophet" offers a sign or a wonder. The test, one would think, is "Does this sign or wonder actually occur?" If so, this is a prophet, and if not, it is a false prophet. But that's not what it says. In the case offered by God in this passage, the sign or wonder actually happens. The test is not the sign or wonder; the test is their words. If they deviate from a prime attention on following God, they are a false prophet.

Perhaps more mind boggling is the "for" statement - the "cause" offered here: "For the LORD your God is testing you." Who? God Himself is offering this test!

We see this actually occurring in our world today. "Christians" come on the scene with "signs and wonders". They claim healings or special power, and they actually appear to do it. I'm not talking about charlatans, false signs and wonders, but apparently real miracles. God says, "What they do is not good enough. Pay attention to what they say."

Popular Christianity, however, tells us to "back off", so to speak. If they are doing magnificent signs, we are told that we are not to put forth our hand against the Lord's anointed. "Maybe you think their theology is wrong, but clearly they are right because they are doing these miracles." And God replies, "The LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Signs and wonders are not the true test of a prophet -- one who speaks God's words. The words they speak are the true test. Don't be mislead by miracles; they may be a lie, a test, to see if it is signs and wonders you love, or God Himself.

I Love My Wife

I do. I love my wife. I have it stated plainly right there on my page. I love my wife. She sometimes says, "I don't know why." And I can't really answer.

Some guys love their wives because they're beautiful. I happen to find my wife quite attractive. There are times I find myself just staring at her thinking, "Wow!" But I don't love her because she's beautiful. Beauty is fleeting. If she were to lose what I find beautiful about her today, it wouldn't budge my love for her one iota.

Some guys love their wives because they are "good in bed". Personally, I could not be more satisfied sexually than I am with my wife. But sexual appetites and abilities vary, and if I loved my wife for that, it would be a precarious love. I don't love her for that.

Some husbands love their wives "because of who she is". That seems more "substantial", more "balanced". But, truth be told, "who she is" can change. Ask any husband whose wife has gone through a hysterectomy or menopause. Most men are aware that even healthy young women change who they are for a brief time once a month. Then there are strokes and other health issues that might change who they are. While it seems better to love your wife for who she is, even that can be precarious. I love who my wife is, but I don't love her for who she is.

There are lots of reasons men may love their wives and I have a lot of good reasons to love my wife. I think she is beautiful. I am fully satisfied with her. We are amazingly compatible. (Being compatible with me is nothing short of a miracle.) She is a good person, and she treats me very well. There are lots of good reasons that I should love her, but I don't love her for any of those reasons. Why, then, do I love my wife? I can't say. It's not mine. I'm not the source. I love my wife for reasons beyond me or her. And I don't think I'm wrong or crazy for doing so.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; ²⁶ that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. ²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies (Eph. 5:25-28).

Christ didn't love the Church for her beauty, the satisfaction she provides, or "just for herself"; He loved the Church for Himself. Further, I don't love myself for any of those reasons; I love me just because I am. If I am to love my wife as Christ loved the Church, if I am to love my wife as I love myself, then it's nice to have lots of reasons, but none of them are the ultimate reason that I love my wife. None of them are. Ultimately that means that there is nothing she can do to alter the fact that I love my wife.

Election and Foreknowledge (Part 2)

What is the foreknowledge according to which God chooses (1 Peter 1:1-2)?

Adam Clarke says it is those whom God knows will persevere to the end.

Albert Barnes says, "It may mean that God foreknew all the events which would ever occur, and that he saw reasons why they should be selected rather than others; or that he foreknew all that could be made to bear on their salvation; or that he foreknew all that he would himself do to secure their salvation; or that he foreknew them as having been designated by his own eternal counsels; or that he foreknew all that could be accomplished by their instrumentality; or that he saw that they would believe; but it should not be assumed that the word means necessarily any one of these things."

David Guzik says, "This foreknowledge includes prior knowledge of our response to the gospel, but is not solely dependent on it."

Jameison-Faussett-Brown says "God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself."

The People's New Testament says, "Their election and salvation was in accordance with God's predetermined purpose to save men through the gospel."

John Wesley says, "True predestination, or fore-appointment of God is, 1. He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin. 2. He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally. 3. They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked." (Wesley, then, affirms a general "predestination" that is dependent entirely on "He that believeth", "He that endureth", and "They who receive".)

All of this to say ... there is a vast difference of opinion among learned men of God.

John Gill says it is "the sovereign grace, good will, and pleasure of God, or the everlasting love of God the Father, which is the cause of, and has given birth to the act of election, is meant by foreknowledge, joined with affection, delight, and approbation; knowledge, and foreknowledge, as ascribed to the divine Being, often signify such things." Now, perhaps we ought not trust Mr. Gill, as he is definitely of the Reformed type. So we ask Jameison-Faussett-Brown again. They go on to say, "The Hebrew and Greek 'know' include approval and acknowledging as one's own." This coincides with Gill's premise, that "foreknow" doesn't mean prescience -- merely knowing in advance -- but includes the concept of loving in advance. Is this possibly in mind here?

In Jesus's High Priestly prayer, He offers this definition of eternal life: "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). Interesting that knowing God is the definition of eternal life. Elsewhere, Jesus makes this startling, even frightening statement:

"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you ...'" (Matt. 7:22-23).

Now, this is odd. "I never knew you." Isn't He omniscient? Doesn't He know everyone? Apparently, then, in biblical terms there is "to know" and there is "to know". One is purely knowledge, and the other is ... a relationship.

I would submit, then, that this is what is in mind in 1 Peter 1 as well as Rom. 8:29. If God chose us based on His foreknowledge of our choice of Him, it would cause serious problems. It would violate Rom. 9:16. It would make God a "respecter of persons" in that He chooses people based on something about them rather than according to His own purpose (Rom. 9:11). This cannot be the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen. The "foreknowledge" upon which Election is based is not knowledge of something outside of God, but God's personal, prior relationship with His elect. As such, before we are born God is preparing our paths. As we come into the world, He has already set in motion all that is required so that, at the right time, those who were chosen become truly His. Therefore, the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen is the special, sovereign love He places on us in advance, "from the foundation of the world".

Election and Foreknowledge (Part 1)

The doctrine of Election is biblical. You cannot avoid it. It starts back in the Old Testament with folks like Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. It carries through the New Testament with endless references to "the chosen" or "the elect" and the like. To claim that it isn't in there at all is to approach Scripture with your eyes closed ... a rather poor approach. The question isn't "Does the Bible contain the doctrine of Election?" Yes, it does. The question instead is "What is the biblical doctrine of Election?"

The Reformed group has a fairly well-known response: God chooses whom He will save apart from the chosen one's choices or actions. It's a unilateral choice. Fine. Another group mediates the whole concept away by saying, "The chosen are not individuals, but simply a group of people, the individuals of which aren't clear." That's somewhat popular, but not very logical. It ignores the fact that 1) God is omniscient, and 2) groups are made up of individuals. But far and away the most popular answer is this: God chooses whom He will save based on His foreknowledge of who will choose Him. This answer seems to make people feel better. It allows God's choice to occur "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) while still predicating it on ... our choice. It seems to protect God from choosing not to save some (the dreaded "double predestination" problem). And besides, there is clear biblical backing for this. Paul says, "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" (Rom. 8:29). Here it seems that "those whom He foreknew" precedes His predestining. Even more explicit, it seems, is Peter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood (1 Peter 1:1-2).

Well, it doesn't get much clearer than that, does it? We are "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Clearly God's choosing is based on His foreknowledge. To deny this would be foolish.

It is undeniable. God chooses based on His foreknowledge. It is explicit. One of the basic rules of interpreting Scripture is always interpret the implicit from the explicit. This is explicit. People are "are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." What is problematic, however, is the conclusion that is being made regarding "foreknowledge". You see, the assumption being made isn't in regards to the existence and premise of God's foreknowledge, but what He foreknows upon which He bases His choice. The assumption is that God chooses based on His foreknowledge of our choice of Him. However, that is not explicit here. All that is explicit is that God chooses according to His foreknowledge, and it doesn't say what is foreknown or even what is meant by "foreknowledge".

Allow me a moment to illustrate the problem. Paul says, "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" (Rom. 8:29). So, whom does God foreknow? Well, if "foreknowledge" is simply prescience -- knowing in advance -- then "those whom He foreknew" would encompass everyone. God has prior knowledge of all human beings. The inexorable logic, then, of Paul's statement would be that God, knowing everyone in advance, has predestined the same (everyone) to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now, that's a fine defense for Universalism, but we aren't buying that one. That cannot be what Paul intended. See the problem? What "foreknowledge" is and what is intended by the term in reference to being the chosen is not as clear as what you might think at first blush.

So, why would I question the conclusion that it references God's prior knowledge of our choice of Him? That's problematic for me because it contradicts Scripture. According to Rom. 9:16, "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If God chooses based on our choice of Him, then it does depend on human will. Here Paul is explicit: "It depends not on human will." God chooses "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" (Rom. 9:11). So while someone might imply that "foreknowledge" refers to "knowing in advance our choice of Him", Scripture explicitly denies it. Since we are going to interpret the implicit from the explicit, we will need to eliminate the most popular view.

What, then, is the foreknowledge according to which God chooses?

Have you seen this?

The Constitution Party ... maybe you haven't heard of them. You can find a complete document for their platform here. They're an interesting party.

Start with their Preamble:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

You won't likely find that on the platform statement of the Democrats, the Republicans, the Green Party, or any other that you care to mention. And the rest is just as unfamiliar. They have a position on the Sanctity of Life, recognizing "pre-born children" as "a human being created in God's image." They call for major congressional reform, including such things as abolition of congress's pensions, a decentralization of power from Congress to States, and limitations on what can be tacked onto bills. They have serious ideas about reducing government expenditures, like "The government must not spend more than it takes in" and "Annual reductions have to be made without fail." On education they say, "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith." They have a strong anti-illegal immigration stance. Well, there's a lot there. You'll have to read it. Their primary thrusts are 1) you can't take God out of the government, and 2) we need to return to real, Constitutional government.

The Constitutional Party has been around since 1992. Amazingly, it "ranks third nationally amongst all US political parties in registered voters" (Constitution Party). They are primarily made up of ... here's your word-of-the-day ... paleoconservatives, anti-authoritarian, right leaning folks that stress tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity (Paleoconservatism). The party is on the ballot in 20 states.

One of the things I find interesting is their response to the question, "Why try?" I mean, what are the chances that this third party is going to make headway? They're not even in all 50 states. They've never had one of their candidates elected. Why do it? They have the most bizarre answer. "We're trusting God." You see, they figure that if God wants them to be elected, then they will be elected even against the odds. Now, that takes faith. Apart from the sheer practicality, if one believes in a sovereign God, then the answer is purely acceptable, and since when did practicality limit God?

I thought their survey was interesting. The list of questions was mildly interesting, but the results were more so. You can take the quick survey on their main page, and then see the results for yourself. If nothing else, they're worth looking into. I can't vote for them; they're not in my state. But it would be tempting to try.