The Fear of Loss

The argument is made by a significant portion of Christendom that it is entirely possible that a true Christian can lose his or her salvation. More than that, it has happened and continues to happen. This portion of Christendom argues that it is folly to hold that your salvation is eternally secured. "You 'once saved always saved' and you 'eternal security' and you 'perseverance of the saints' types are wrong ... all of you. Beware!" It was one of Rome's biggest complaints against the Reformers. It was a major division between Arminians and Calvinists. It continues to be a divisive point to this day.

I got to thinking about "losing my salvation", considering what it would take. If it actually happened that genuine believers, saved by the blood of the Lamb, were to actually have and then lose their salvation, what would that require and what would be the ramifications? I think it is no small question.

First, what is required in order for someone who has this great salvation to lose it? I don't mean on what basis they could incur such a loss. I mean what has to transpire of such a loss was to occur? There are many sides to this question.

There is, first, the clear biblical statement. If you lose your salvation, it cannot be regained. There is no means by which it can be recovered. If you hold to "conditional security" -- that salvation can be and is lost sometimes -- then you must cling to "once lost, always lost". The Bible gives no room for the warm and pleasant notion that you can repeatedly make the trip back to the throne of God for a reissuance of salvation. Instead, God's Word assures us that, once lost, it is impossible to be restored (Heb 6:4-6).

There is the "eternal life" aspect. John wrote "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36). Notice the tense of the sentence -- "has". Not "will receive" or "can rightly expect". "Has". Present possession. Thus, in order for a person who genuinely believes in the Son (which isn't a simple concept) is currently in possession of life eternal, and in order to lose the salvation that faith provides, they must lose eternal life. Consider that contradiction. In what sense is it eternal if it can be lost?

There is the "forgiven" concept. On the "negative" side, John said, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). On the "positive" side, Paul wrote, "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). So this is from two directions. On one hand our sins have been cleansed -- "all unrighteousness" -- and on the other hand we have been endowed with "the righteousness of God". Thus, in order to lose this great salvation, there would need to be some unrighteousness that "all unrighteousness" does not include that has the capability of overcoming our complete forgiveness and the righteousness of God bestowed on us. Now that is some powerful sin that can overpower forgiveness and expel God's righteousness.

Then, of course, there is the whole "adopted" principle. The Bible makes it clear that those who come to Christ -- who are "born of God" -- are adopted into His family (Gen 15:3; John 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-17; Rom 8:29; Rom 9:26; Gal 3:26; Gal 4:5-7; Eph 1:5; 1 John 3:1-2). In order to lose my salvation, I would have to become "unadopted", which, by the way, is not a word. The process would be that we would be not children of God, be adopted by God, and then be unadopted by God.

This leads to the real questions to me. The real questions to me revolve around the nature of God. I know me. I know that I have some massive capabilities to commit horrendous Cosmic Treason. Sin comes naturally to me. If it is possible to commit a sin that overrides "eternal life", overpowers forgiveness, drives out God's righteousness, and forces God to "unadopt" me, I have that capability. But what about God? What are His capabilities? We call Him (rightly) Sovereign, Omniscient, and Omnipotent, just for starters. We know that He is both Just and Merciful. So, if it is possible that I could be saved by grace through faith and given eternal life and forgiven of all my sin and endowed with the righteousness of God and adopted into God's family ... and then lose it, what does that say about God? I would say that it would represent a massive failure on the part of God. He failed to foresee my serious apostasy so is not actually Omniscient. He failed to keep me in His hand where "no one will snatch them out" (John 10:29) so is not actually Omnipotent. He failed to accomplish His own will, negating any genuine Sovereignty. And He will hold me accountable for sins He says were forgiven, canceling any sort of justice on His part. Further, Jesus Himself was mistaken when He assured us "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me" (John 6:39). The requirement would be that He will and has lost some of those given to Him. In human terms, we'd have to conclude that God is just a poor planner. He intended to save all but failed. He willed to certainly save those who came to Him, but wasn't able. He knew that some would fall away, forgave them, and then reapplied their sin to them because of what He knew they would do anyway. He adopted some who He knew would need to be unadopted later. In the end, He would not be sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, just, or even wise. His forgiveness given would be incomplete and His righteousness applied would be inconsequential. He would not be, in many aspects, the God of the Bible.

I know humans. We are capable of miserable failure. But God is not. When you consider the magnitude of the salvation God offers, the aspects that it includes, and the nature of God Himself, think about what it would mean for that salvation to be lost. I think it's a much bigger problem than the "conditional security" view allows. Bigger, in fact, than they can handle. Is the specter of losing one's salvation a frightening one? If you have the slightest sense of what that means, it should be. It would mean losing eternal life, losing forgiveness, returning to condemnation, losing your adoption, and all without any hope of ever being able to remedy the situation. Neither God nor Man has a correction for this condition. Worse, it would mean that God is not God. Now that is a truly terrifying thing.

Sanctity of Life

Speaking of conservative Republicans, Governor Cuomo of New York said this:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

"Extreme", here, includes those who believe that humans have the right to life. People that believe that humans have the right to life "have no place in the State of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are." By inference, then, neither New Yorkers nor Governor Cuomo believe that humans have the right to life. This ought to get interesting the next time someone in the state gets killed, eh?

On a related topic, the war of rhetoric is disturbing. Governor Cuomo used three terms -- "right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay" -- to describe "conservatives". What he was referring to was the pro-life, those who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and those who believe that the Bible says something about the morality of homosexual behavior. I'm pretty sure that very few caught the difference in the terms, even now that I've stated the two versions. They are not the same. As a prime example, the vast majority of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms do not favor "assault weapons". It's not about those weapons. It's about the right to bear arms. And a large number of those who believe that the Bible holds homosexual behavior as sin are not "anti-gay" in the sense that they do not hate those people who practice such things, "anti-gay" in the sense that they despise those who have such inclinations, or "anti-gay-marriage" in the sense that they oppose "gay marriage"¹. It's rhetoric. These are biased terms being used to emotionally sway an audience -- terms that are not accurate. "Pro-life" is "in favor of life", not "anti-abortion" (or "anti-choice", as Cuomo later countered). Favoring the 2nd Amendment is not "pro-assault-weapon" (or "anti-gun control" as he later "clarified"). And holding to a moral view on the behavior of a man engaging in sexual behavior with a man is not "anti-gay"².

Be fair here, folks. It's not just their side that engages in this war of rhetoric. I'm only pointing out that using intentionally inflammatory terms to make an argument is certainly effective, but a lie. The world is under the devil, the father of lies, but let's not do that ourselves, okay? Oh, and if you think that humans have an innate right to life, you may want to move out of New York ... you know, if you believe the words of the governor there. You have no place there. (See how nasty rhetoric can be?)

It is my conviction that the biggest reason that children are shooting each other in school yards and movie theaters and the like is that they no longer believe that humans are intrinsically valuable, that all humans have the right to life. Why should they? We've taught them it's not so. We've taught them with a societal schizophrenia that says that killing babies in the womb is okay if the mother wants to, but a crime if the mother wants it to be. We've taught them by stripping moral values from their entertainment, making the bad guys heroes and violence laudable. "Right-to-life" is not what we're teaching kids these days. But I'm pretty sure that Governor Cuomo does not favor the random killing of people while he downplays "right-to-life". He wants it both ways. It doesn't work. Either the sanctity of life or not. I don't think our people will like the removal of the sanctity of life. At least, so far we don't.

________
¹ To be clear, I am "anti-gay-marriage" in the same sense that I am "anti-unicorn". I'm not opposed to the concept. I'm saying it doesn't exist. I cannot be opposed to something that doesn't exist. Nor do I oppose the equal rights of those who call themselves "gay" to be married. I simply hold that "married" has a definition, and "same-sex" is not in it. And I am opposed to those who try to make it exist by twisting words and wrenching meaning for personal gain. But that's in all cases.

² You need to be aware of this insidious slip of the tongue here. One side (mine) speaks of "gay" or "homosexual behavior" as an action, an activity, as always a choice because regardless of your proclivities, you always choose what you will do about them. The other side uses the very same term -- "gay" -- but does not refer to behavior. To them it is an innate condition, just like race or sex. In their vernacular, "gay" refers to the inborn condition of a group of people and their entire culture. Thus, while one side refers to an activity and a behavior, the other refers to a person and the surrounding people of similar condition. One side hates an activity and the other accuses them of hating the persons. See the difference? If there were people that were opposed to sliding down slides, one side would say "We're opposed to sliding", and the other side would say, "You're opposed to children who slide." Not the same thing.

Making a Difference

I remember years ago attending one of the Promise Keepers gatherings. There I was in Angel Stadium with 50,000 other men seeking to keep their promises made to God. They were there to become "men of integrity", to transform the world. And one would think with that many men in this Christ-centered ministry that we could not fail to have an impact.

As I watched, however, I knew immediately that my optimism was misguided. In this particular event, there was an ongoing problem. The guys on the upper tiers decided that it would be fun to see if they could make paper airplanes that could sail all the way to the field. Now, the men running the event made repeated requests and instructions that this would stop. They warned that it was a problem to the stadium and a problem to the ministry and a problem to their testimony. But the practice continued without abatement. So much for "men of integrity".

I use this only as an example. It seems to me that Christianity in America today -- genuine Christianity -- is suffering from the same problem. We ought to be making a difference. We ought to be transforming our world. We ought to be impacting our neighborhoods and our towns and our cities and our states and our country. And yet, as the election of Barack Obama to a second term illustrated and as current events show, we're practically a nonentity on the public stage, except perhaps as a nuisance or a pariah. We're not really making much of a difference.

Why is that? Robert Woodberry published The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy in 2012. Woodberry (a sociologist) wrote about how "conversionary Protestants" (CPs -- Protestant missionaries) impacted their environs by improving health, infant mortality, decreased corruption, greater literacy, and higher education (especially for women). Interestingly, he said that this was only true of Protestant missionaries. Roman Catholic missionaries and clergy from state churches did not have the same effect. What was the difference? Well, the CPs¹ weren't seeking to change behavior; they were seeking to bring people to Christ. In other words, they didn't seek to change the community; they sought to make disciples.

Why, then, are we not seeing the same sort of effect in America today? I mean, we have enough Christians around. They are certainly seeking to make converts. What's up with that? I would suggest that we're largely missing the point. We are not seeking to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) as Christ commanded. We are seeking to improve our world. We're trying to vote in a better world and legislate in a better world and argue in a better world. The Bible speaks instead of walking in a manner worthy of the calling (Eph 4:1), of bearing fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt 3:8). We are seeking to make the mind hostile to God a friendly mind while Scripture requires that people obtain a new heart. We're looking for reform in all the wrong places.

We're headed down a path of inconsequence. We're being relegated to the "right wing" which is just inside the Exit door. It's not that we don't have something to offer. In ancient Rome when Christians were being tortured for their faith, the people were amazed by their love (you know, like Jesus said). And we can expect similar treatment by society at large (2 Tim 3:12). But let's not take the hits for trying to do what God did not tell us to do. Let's do it for living godly lives, for letting our light shine before men so they can glorify the Father, for bringing Christ to those who need Him. Scripture and history suggest that the rest will take care of itself.

________
¹ Woodberry writes that CPs "(1) actively attempt to persuade others of their beliefs, (2) emphasize lay vernacular Bible reading, and (3) believe that grace/faith/choice saves people, not group membership or sacraments."

How Not To Argue Egalitarianism

Okay, this takes a little setup. First, there was a woman, Candace Cameron Bure, who wrote a book titled Balancing It All, where she writes, among other things, about submitting to her husband. This, of course, causes a problem in today's modern society, so she sought to clarify to the Huffington Post that she is using "the biblical definition" of submission and arguing from Scripture that it's required. Silly girl. So then Sarah Bessey, the author of Jesus Feminist and self-professed "happy-clappy Jesus follower" and "nondenominational charismatic", decided it was important to write In which I disagree with Candace Cameron Bure about "biblical marriage". Whew! So here we are, all ready to examine the faulty approach to an argument with someone defending a biblical position on complementarianism.

Bessey argues that Bure (Keep the names straight. Bessey opposes biblical complementarianism and Bure favors it.) holds a "not necessarily biblical" view. Indeed, she argues "The idea that a Man is the Head of the Home has its roots in secular ancient culture, not in the Word of God or the created order of humanity." (Bold is hers.) Not only is it "not in the Word of God", but she goes on to argue that "the idea that, as a wife, I would need to 'become passive' or smaller or somehow less in order to make my marriage work is damaging and wrong."

Okay, there's the arguments. It's not biblical, and it's damaging and wrong.

Error #1: Sarah has decided to define "submission" as something other than Candace did. Bure specified that "I am not a passive woman" in the book and in her interview with HuffPo. "Become passive" is not in view ... anywhere. Except, of course, for Sarah's view. This is a common logical fallacy called -- you know what it's called by now, right? -- strawman. Build up a false position that the other person does not hold and then explain why it's wrong. Don't argue that way.

Error #2: Sarah argues that the concept of male headship in the home is not biblical. She does so by ignoring ... the Bible. Now, to be quite fair, she doesn't actually ignore the Bible. She agrees that "Patriarchy and hierarchy within marriage were consequences of the Fall (see Genesis 3:16)." Ummm, Sarah, if you agree that it's part of the Fall, in what sense is it not biblical? Okay, moving on. She agrees that Scripture does indeed support Candace's position -- "particularly Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18-19, and 1 Peter 3:1-2". Umm, Sarah? I'm confused. Doesn't this mean that it is indeed biblical? So here's the basis of Sarah's position that male leadership is not biblical. "Those passages of Scripture," she argues, "are, in fact, a subversion of the Greco Roman household codes in effect at the time." She goes on to argue in bold that "Paul and Peter used the codes, not because they were perspective or ideal, but because they were familiar and they were showing the church how to move within the world while not being of the world." There you have it. Peter and Paul were wrong. "Peter and Paul worked within imperfect systems because any outright challenge to the law of the land would bring persecution down upon the Church in great number. In fact, the Apostles 'advocated this system, not because God had revealed it as the divine will for Christian homes, but because it was the only stable and respectable system anyone knew about' at the time," she argues (with a quote from the Women's Bible Commentary).

If you're going to argue against a biblical position, you will need to do it with the Bible. Arguing that the Bible is not a divine revelation and that Peter and Paul (among the rest) were not divinely inspired doesn't help in making a case against a biblical argument. It might go a long way toward removing a biblical argument. Arguing that the Word of God is not the Word of God will not go far in this line of discussion. It will certainly allow for discarding the Word of God (since no such thing actually exists), but it doesn't answer a biblical position. Here, let me put it this way. Arguing "It's not the Word of God" doesn't answer the argument "This is what it says." You see?

Bessey argues for "mutual submission". She suggests that "wives submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ" and that this is part of a "never-ending, life-giving circle of mutual submission and love". I'm not at all clear in what sense she sees the Church's submission to Christ as "mutual". Nor is there any reason to agree with her argument since she has already made it clear that Paul's position (which she quotes) is not divinely inspired, but purely cultural pragmatism. Oh, and by the way, if you're going to argue against biblical positions, be careful not to ignore entirely the clearest biblical arguments, such as "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) for man as the head of the home or "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake" (1 Cor 11:8-9) for "the created order of humanity."

Skipping clear Scripture doesn't make it go away. Arguing that it isn't at all inspired doesn't make "This is what it says" false. Holding to a false position of what the term ("submission") means doesn't make the actual concept false. Bad lines of argument. Avoid those whenever you can.

Knowing God

There has always been a large segment of people who want to "know God better". They may be Christians or they may not. The current ascendant party is "the Nones", the portion that classify themselves as "spiritual but not religious." Then there is the chunk of the "religious" who certainly want to know God better. They'll pursue a variety of methods from prayer to burning candles to self-flagellation if necessary. They'll travel to the Himalayas or seek some spiritual adviser or do all sorts of gyrations to find ways to "know God better". For the vast majority, they are fruitless efforts in the end.

The question for Christians remains "Do you want to know God better?" The answer must be "Yes!" but the method is in question, isn't it? Today, as in times past, many seek some "greater enlightenment", some "higher knowledge". They'll sit in a quiet room with pen and paper in hand waiting for God to speak or follow the latest guru's "experiencing God" program. They'll go on retreats and take up yoga and do all sorts of rituals to seek to know God better. Oddly enough, for most of these Christians these efforts are also fruitless in the long run.

May I make a suggestion? May I recommend a new approach ... that is not new? It might be revolutionary, but consider. We have the Word of God. Perhaps that would be ... I don't know ... a good place to start?

It's interesting when you look at the Word what it says on the subject. Elihu in the Book of Job assured us, "Behold, God is great, and we know Him not" (Job 36:26). Not knowing God seems to be the natural human condition (John 8:54-55). Not hearing the Word of God, in fact, is more probable than the alternative (John 8:47). And yet we have Jesus saying, "I know Him, for I come from Him, and He sent Me" (John 7:29). Now there's a starting place, isn't it? We know from Hebrews that "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world" (Heb 1:1-2). Clear enough. The starting place of knowing God better would be a living, vibrant, real relationship with Christ.

But it's not that difficult to figure out beyond that. Since the Bible is the Word of God, wouldn't it make sense, if your aim is to know God better, to immerse yourself in His Word? Here, imagine this. You have a lover (someone you love, not today's vulgar "sex partner" sense). This lover is removed somehow. Away on a trip or something. So he/she sends you letters. And in your great and abiding passion for him/her, you ... glance over the letters and stash them away. Then you try to figure out how to psychically contact him/her or you enter a program intended to bring you closer to your love or ... Does this make sense? Wouldn't you start by reading these letters, poring over them, memorizing precious parts, examining every word, every nuance, every thought? Wouldn't that be a good start? At least a better start than some deep breathing exercises and a visit to a medium.

Solomon, speaking as "Wisdom", wrote, "Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices. For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them" (Prov 1:29-32). How about you? You have the Word of God in your possession (a commodity you probably don't appreciate as you should). Are you going to allow complacency to destroy you in your search to "know God better"? I can see us pounding on the door of heaven and saying, "God, why didn't you give me more?" God would reply, "But ... I wrote a lot to you. Why didn't you read it?"

The biblical concept of "knowing" isn't simple knowledge. You can get that from a cursory glance of some biblical texts. The biblical concept is intimacy. "Adam knew his wife" (Gen 4:1). It's more than head knowledge. And that doesn't come from cursory Scripture use or from some mystical connections. It comes from immersion. It comes from the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). It comes from the washing of the water of the Word (Eph 5:26). It comes from engaging what God has provided in the form of the Scriptures and His Son and the Holy Spirit and seeking diligently in what He has provided to know Him better. Our standard complacency in these matters does not speak well of us. Seeking alternatives does not become us. We have the means to know God better. Let's use it.

Forgiveness

Here's one for you. Proof that our academics are finding things that improve our lives. Researchers at ASU have discovered that "people who learn to seek and grant forgiveness for harmful behavior are less angry, isolated and violent." Given our national climate of strife, conflict, and violence, this is a singularly important find.

The researchers have determined that forgiveness is a “teachable” process. It involves accountability for harm we bring to one another, and learning to be empathetic and compassionate. When community members learn that forgiveness is a viable option, they often choose to let go of bitterness, grudges and the desire for retribution. The result can be more respectful and peaceful relationships.

Shocked, I tell you. Completely shocked. That these secular researchers would make these kinds of discoveries and proceed with these kinds of projects is truly shocking. After all, wasn't it Jesus who said, "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:14-15)? And isn't it in the book of Hebrews that we read, "See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled" (Heb 12:15)? And isn't Paul who wrote twice that we are, among other things, to be "forgiving one another" (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13)? So to have this secular intelligentsia coming out in favor of genuine Christian values is just amazing to me.

Right, but amazing.

So ... isn't someone going to protest or something?

Legislating Morality

"You can't legislate morality." I'm sure you've heard it. You may have even said it. You may actually believe it. But ... is it true?

If, by "legislate morality", you mean "make people good", we're all in agreement there. You can't pass laws that will make people, internally, moral. Indeed, the only one that can alter the insides of a human being is not even that human being himself, but God and God alone. So that form of legislating morality is not possible for humans.

But can you "legislate morality" in the (most common) sense of passing laws based on morality? Is it possible to make laws that, if followed, would build a more moral society? This argument is that the State (human government) has no business passing laws that criminalize behavior based solely on a moral code. In this kind of thinking, laws against sodomy, for instance, would be not merely pointless (pointless because they are unenforceable), but wrong to have. (By the way, in the American military, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- the laws that govern the military -- it is still illegal to pretend to be sick to miss work ("malingering" -- Article 115), to make provoking speeches or gestures (Article 117), and to engage in sodomy (defined as "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal" -- Article 125) among other things.) The argument is that not only is it impossible to make people good ("legislate morality"), but it would be wrong to "legislate morality" in the sense of making laws based on moral codes. Why? Here's the standard answer: "Whose moral code would you use?" You see, if you went with the Moslem moral code, for instance, we'd be abusing women and cutting off hands for theft. If we went with the Buddhist moral code, on the other hand, it would be illegal to kill a bug. "So, you hating Christians, that's why we don't believe that you can or should legislate morality."

Oh, really? So would you favor removing laws based on moral codes? What would that look like? Well, I'm pretty sure we'd eliminate historical, traditional, and religious marriage definitions in favor of a purely humanist version that would redefine "marriage" as any union between two (or more) persons. And, of course, the current laws are moving that way, which should necessarily eliminate laws against polygamy (a husband with more than one wife or a wife with more than one husband) and polyamory (multiple males married to multiple females). Do you consider that a good thing? The basis for some laws on the books appears to be a matter of consent. Laws like sex with minors or bestiality, they tell me, are primarily concerned not with moral issues, but with the ability of the "victim" to consent. So a minor cannot consent (in some sense) and an animal cannot consent and, so, it would violate their rights. Therefore, it is illegal. But is it rational? Can you rationally say that a 16-year-old cannot "consent"? That would be a tough argument, I think. And what rights do animals have regarding "consent"? I mean, I'm pretty sure they don't consent to being killed for food, so ...? So I would think that you'd prefer to have those things legalized, right? And with the suggestion that modern psychology is moving toward making "minor attraction" (a sexual attraction of an adult to a child) a "sexual orientation" rather than a sick mind, it would seem like eliminating laws against sex with minors would be a sure thing. Or how about incest laws? While the argument there is "Keep them because of health and safety concerns" (not moral values), what about a father and son, a mother and daughter, two brothers, or any other non-childbearing permutation? Wouldn't you want to legalize that?

Of course, the argument mostly is that laws should be based on "harm". What harms others? If it harms or has a good potential for harm, pass a law. If it is a "victimless crime" (as if there really is such a thing), don't. But, as I've already indicated, we're not very good at this kind of measurement. We'll classify X as bad for you and then discover that it's actually beneficial, and we'll assure everyone that Y does no harm only to find that it's killing people.

You know, if you think about it, I'd suggest that we really don't want an end to legislation based on morality. That would have another name: anarchy. What we want is legislation based on our moral code. "Make what I find morally offensive illegal, like bestiality because that's icky or Christians who believe that what I'm doing is sin. Make those things of which I approve legal. We're done!" Or, to put it another way, to the question, "Whose moral code would you use?", the honest answer would be "Mine!" Because the truth is that we all know, at some place inside, that legislating morality is good, necessary, and required. It's just hashing out the details that are problematic, and we forget that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked."

Add-Ons

You know what an add-on is. You buy a device and discover that in order to use it to its full potential, you have to buy another widget to use with it -- an add-on. Or maybe you don't need it. Maybe it would just be nice to have. Like a GPS unit that has an optional add-on of a traffic monitoring system. Nice to have. Or a car -- you know, to get you from Point A to Point B -- with a radio -- an add-on not necessary, but certainly making getting from Point A to Point B a little less tedious. You get the idea.

Have you ever noticed that it's not just in the commercial world that we find add-ons? Take something simple like friendships. A friendship is simply some connection with another human being. You may decide to add on, just as an example, a friendship between your spouse and your friend's spouse. Or you might not. You might go do things together -- you know, experiences, adventures, that sort of thing -- or your friendship might just be limited to conversations and shared interests or even locations. You may choose to stay in touch, or you may not. Add-ons.

You'll find it at church. "Yes, by all means, come to church! Oh, and if you're interested, you might want to add on an adult Sunday school class or maybe a small group Bible study. Hey, maybe you might want to add on some involvement with others, some ministry, some ... dare we say it ... discipleship? Oh, no, now we're meddling." Because, as we all know, "come to church" is the key component and all that other stuff is "add-on". Or ... is it?

Or how about marriage? What is necessary for marriage? Well, you have a man and a woman and, well, obviously, love. Throw in a little commitment (although, these days, likely not too much -- minding our weight, you know), and you have a recipe for a marriage. Now come the add-ons. Maybe you want kids; maybe not. Maybe you will have shared interests; maybe not. Maybe there will be sex; maybe not. Maybe you'll pray together; maybe not. Maybe you'll study the Word together; maybe not. Maybe, if you're really working this thing -- if you really want the deluxe version -- you just might make the biblical injunctions foundational to your marriage. Or ... maybe not. Add-ons.

It is my suspicion that there are some things that we view as add-ons that are, in fact, not merely options we might choose to include. In our upside-down world, I think it is probably likely that we are getting things turned around. We believe, for instance, that "church" is about attending a worship service and whether or not we get involved beyond that is optional. The Bible indicates that church is about stirring one another to love and good works and encouraging one another (Heb 10:23-25), about discipleship and "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20), about "building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-14). Odd thing ... there seems to be nearly nothing about "attending a worship service" in all that. Maybe we've got the thing turned around. We think that marriage is love and commitment between two people and much else is purely optional. The Bible indicates that the wife's job is submitting to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24) and the husband's job is loving his wife as Christ loved the Church and cleansing her "by the washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:25-33). Strange. "Two people loving each other" seems to be a moot point in all that. "The two shall become one flesh" is certainly there, but if that's where we stop, I don't think we got the point. I think it's entirely possible that we've got some of this stuff completely turned around. What we see as "add-ons" are actually biblical definitions and what we see as definitions are ... well ... changing continually. Now, I wonder who might be behind the process of changing God's definitions and instructions into something else? Hmmm.

Someone's Gotta Pay

One of the things I've seen with Windows 8 is a host of "free games" available. You download them, play them to your heart's content, and don't pay a thing. Of course, that doesn't mean they're free. There are advertisements. There are advertisements on your broadcast television and there are advertisements on your "free games" and there are advertisements on your Facebook. Why? Someone has to pay.

You remember the story last month. Ethan Couch, 16, was given probation for drinking and driving and killing four pedestrians. Probation rather than the expected 20-year sentence. Why? "Affluenza". The boy never learned responsibility or morals from his rich parents. It's not his fault. And, of course, there was a serious outcry over this. Why? Because that's not justice. And just what is justice? Someone has to pay.

Remember Anders Breivik? Okay, maybe not the name. He's the Norwegian mass murderer who set off a car bomb at the government housing for the Prime Minister of Norway killing 8 and wounding more than 200 and then went to an island youth camp where he killed 69 participants of the camp (mostly youth) and injured 110 more in 2011. Well, they found him sane (yeah, I get that ... or maybe not) and "sentenced" him to "preventative detention" for a minimum of 10 years in what Time deemed "the world's most humane prison". Apparently even this resort living is too harsh because he's complaining. And we sit stunned. Really? The worst mass killing in Norway since World War II and they don't put him in prison? They put him in "preventative detention"? Why are we complaining? Because that's not justice. Someone has to pay.

Some always has to pay. When the needy get "free money" to help them out, it's not free. Someone had to pay. When the homeless get a "free meal", it's not free. Someone had to pay. When a thief steals something and gets away with it it's not free. Someone has to pay. And if you are wronged by another and choose to forgive them, it's not free. Someone has to pay. Sometimes it is the person obtaining the thing. Sometimes it's the person providing it. But someone has to pay.

Remember that when you wake up in the morning forgiven. Yes ... you know ... redeemed, forgiven, your sins are blotted out. When you are shown mercy by God by having your sins removed and being clothed in the righteousness of Christ. These are wonderful things, but they are not justice. Justice requires that someone has to pay. Even in the case of mercy, someone had to pay. And we who have competed with Paul as the chief among sinners, who have fought with God, have shaken our fists in His face and declared, "I will be like the Most High", who have committed Cosmic Treason in the form of sin, we who were hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and now find ourselves forgiven, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb ... we need to remember that. We need to remember it in a big way. Someone had to pay. That "Someone" was Christ. He who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47). And, trust me, if you are among the forgiven, you have been forgiven much. We should avoid taking that kind of payment and that kind of mercy and that kind of grace for granted.

Feminists -- Rabid, Man-eating, and Proud of it

Perhaps you've heard about this recent story. Meryl Streep was presenting an award to Emma Thompson at the National Board of Review awards ceremony for her part in the movie, Saving Mr. Banks. Maybe you've seen it or, at least, the commercials for it. The movie is a "pat on the back" to Walt Disney (played by Tom Hanks) who convinced the author of Mary Poppins, P.L. Travers (played by Emma Thompson), to let him make her book into a movie. Streep apparently went on a rant, complaining that Disney (who she never knew) was sexist, racist, and anti-semitic (which seems rather two-faced since she is starring in an upcoming Disney movie) (and the facts of the accusation are in question).

I'll let those who know argue about the legitimacy of her accusation and those who care battle it out. Here's what I found fascinating. In her vitriolic assault (20 minutes on an award show ... really, Meryl?), she praised Emma Thompson as a fellow "rabid, man-eating feminist". Now, that's a news flash. I mean, I've made the same kind of accusation against the modern feminists, but males and females alike felt they needed to correct me. "They're not against men; they're merely seeking equality." Streep disagrees. She classifies herself as a rabid, man-eating feminist. Her words. Not mine.

So those of you who wish to defend feminism in its current crest of a wave, you'll need to do so with Streep's admission in mind. I thought it, but she said it, so you'll have to take that up with her.

Can We be Friends with Mary Jane?

Recently Colorado and Washington opened the door to recreational marijuana use. In Colorado, sales of marijuana exceeded $5 million in the first week. That's not chicken feed. They are projecting $600 million in sales and $70 million in tax revenue in the first year. So, for an average of $520 per ounce, Coloradans can legally get stoned.

In the past, when people used to ask me, "Is it a sin for Christians to use marijuana?", the answer was easy. "Yes." Why? "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). Easy. Now they go and legalize it. So what's my answer now?

I think we all know the answer. I don't think there really is a question. I think, in fact, the fact that we ask the question suggests that we all know that there is something ... wrong ... here. So let's think it through and see if we can find a more suitable answer than, "It's illegal, so you must not."

First, beware of the careful dodge. When God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food", He did not say, "I have given you every plant for recreation." He specified "for food". While some may ingest marijuana to obtain its effects, I know of no one who actually claims to eat it (in things, because who could actually just eat it?) for nutritional value. Don't buy that false argument. It's a red herring.

So what does the Bible say about mary jane, ganja, weed, grass, pot, dope, whatever you wish to call it? Here's the straightforward, honest answer: nothing. Not a word. Not a peep. The word in not one of its forms appears a single time in the Bible.

Well, then, we're done, right? Christian liberty and all that! Pass the joint and lets get mellow!

Hang on. There is more to consider. Let's think a little more clearly (you know, before we addle our brains with the effects of the drug).

First, if you're asking, "Is it a sin for Christians to use marijuana?", there is a high likelihood that you fall in a very real, specific biblical category. I will slightly modify the text (the parts in italics) so you can see it clearly. "But whoever has doubts is condemned if he uses it, because the use is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). Do you doubt? Don't. Simple as that. If we're talking about a position of Christian liberty here and you have any questions, the Bible calls it sin to proceed. That should clear out a lot of questions.

But let's say you wish to think it through further. Is that all there is? No, I don't think so. In Ephesians 5 we are told "be imitators of God" (Eph 5:1). Paul goes on in that passage to describe, positively and negatively, what that would look like. We would, for instance, "walk in love" (Eph 5:2). We would not have "filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" (Eph 5:4). We would not be partakers with the sexually immoral, the covetous, the deceivers (Eph 5:5-7). We would "try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord" (Eph 5:10). We should "take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness", but we would "expose them" (Eph 5:11). And so on. In this list we also find this as part of being imitators of God:

Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18).

"That is debauchery" (ESV). Interesting phrase. The King James says "excess". The word is asōtia and means most literally "not" (a) "saved" (sōzō). Yes, startling, isn't it? Now, don't get ruffled ... yet. We use "saved" to mean "saved from wrath" or that sort of thing. This version is any sort of "saved", as in "preserved", "delivered", "protected", "healed", that sort of thing. Asōtia is a noun that refers to dissolution, abandonment, profligacy ... is any of this helping? Here, let's see if this helps. In Titus 1:6 and 1 Peter 4:4 the word is used to indicate "riot", "dissipation", "riotous living" -- going wild.

Okay, so let's see if this makes any sense. We are to be imitators of God as His children. This includes avoiding too much alcohol because being drunk is simply a waste of time, worthless excess, just being wild. Don't do it.

If we examine the Scriptures further, we'll find that there are lots of thoughts on this concept. We are to be "sober-minded" and "watchful" (1 Peter 5:8), to not associate with drunkards (1 Cor 5:11), to avoid excess (Gal 5:21). We are to be renewed in the mind and not conformed to the world (Rom 12:2). In other words, it seems to me that clear thinking rather than "getting high" is the call for Christians.

There is one other consideration. "We are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor 5:20). Paul said of the Jews who claimed to honor God, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). Don't we already hear enough about "You Christians are no better than we are. You fornicate and divorce and sin as much as we do"?

Here's what I would conclude, then. If you doubt, don't. Unquestionably, it is sin for you. If you don't doubt, please reconsider. Is it possible to alter your mental perceptions with drugs (of any sort) in a way or for a purpose that is not "excess", "wildness", debauchery? And, as an ambassador for Christ, what is it you are representing to those around you? Now, would I classify it as sin? Well, clearly for those who doubt. For the rest I would suggest that it may be sin and would likely be folly. Just something to think about.

Thorny Thanks

Twila Paris performed the song, This Thorn. The first verse goes like this:

Thank you for this torn embedded in my flesh.
I can feel the mystery; my spirit is made fresh.
You are sovereign still and forever wise.
I can see the miracle opening my eyes
To a proud heart so quick to judge;
Laying down crosses and carrying grudges.
The veil has been torn
And I thank you for this thorn.

I was talking to a friend a short time ago and he was telling me about a difficult time he was going through. It was a genuine difficult time. It was indeed an unfair situation and most of us would have responded the same way he did with hurt and anger. But he was telling me about how he was praying and learning to set aside the hurt and anger. He made an interesting statement. "I don't ask God to take away the situation. I want Him to fix my heart."

Now, that's a perspective to consider. Imagine if you were more concerned about your heart condition than your comfort. Think what it might be like if you were more ardent for holiness than happiness. What would it look like if your strongest desire was to be what God wanted you to be at any cost? Would that change things?

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask for relief. Paul did it (2 Cor 12:7-8). Jesus did it (Matt 26:39-44). (Isn't it interesting that both of them asked three times? Just an observation.) So asking God to remove a difficult or painful situation isn't an issue. Do it. But if it is true that "He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth" (Dan 4:35) and if it is true that "all His works are right and His ways are just" (Dan 4:37) and He allows a condition to continue (you know, like Jesus prayed -- "nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."), then perhaps we can trust God to do what is right and seek to rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer for His name (Acts 5:41) and "boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor 12:9-10) and give thanks in everything (1 Thess 5:18). Maybe we could thank Him for the thorn and even gain from it. Maybe.

Why Is it?

Why is it that a father who has sex with a woman not his wife would likely do harm to the guy who tried to do the same with his daughter?

Why is it that a Christian celebrity that claims in an interview that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin is fired, but the leader of the biggest segment of modern Christendom is named man of the year by Time magazine?¹

Why is it that roving gangs of black men who are assaulting random white people in what has been deemed "the knockout game" are rarely arrested or named, but the one white guy that does it is arrested and charged with a hate crime?²

Why is it that we medicate kids for attention-deficit problems but encourage it in everyone else with our media, our "smartphones", our soundbites, our "tweets", our "tldr"³, in our standardization of "immediate fun now and really, really quick"?

Why is it that Christians need to be more tolerant and of other people's beliefs but no one else needs to be more tolerant of Christians?

Why is it that those who argue for "new things" like Dispensational Premillenialism (mid 1800's), Pentecostalism (1906)⁴, Open Theism (1994), or the morality of homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" (2000) see no conflict with Jesus's claim that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth? Did He really fail that badly?

Why is it that Christians who argue against atheists who say that Christians pick and choose what Bible verses they will follow are far too likely to not be reading their Bibles?

________
¹ Could it be that the one who stood by the Scriptures is offensive while the one that appears to be waffling about it all is not?

² This is not a suggestion that it is wrong to arrest the white guy and charge him with a hate crime. It is a suggestion that it is wrong to fail to do so in the other cases.

³ Too Long, Didn't Read ... or is it possible that the sentence was too long and you didn't read it?

⁴ While Pentecostals will likely tell you it started back at Pentecost, the doctrines and beliefs of Pentecostalism didn't take shape until 1906 at the Azusa Street Revival. Starting at that small point, Pentecostalism with its second wave, the Charismatics, and its new "third wave" in such things as the Vineyard movement, they now hold an estimated 1.1 billion adherents, including Roman Catholics, and are the largest influence in African Christianity. (Unfortunately, their influence there is often more satanic than Christian. I mean, seriously, how does a "health and wealth" preacher get by in Africa?)

Taking a Leap

If you've ever read through Hebrews, you might have noticed a strange thing. The author of the book (we aren't sure who it is) seems to ... take liberties. And it might make you wonder.

Here, let me explain. The first chapter is about how Christ is so much superior to angels.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name He has inherited is more excellent than theirs (Heb 1:1-4).

That's the original claim. He is the Prime Messenger (which, by the way, was formerly the job of angels -- literally "messengers"). He is God's glory itself, God's exact nature, and the universe is sustained by Him. (I'm really curious how those who claim that Jesus is not God manage to get around such explicit language.) He is "much superior to angels".

The author goes on to make comparisons. "To which of the angels did God say ..." and he quotes various passages that illustrate how the Son is far better than any angel. And it is these passages that, if you're paying attention, seem odd.

The first (Heb 1:5) comes from the second psalm.

I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you (Psa 2:7).

The author of this psalm (we're not told who) says specifically that God said it "to me" -- to the author of the psalm. Still, quite clearly, the author of Hebrews assumes that it is spoken about Christ.

The second (Heb 1:5) is from 2 Samuel.

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you (2 Sam 7:14-15).

This is part of the Davidic Covenant. God prevents David from building a temple for Him, but promises to provide an offspring after him who will be His Son. Of course, if you read the text, it seems to run into trouble. "When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men." We know Jesus didn't commit iniquity. Who is in view here? Likely us, His spiritual offspring. So this wouldn't be, at first glance, a reference to Christ. But the author of Hebrews assures us that it is, at least in the text he quotes.

He next yanks a verse entirely out of context and then "twists" it slightly. He says that God says, "Let all God's angels worship Him" (Heb 1:6). Here's the actual reference.

Worship Him, all you gods! (Psa 97:7)

It's the lowercase "gods", not "angels". Oh, and the reference is to Jehovah, not Christ. But the author of Hebrews sees in this text a clear reference to Christ.

He then contrasts a quote from Psalms about the angels -- "He makes His messengers winds, His ministers a flaming fire" (Heb 1:7; Psa 104:4) -- with a quote (Heb 1:8-9) from another psalm.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions (Psa 45:6-7).

This one is really strange. It is actually from a maskil of the sons of Korah, a love song (Psa 45:1), primarily to the king. It speaks of how God has blessed the king, but it is basically about the king. It's reference to "God" in the verse is actually to David, the lord. And still the author of Hebrews sees it also as a reference to Christ.

Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but You are the same, and Your years have no end (Psa 102:25-27).

The Hebrews 1:10-12 allusion is to this psalm, but the psalm refers to Jehovah. Clearly. And still the author of Hebrews sees it as a reference to Christ.

The last one (Heb 1:13) refers to Psalm 110.

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psa 110:1).

This one is confusing ... to the common reading. The earlier Jewish readings suggested that it really should be translated, "The Lord said in His Word" because clearly it can't be referring to David (who wrote it). I mean, David was the lord. So in what sense could David say that the Lord (Jehovah) said to his lord ... anything, since he was the lord? Jesus says that it refers to Himself (Matt 22:41-46). Apparently, then, Jesus concurs with the author of Hebrews. Not clear to those reading it before, this text is a reference to Christ and no other.

What's my point? Am I suggesting that the author of Hebrews was wrong? May it never be! I'm suggesting that the author of Hebrews was operating under divine inspiration. He was able to draw things from Scripture that, frankly, we should not. He was able to make connections that we cannot. They make sense, given as they are. And since it is divinely inspired, they are correct. But we shouldn't be making these kinds of leaps, not having that same inspiration.

What's my point? My point is that clearly the text requires that Jesus was not merely a man, but was divine. He was the Creator. He is the image of God and is God's glory. The texts that refer to characteristics of God -- Jehovah -- also apply the same characteristics to Christ. He is God. My point, also, is that the Scripture is unique. I've heard many ask, "Why didn't God make it clear?" I would argue that He has. It's in there. You just have to look and listen and pay attention. I would argue that it is as clear as it needs to be. I would argue, based partly on the illustration of this entire text, that Scripture is sufficient. That would be my point.

The Testimony of a Pagan King

Daniel is not one of the most read books of the Bible, I know. But you likely know some of the stories. "Daniel in the lion's den" (Daniel 6) is an ever-popular story for the kids. Most of us know the one where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow to the king and were saved from the fire (Daniel 3). Perhaps lesser known is the story of Daniel and the "creative alternative", where Daniel and his friends decided not to defile themselves with Babylonian food and offered to go vegetarian instead (Daniel 1). And, of course, the book is riddled with stories about Daniel interpreting dreams.

In the fourth chapter of Daniel we have one of these dream incidents and its outcome. Same old story. King Nebuchadnezzar, the pagan king of Babylon (the one who demanded that they worship his image in chapter 3), couldn't get an interpretation from his wise men, so he asked Daniel. Daniel heard the dream and paled. "My lord," he said, "may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!" (Dan 4:19). But it wasn't. It was about the king himself. He would go mad, live like an animal for seven years, and thus learn "that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He will" (Dan 4:25). Oddly, the king didn't learn from this warning. A year later he boasted to those with him about the marvelous kingdom he had created for "the glory of my majesty" (Dan 4:30) and was instantly driven mad. For seven years he ate grass and lived in the field "until his hair grew as long as eagles' feathers and his nails were like birds' claws" (Dan 4:33). We have a record of the words of the pagan king himself when he regained sanity in Daniel 4:34-37. Note that it is written in the first person: "At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me ..." What is his observation? What is his important lesson? What did this pagan king get from his experience?

At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored Him who lives forever, for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"
(Dan 4:34-35).

This pagan king, this maker of self-styled idols, this enslaver of God's people learned a lesson that, I would venture to guess, is rare even among Christians. I mean, sure, we're all in favor of blessing God and honoring God and recognizing that His kingdom endures forever. But do we really believe in God's Sovereignty in the way that this heathen did? Look at what he claimed line by line.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing.

Now, seriously, we know better, right? God loves us all and, in some sense, even owes us something. Love, attention ... something. We are His creation and He counts us as important to Him. We all know that. All, apparently, except Nebuchadnezzar. He says that we "are accounted as nothing". Gone, then, are the complaints about "Why would God allow this to happen?" or "Why has God let me down?" or the like. If we are accounted as nothing, the basis for our complaints is gone.

He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.

Okay, now clearly this one is wrong. We routinely and with regularity see that God's will is broken by Man's choices. I mean, we see that from the outset, don't we? It wasn't God's will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit in the garden. It wasn't God's will that the world became so sinful that He had to wipe it out in a flood. It wasn't God's will that Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery. It wasn't God's will that the Pilate and the Jews crucify His Son. Or ... was it? We are much more enlightened than this poor king. He believed that God does according to His will every time. Many of us who hold to the sovereignty of God think this isn't true.

None can stay His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"

Now, to be fair, I understand that this isn't strictly correct. We can and do regularly say to Him, "What have You done?!" But you get the point. We have no right. We have no standing. We have no authority. God does what God wants and no one has the right or power to stop Him or question Him. At least, that's what Nebuchadnezzar understood.

How about you? Is it possible that this pagan king had a higher view of God's Sovereignty than you do? Is it possible that he understood God's Sovereignty to be absolute and you do not? That would be a sad thing, wouldn't it, if a pagan king had a higher view of God than you do as a believer?

I'd like to end with the king's final quote in this chapter.

Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are right and His ways are just; and those who walk in pride He is able to humble (Dan 4:37)

"All His works are right and His ways are just." This is good to know about an Absolute Sovereign. "Those who walk in pride He is able to humble." That's a fair warning to those who fail to recognize God's Sovereignty. A fair warning from a pagan king. In fact, a fair warning from a pagan king who failed to regard the fair warning he got on the same subject. Don't be a pagan king.

Looking in Wrong Places

So, there I am, reading through advertisements on various Christian books that I might enjoy, and I come across this -- the Jesus Calling Devotional Bible ... in New King James, no less. Brothers and sisters, we have arrived.

Maybe you're not aware of this cultural phenomenon. Jesus Calling is a bestseller by Sarah Young. On Amazon it has a 5-star average, touting it as "Uniquely inspired treasures from heaven for every day of the year by missionary Sarah Young." Note the word, "inspired". Sarah is a third-generation missionary to Japan with degrees from a Presbyterian seminary. Her book is a "devotional", an encouragement to experience the Presence of God (because in her book "Presence" is always capitalized). Good stuff, you know. Grow closer to God. Feel His presence. That sort of thing. Seeking a closer relationship with God, she read God Calling, a book by two "listeners" in the 1930s. These two women sat patiently with pencil and paper in hand writing down whatever God would say to them. And thus began Sarah's quest not to merely know God through His Word, but to achieve direct and unique communication with Jesus Himself. And she achieved it! The book, then, is about Jesus speaking directly through her -- new revelations from God.

Now, perhaps you, dear reader, don't find that of any concern. In fact, you might even want to experience the same thing. But have you examined the ramifications? When God inspired (there's that word again) Paul to write, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) (as an example), it was directly from God and, as such, a mandate. That is, any believing husband wishing to follow God is required to love his wife as Christ loved the church. When God breathes something, it is true and binding. Or, consider the question from another direction. Many Christians debate the inerrancy of Scripture; this is the other question -- the sufficiency of Scripture. When God breathed His Word to those whom He inspired to write, did He do a complete job? Or is there something ... lacking?

And this is where we get to in the end. Here's the message we are sending with the Jesus Calling Devotional Bible. "Folks, the Bible is not enough. God has more to say. You can obtain better info -- more personal God-breathed messages. So buy this Bible to see how you can get more than this Bible can offer you. Because why would you think that God did what He set out to do when He inspired the Word of God?" Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?

Not-So-Secret Messages

Humans have various ways to communicate. We can write and read. That's unique in that animals can't do it. We talk to each other and even listen. We have what we all know as "body language". You know how that works. A nod, a shake of the head, a way of holding your eyes or your mouth or some other expression, and so many other forms of bodily expression speak volumes without words. Indeed, some suggest that the new trend that is replacing texting (you know, using words ... or mostly words) is sending photos. An app called Snapchat is popular and, while texting is dropping, sending photos is rising. (I read the other day of a young girl who says she rarely texts, but sends perhaps 50 to 100 photos a day to communicate with her friends.) Why? "Because photos capture emotion." You know, a picture is worth a thousand words. Without offering an opinion about all of this, I'm simply pointing out that we send not-so-secret messages all the time.

Communication is complicated because these messages are often subliminal. They're not overt. They may not even be conscious. The young fellow enamored with this vision of loveliness that he has just met is not aware that by staring longingly into her eyes with rapt attention to her every word is speaking volumes to everyone around him. So often we are communicating either in a way that we ourselves are not aware of or in a way that is not being received because the one for whom it is intended is not getting it. As my wise mother taught me, communication is tenuous at best.

One place that we're communicating without likely being aware of it is in the bedroom. Sex, you see, is its own not-so-secret language. And while we might think we know this, the problem occurs in that men and women speak different languages in this venue. I know, I know, that's not what the media is telling us. Gender is fluid, they assure us. The much-vaunted cry for "gender equality" sounds regularly from our societal loudspeakers, so much so that much of our society these days is confused by just what "gender equality" means. The original notion was "equal worth", something certainly necessary to argue for. Today it means more like "equal" -- no differences. So the elites are now arguing that masculine and feminine are the same thing or, rather, meaningless and that "he" and "she" are no more necessary than the singular "they" or the newly popular "ze", two pronouns offered to embrace either both genders simultaneously or none at all¹. The truth is that the two genders, like the two sexes, are different and everyone knows it.

As it turns out, men and women "speak a different language" in the bedroom. Now, that isn't really a surprise, is it? I mean, we all knew it, didn't we? So while the primarily male-driven porn industry is trying to convince society that males and females experience sexual desire and sexual response the same way, we all know that's not true. Men see sex as its own end. Sex is its own statement. In the dim reaches of the male mind sexual relations say something in and of themselves. More importantly, the refusal of sexual relations say something just as certain. To women, sexual relations are only part of an entire vocabulary of love. To the female mind, kind words, romance, gifts, sharing, touches, caresses, time together, warmth, intimacy (beyond sex), openness, and so much more are all part of the language that says, "I love you" -- easily as much as if not more than the act of sex does.

Okay, so what's my point? I mean, I'm not likely telling you something you don't know here. "And, really, Stan, what does this have to do with anything vaguely biblical?" Yeah, I hear you. Here it is. You will note that the commands in the Bible (See? I was going to work it in here.) for husbands and for wives are different. (That, by the way, ought to give someone defending "same-sex marriage" as if it's biblically acceptable pause.) Wives are told, "Be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22), to "see to it that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33), and to submit "even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1). Husbands are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), "to love his own wife even as himself" (Eph 5:33), to "live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7) and "show her honor" (1 Peter 3:7). These are not the same commands. There is, however, a mutual command:

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another (1 Cor 7:3-5)

Now, remember, men and women have different languages in the bedroom. And we have different commands from God for husbands and for wives. These commands are not limited to the bedroom, but when you couple them to the mutual command about sex between husband and wife, perhaps you can begin to see my point. Wives are to submit; husbands are to love. Wives are to respect; husbands are to understand. Both are to fulfill their sexual "duty"; neither has authority over their own bodies. So "stop depriving one another."

My question, then, is this. You may not be aware of it, but what are you telling your spouse in the bedroom? Husbands, when you aim to express your love by sex without regard to the language she speaks, what are you telling her? "I don't care; I just want what I want. You don't count." Is that what you wish to express? Wives, when you withhold sex from your husband for whatever reason, what are you telling him? "I don't care; I just want what I want. You don't count." Funny. Different "words", but the same message. And, more than likely, not the intended message. (At least, hopefully not.)

Husbands, we are commanded to understand our wives. And, oh, by the way, you don't have authority over your body. So honor her by loving her in a sacrificial way. Communicate that love to her in a language she understands. Wives, you are commanded to submit to your husband and respect him. And, oh, by the way, you don't have authority over your body. Communicate that submission and respect in a language he understands.

It's a funny thing. I'm pretty sure this narrow expression that I've offered isn't all God meant with His commands for wives to submit and husbands to love, but it sure seems to fit, doesn't it? I'm sure He meant much more than communication in the bedroom. But I'm pretty sure He meant that as well. So just what are you trying to tell your spouse with the way you approach sexual intimacy? Is it in a language he or she understands? Have you even considered that you don't speak the same language? Something to think about?

________
¹ I recently read a story from Mills college, an all-girl college (Why can they have all-girl colleges, but not "all-men" anything?) where a particular club meets with introductions and an expression of their "PGP" - preferred gender pronoun. Remember, this is an all-girl school. More and more people "identify in some way outside the binary" in gender terms.

Evolution

I believe in evolution. No, really, I do.

Take, for instance, Christmas. Christmas started with the birth of God's Son. We don't know when (although it would be reasonable to guess it is somewhere in the spring or the fall), but we know Jesus was born. In early Christianity birthdays weren't much noted; death days were. Thus, the main "Christian holiday" was the Resurrection of Christ. That took place at the Passover. In the 4th century, then, the church decided it needed to put an end to the Saturnalia and other winter feasts celebrating false gods and designated December 25 as the day to celebrate Christ's birth, not because He was born on that day, but because it was a convenient day for a big celebration. By the Middle Ages, Christmas had replaced the pagan events. In the 18th century, the Puritans pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25th and the date was actually a product of a pagan celebration, so they outlawed it in the United States. Like Prohibition of the 20th century, it didn't last long. Christmas was back in full swing by the mid to late 19th century.

Other components were added after the 4th century. Christmas trees took a place in Germany after they became the symbol of the "Christ Tree" which stood after a missionary felled an oak to demonstrate that the "tree spirits" were impotent. Tradition says that Martin Luther added lights to the Christmas tree using candles in order to show his family the wonder of the stars in the trees at night. Saint Nicholas lived in the 4th century and was not a Christmas figure, but became one later. St. Nicholas was introduced in America in 1774 by a New York newspaper. The New York Historical Society distributed woodcuts of the popular Christmas scene of stockings, toys, trees and fruits in 1809. The fat Santa didn't make his appearance until Coca Cola featured the rotund character drinking a Coke in a magazine advertisement in 1931. A copywriter, Robert May, from Montgomery Ward molded Santa's image further with his 'Twas the Night Before Christmas giving us more imagery as well as Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer. May's brother-in-law, Johnny Marks, wrote the popular Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer song which Gene Autry took to the top of the Billboard charts in 1949. And the evolution continued.

In 2013 the networks put out a Christmas special based on the Ice Age cartoon series -- you know, before a Christmas of any kind existed. And why not? Christmas has evolved. Surveys suggested that while 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas every year including 80% non-Christians, 83% believe it's about spending time with family and friends, 41% think it's about celebrating God's love for humanity, and 40% think it means nothing but a day off. In 2010 a survey found that 51% considered Jesus's birth irrelevant to Christmas. Only one in three say they would attend a Christmas-related religious service. That's how far we've come. From an unknown date but the certain birth of Christ, we've arrived at a non-religious celebration of the unknown on an unrelated date for no explained reason. Now that is evolution.

Or take sex and marriage ...

What Would You Say?

Evangelism Explosion "is a ministry that trains people how to share their faith in Christ." The system begins with two diagnostic questions:

1. Have you reached the point in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die tonight you would go to heaven?
2. If you were to die tonight and God were to ask you, "Why should I let you into heaven," how would you answer?

Good questions. Piercing questions. Gets you right to the point. And always a problem for me.

I know the right answers. I know the point of the questions. I know that "you may know that you have eternal life" by believing in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13). I know that "He who believes in Him is not judged" (John 3:18). I know that. I know the Gospel. I know the good news.

But the question asked is from God: "Why should I let you into heaven?" And when I take that question seriously (as we ought), I have no answer. "Why should You let me into heaven?" I'd want to answer. "I've got nothing here, God. I have no reason that you ought to let me into heaven. I have no right, no claim, no power, no entitlement. All I have is this certificate of debt canceled out with Your Son's name on it¹. That's it."

We have this notion that believing in Christ is a glorified "Get out of jail free" card. We often have this idea that, having prayed the sinner's prayer, we have in some sense obligated God to us. We feel as if we could rightly answer Him, "You must let me in because I've believed in Your Son." But I know me. I know my sin. I know my righteousness is as filthy rags. And I know that if justice alone prevailed, I'd be under the same eternal judgment as Hitler. Why should God let me into heaven? I can think of no reason. That's why, when I think about it, I am so delighted and grateful that He has promised to do just that on the basis of His Son's death and resurrection.
________
¹ Col. 2:13-14.

Admirable Neutrality

That's what they tell us: "Neutral is good." And it seeps into all sorts of things.

"Neutral is good" when it comes to religion. I mean, by all means, believe whatever you want and say whatever you want and feel whatever you want, but do not do it in the public square. Because in the public square religion has no place. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to sexual ethics. You want to argue that sex outside of marriage is bad and sex with animals is bad and sex with people of the same gender is bad and sex between married people is good -- go right ahead. Just don't do it where anyone else can hear it. We suppose you can do it around others who agree, but don't do it in the public square because it's hateful and mean-spirited and narrow-minded. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to politics. There are the far-left types who want Communism or Socialism or some such "ism" and there are the far-right types who want Capitalism and Tradition and other stuff on which this country was built and these are all well and good as long as they aren't on the ballot. We don't want to hear it. Either side. Especially the far right. Because that's the most offensive. In the political arena, what we need is "centrist" because "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to parenting. Some may argue that you should discipline your kids and some may argue that you should teach your kids your religion, but no intelligent person would fall for that sort of thing. So the underground parents, the backwoods types, the ignorant ones may go on with it, but don't let us find out about it because everyone knows that the proper way to raise kids is to be their buddy, not their authority figure, and everyone knows that the only reasonable approach is to let their kids choose their own religion rather than inflicting yours on them. It's only right. "Neutral is good."

And so it goes.

You know, of course, that it's a lie, right? I mean, you're not falling for any of that, are you? Because none of it is neutral. A neutral approach to religion in the public square would be to allow it to be there and to allow it not to be. A neutral approach to sexual ethics would be to recognize my right to view God's version of sin as sin and for me to recognize your right to disagree. A neutral version of politics would be to let all views play out and see what comes of it. A neutral approach to parenting would be to allow parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and consciences. And no one in the public square is advocating any of that. Instead, they recommend that Christians set aside their beliefs in public and hide their morality under a bushel. The rightwing needs to simply go away and parents need to knuckle under to the mainstream beliefs about parenting. This is not neutral.

Is neutrality admirable? I'm not so sure. We can debate it. But here's what I am sure of: No one advocating neutrality in the public square is actually thinking it is admirable. They're saying it, but in the end the aim is to silence their opponents, not to coexist with them. "Tolerance" is "You must agree with us." "Compromise" is "You give up your views in favor of ours." And when we get everyone on board, we can call it "neutrality" and declare it admirable, not because it's truly neutral, but because we've vanquished our foes. And that's not neutral.

Angels and Demons

"Angels we have heard on high" the song says. In fact, it is most likely that we have not heard them. Indeed, I would suggest that we know very little about the ever popular "angel" and his nemesis, the demon. What does the Bible tell us about these beings?

First, let's clear the confusion. Here's what is not true of angels or demons. Angels are not people who have died and gone to heaven. (In Heb 12:22-23 there are two groups in heaven. There are angels and there are "the spirits of righteous men made perfect". Two distinct groups.) Every time a bell rings an angel has not gotten its wings. Nor do angels sit around on clouds playing harps. No possible biblical reference to angels would allow anything at all remotely like these fun and fanciful but completely false concepts. Satan, as we all know, is dressed all in red, has horns and a forked tail, and carries a pitchfork. Clear enough. His minions, the demons, are dark beings from the pit of hell. Of course, Hollywood loves these caricatures and, I suspect, so do we because it gives us the distinct feeling that we can tell the bad guys from the good guys. The Bible, on the other hand, does not offer this imagery.

What does the Bible offer?

We know that angels are created beings (Gen 2:1). Heavenly beings were created by Christ and through Christ and for Christ and exist in Christ (Col 1:15-17). Apparently they were created before God created the world (Job 38:1-7). Angels, then, had a beginning, but they do not die (Luke 20:36). There are references to angels with wings (Exo 25:20; Isa 6:2; Rev 4:8), but it's not clear if all angels have wings. Angels are created beings and, as such, finite. There are things angels don't know (1 Peter 1:12). They are interested in human events (Luke 15:10) and intervene in human events (Daniel 9:21; Matt 1:20; Luke 1:11, 26-38, etc.). Angels have emotions (Luke 15:10; Job 38:7; 1 Peter 1:12). Angels are heavenly beings, but are not divine beings. They disdain worship (Rev 19:10). Instead, they are subject to God (1 Peter 3:22). This includes fallen angels (Jude 1:6; Job 1:6; 2:1). And they are limited in what they can do (Daniel 10:12-13; Jude 1:9). There are lots and lots of angels (Psa 68:17; Rev 5:11), and their primary duty -- their reason for being, their functional design -- is to be "ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation" (Heb 1:14). Based on the many references to angels praising God in His presence, it would appear that they are ministering spirits to God.

Angels appear to have various roles. There are angels called cherubim (plural for "cherub", except, as it turns out, they don't at all resemble the cute little chubby children that word calls to mind). These were the models God gave Moses for use on the Ark of the Covenant (Exo 25:20; Heb 8:5) and described by Ezekiel (Ezek 1:1-28; 10:1-20). It was a cherub that God armed with a flaming sword to keep Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). Cherubim were in close contact with God and formed the image of the mediation between God and Man (1 Sam 4:4; Psa 80:1; Ezek 1:26, 28). There are angels called seraphim. They are mentioned only in Isa 6 and appear to have the role of standing in the presence of God declaring His holiness. There are named angels including Gabriel and Michael. Gabriel appears to be a special messenger, described as one "who stands in the presence of God" (Luke 1:19). Michael is described as the archangel (Jude 1:9) whose apparent primary role is to battle demonic forces (Dan 10:13; Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7-9). As a group, angels are God's messengers, ministers, and God's army. Angels most often do not appear with wings, but appear in the form of men. And angels do not, as a rule, inspire warm feelings; they terrify. Indeed, God has used His angels on more than one occasion to carry out executions (2 Kings 19:20-34).

On a personal note, the Bible indicates that we have our own angels. This, of course, would make perfect sense considering their primary role as ministers to those who are to inherit salvation. David wrote, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them" (Psa 34:7). When the poor man, Lazarus, died, he was "carried by the angels" to Paradise (Luke 16:22). And Jesus warned of not despising "these little ones" because "their angels" are always in the presence of God (Matt 18:10). (Note: While we typically think of "these little ones" as a reference to children, if you will read the text you will find that it refers instead to a particular group of people who humble themselves to be "like this child". Thus, it is a reference to the adopted children of God, not all children.) What we call "guardian angels" are actually real. They don't protect us from all pain or hardship, but they do protect us from the harm that Satan would inflict if he could that is outside of God's plan. They do minister to those who will be saved. You may not have an angel assigned, but the role of guardian angel is a biblical role.

Something else about angels -- there are "elect angels" (1 Tim 5:21). As such there are some angels who are not "elect". Demons are real (James 2:19). These are described as not keeping their original position (Jude 1:6). Some were chained "until the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4). Others have worked with the chief of the fallen angels, Satan (Matt 25:41). (Note that the eternal fires of Hell were originally created for Satan and his angels.) Now, these fallen angels -- the ones we know as demons -- are spending their time opposing God even while they are subservient to God. (The imagery of Rev 12:4 suggests that Satan took one third of the angels with him when he fell from heaven.) Job's account tells us that Satan's opposition to God was limited by God. In 2 Kings 22 there is an account of a "lying spirit" sent by God to deceive Ahab's prophets and in 1 Sam 16:14 an "evil spirit from the Lord" tormented Saul. So, while Satan and his demons are powerful (1 John 5:19) and real, they are not omnipotent. We war against them (Eph 6:12) and they seek to harm us (1 Peter 5:8), but cannot (1 John 5:18). Indeed, Satan is "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2), the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) who has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. Jesus refers to him as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), but he is a defeated ruler. Oh, and that whole "red suit, pitchfork, horns, and a forked tail" concept? Yeah, not biblical either. Scripture says he "disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14). If you're looking for an easily recognized form of evil, you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Satan's primary weapon appears to be lies. He is the father of lies (John 8:44). He is described as "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray" (Rev 12:9). He started this right there in the Garden of Eden by deceiving Eve (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14). There are humans (we call them "false prophets") who operate under the delusion of deceiving spirits (1 John 4:1). But he has other means. And he can do injury to believers. Paul had to contend with "a messenger from Satan" (2 Cor 12:7) (who, by the way, God left in place -- 2 Cor 12:8-9). We know that Satan requested permission to "sift" Peter (Luke 22:31) and was allowed to do so within limits (Luke 22:32). There are those who will argue that Christians can "have a demon", that Christians can, in essence, be demon-possessed. Given all that Scripture says Satan can and does do to Christians, I would suspect that it would look like this was true, but John says, "We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him" (1 John 5:18). If "the evil one does not touch him" (Note: the word "touch" here is literally "to fasten to"), then it would suggest that either it only appears that one born of God could have a demon but doesn't actually or John is mistaken.

It's a strange thing, at least to me. Surveys suggest that a large number of self-identified Christians today believe in Jesus, God, even angels -- all that good stuff -- but do not believe in Satan or demons. Given the large amount of Scripture devoted to Satan and his followers and given the quite obvious effect of the father of lies and given the fact that Jesus Himself seemed to believe in Satan, I have to wonder on what they would base this warm and fuzzy but clearly unbiblical belief. We are warned that Satan is "seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8), to "resist the devil" (James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9), and to "give no opportunity to the devil" (Eph 4:27). It would seem to me that "such a being doesn't exist" would be a poor preparation for the biblical line of thinking on the subject. On the other hand, a host of ministering spirits is a really good thing. Angels and demons ... they're biblical, real, and, ultimately, under God's control. Good to know.

Didn't Work

I remember years ago when I started work at a new job, a new coworker came up to me and said, "I sure hope you're not one of those Christian types."

"Sorry," I said, "I am."

"Oh, too bad."

"Why?"

"Well, I don't like Christianity."

"Oh? Why?"

"Well, I tried that and it didn't work."

I was left wondering "Didn't work?" What did that mean, "didn't work"? What was it supposed to do that it didn't do?

It begs the question. Is Christianity a means to an end?

It's a common approach. A friend asked me (years ago when my children were still children), "How do you get your kids to behave? Yours are so good and I can't get mine to listen to me." So I told him my approach which included corporal punishment when needed. "Oh," he said, "I tried that. It didn't work." There was that phrase again. "Didn't work." You see, to me corporal punishment was part of a parenting program commanded by God, so I did it. The question could be, "Why did you spank your kids?" and the answer could be, "So they would be good", but for me it wasn't. For me it was, "Because the Bible says, 'Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him' (Prov 13:24) and I love my sons." So, did corporal punishment accomplish what it was supposed to? If I did it because I love my sons it did.

I've seen the same plan of attack in marriages. There was a bumper sticker I once saw that read, "Treat her like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag." It answered the question, "How should I treat my wife?" with "Treat her well so she'll treat you well." And men have told me, "I tried that. It didn't work." There it is again -- "didn't work." The Bible commands, "Husbands, love your wives" and we think, "That's so she'll love me back" and it isn't in there. The Bible commands, "Wives, submit to your husbands" and wives think, "That's so he'll treat me right" and it just isn't in there. If, on the other hand, I love my wife because God told me to, then regardless of her response, I will have obtained what I intended, love for my wife as a matter of obedience to a God I love.

Because, you see, what we're looking for far too often is a means to an end, and that "end" is our benefit. We think of parenting relationships as a means to make well-behaved kids who love us (that part is really key, isn't it?). We're commanded instead to "bring up a child in the way he should go". We think that treating our spouses in the way we are to treat them is a means of great gain. Instead, we are commanded to treat our spouses in the way we are commanded because we are commanded to do so, not as a means of gain. And far too often we think that Christ is a way to solve life's problems, ensure peace, obtain domestic tranquility, and so on. When it doesn't make us feel better, it "didn't work". And that was never the point.

Paul warns of the false teacher who is "deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Tim 6:5-6). He goes on to say, "But godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). If you are approaching Christianity as a means to an end that will benefit you, you'll like end up like the rest. "I tried that; it didn't work." On the other hand, if you are content, then godliness -- as a Christian, as a parent, as a spouse -- is great gain. Christianity is not a means to an end, but is the end itself. A right relationship with God from a changed heart is a sufficient end on its own -- great gain.

An excellent wife who can find?

This is one of those biblical questions (Prov 31:10) that a lot of people have trouble answering. It seems a kind of rhetorical and, frankly, unanswerable question. Clearly the intent is "No one", right? Well, no. Not "no one". I can.

The passage (Prov 31:10-31) gives a lengthy outline of what might be considered an "excellent wife". What kinds of things are included?

The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain (Prov 31:11).

Indeed. Let me tell you about my wife. It might not be fair to say I trust her. More accurately, I know her. And knowing her, I trust her with all my heart.

She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life (Prov 31:12).

It is not an exaggeration to say that this is true of my wife. Each and every day she does me good.

Verses 13-17 describes an industrious wife. "She ... works with willing hands" and "provides food for her household" and "considers a field and buys it." That kind of stuff. My wife is that wife. For the largest part of our 21 years together she was employed. Even after having set aside the job market, she is constantly employed. "Do you work?" someone might ask. Her correct reply would be "Not for money" because she works continuously.

She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy (Prov 31:20).

My wife is generous. She gives what she can to those who need it. She shares what she has with others.

She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet (Prov 31:21).

Okay, so maybe her household isn't clothed in scarlet. But in other versions (both the Latin and the Septuagint), the text is rendered "clothed in double". Either way, the idea is that she's not worried about cold weather because she ensures that her family is properly dressed. And that describes my wife perfectly. She is diligent to make sure we have what we need without resorting to too many extras.

She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness (Prov 31:27).

My wife hates to be idle. Even now, when all the kids have moved out on their own, she takes care of her granddaughter and cooks and cleans and keeps the backyard clean and ... non-stop. She "does not eat the bread of idleness."

Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all." (Prov 31:28-29).

Well, obviously her husband praises her. I'm doing it right now. But, indeed, it is my contention that there is no wife better than mine. "You surpass them all." And no complaint is offered by her children. They rise up and call her blessed as well.

January 1st is our anniversary. This one, in fact, is our 21st anniversary. I see it as another opportunity to tell the world that I love my wife. That's a pretty easy thing to do, given that my wife is a model of the Proverbs 31 wife. I can't imagine a better woman than my wife.