No God, No Peace

The headline reads, "LGBT Group Burns Kim Davis With Billboard in her Hometown." "Dear Kim Davis," the sign reads, "The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage." Then the ultimate irony: "Paid for by Planting Peace." Yes, that's right. The LGBT group PlantingPeace.org paid for the sign and considers this kind of attempt at public humiliation "planting peace". Nice.

Just in case you might be confused ... like the writers of the piece ... you have to know this makes no sense, right? Let's make it clear. At no time in all of history was marriage defined as selling your daughter for three goats and a cow. Never. If this is a definition, it requires that anything else (a daughter not sold for some amount) could not be considered "marriage". The fact that someone in the past might or might not have offered a dowry for a daughter does not define marriage. The fact that some married more than one wife did not define marriage. (If multiple wives defined marriage, then the man with only one was not married. That's how a definition works.)

In various times and various places and various societies marriage practices have varied. No doubt. No question. But practices are not a definition. You (I hope) are in the practice of wearing clothes, but you are not defined by wearing clothes. A naked human being is still a human being. On the other hand, in all times and all places and all societies the fundamental definition of marriage has never changed (despite the article's audacious claim that the definition is "ancient"). Never changed until the 21st century. And make no mistake, the Supreme Court was consciously aware that they were changing the definition.

You may disagree with Kim Davis. You may disagree with defining marriage as it always has been defined. You may favor tossing out that "longstanding, traditional definition" (in the words of the court case in California in 2008) and maybe even tossing out marriage entirely. But do not buy the absolute lie that the definition of marriage has been changed for a long time. Not much more than a half century, I'd guess.

Oh, and "You're stupid and we're hoping to shame you in public" isn't actually a valid way to "plant peace". Labeling hate and bullying as "planting peace" doesn't make it so.

On a related note
Only on a related note, Kim Davis is back at work today. She declares she won't interfere with her clerks issuing gay mirage licenses. Her objection was not that they would be issued, but that she would be issuing them. So much for the "She doesn't want to allow other people their legal rights!" argument. She was simply not willing to have her own Constitutionally-guaranteed right to the free practice of her religion violated. (I am not saying she was right or wrong. I'm saying that all those haters out there that claim that she was trying to impose her beliefs on them were wrong.)

On a related note
On an only sort-of related note, I just came across this story. Where was the moral outrage over this? Why weren't the "marriage equality" folks up in arms about this judge refusing to do marriages? Why weren't the Christians making death threats? Why is it that most of us didn't hear about it until now? (I'm saying it's "only sort-of related" because it is not as connected to Kim Davis as to the judge in Oregon.) (Note: The reason the Christians weren't making death threats is because genuine Christians don't.)

Postscript
I have to do this because of the slander and lies being thrown at me regarding what is written here. "Snopes says that story of the judge in Texas is not true, you dirty rotten liar!" Okay, let's see.

Question: Is the Tonya Parker story similar to the Kim Davis story?

Snopes answer: "Mostly False"

How?

The Facts:
Tonya Parker, a female judge in Texas (before the Supreme Court redefined marriage and it was still marriage in Texas) refused to perform marriages. Her position: "I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn't apply to another group of people."

So, is it false that the Tonya Parker story is the same as the Kim Davis story. Yes, yes it is false.

Differences:

1. Tonya Parker was a judge refusing to practice legal marriage ceremonies in her state. Kim Davis was not a judge, but refused to issue "legal" marriage licenses in her state (actually, county). (I put "legal" in quotes there because the Kentucky Constitution still had marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.)

2. Tonya Parker was refusing on the basis of "marriage equality"; Kim Davis was refusing on the basis of the First Amendment.

3. Tonya Parker ensured the legal marriages could take place by sending them to other judges; Kim Davis did not (could not). (That is, Kim Davis had no one else to send them to.)

3. Tonya Parker was not reprimanded, cited, or treated badly in any way; Kim Davis went to jail.

There, see? Mostly false. As long as you keep in mind the question. It is nearly identical to the story of the judge in Oregon who is facing discipline for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies because of his religious beliefs even though he was not obligated under law to do so and he ensured that his clerks referred any requesting such a ceremony to other available judges.

And are the two, the judge in Texas and the judge in Oregon, the same stories? Similar, but not the same. The judge in Oregon was practicing his constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment right; the judge in Texas was not. The judge in Oregon faces consequences; the judge in Texas did not. (Please note that I indicated that the judge in Texas story paralleled the judge in Oregon, not Kim Davis.) So, dear reader, you decide. Have I indicated something false, or am I being falsely accused?

Simple, But Not Simple

As we know, God has many attributes. There are the "omni's", you know, like omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent. There are the obvious like holy, sovereign, and love. There are the more obscure like the aseity of God. "What's that?" That refers to the truth that God is self-existent. He wasn't made or created. He had no beginning and has no end. He ... is. (It was the attribute in mind when He told Moses, "I AM THAT I AM.") And He doesn't need you or me or anything else to be. Or you might hear of the immutability of God which is a fancy way of saying that He doesn't change. The list isn't short and it sometimes isn't obvious. But the strangest one, given the magnitude of His character traits, is the Simplicity of God.

"Okay, now, that doesn't make any sense," I can hear some say. "God is a lot of things, but simple isn't one of them." True. But the idea behind this attribute is not "easily understood" or "easily done". It isn't "slow or dim-witted" as in "simple-minded". It is intended to convey "not compound". And, to be honest, explaining the Simplicity of God ... isn't simple. Here's the idea. God has many attributes and traits, but God is not a conglomeration of those attributes and traits. He is "one". Just as the doctrine of the Trinity is three in one, so is this concept. The idea is that God is not comprised of His attributes; He is His attributes.

There is a problem, you see, in human thinking when we say that on one hand God is just and on the other that God is mercy. Seems contradictory. So we might try to suggest that He's somewhat just, but He can set that aside at some point to be merciful. To say "God is love" is not more right than "God is a consuming fire." His attributes aren't ranked or prioritized. He is His attributes. All of them. All the time. God is fully loving in His wrath, fully merciful in His justice, fully omnipotent in His grace. He is what He is.

Truth be told, I think that one is a hard one to wrap your mind around. That's okay. A really big, not fully comprehensible God is what you would expect, isn't it? Well, I would. This is when simple isn't simple.

When Defense is Opposition

Meet Marion County Judge Vance Day. He's in some hot water. You might think it's because he allegedly once hung a framed picture of Hitler in his courtroom or is accused of insulting veterans or is blamed for bullying employees. All bad things, I'm sure. But none of this rose to the level of "hot water" for Judge Day. Not until he committed the ultimate sin. He asked his clerk not to schedule him for performing marriages. He asked the clerk to send them to other judges. Why? "Day said same-sex marriage violates his religious beliefs." Oh, now, see? Clearly that makes him unfit for office. That other stuff? Not so much. Clearly it is his position on marriage that makes him a problem.

I first read this story the other day. The headline was "New Marriage Opponent". I saw the headline and wondered, "Is it another polygamist suit or perhaps a polyamory suit?" No, it was a guy who believed in marriage that is now classified as a "marriage opponent". How did we get here? So quickly? New York Magazine wants to know if we should shun "gay-marriage opponents". (Note: That "shunning" was in terms of a story about a Quaker school. That kind of "shun", as in "a formal decision to cease interaction with an individual or a group".) And, of course, the crowd is suggesting that we should. Shun those who disagree. And even though Marion County (Oregon) judges are not mandated by law to perform marriages at all, this guy has got to go.

Years ago I expressed concern for the decay of the legal rights (Constitutional rights) of Christians. Someone opposed to my views told me that it was hogwash and they would surely defend my civil rights. I'm pretty sure it would be foolish of me to put my trust in that kind of assurance as society rushes at break-neck speed away from anything Christian. When we've arrived at logically hating haters and judging judgers, why would we expect common sense or civil rights? Now, I'm not saying it's actually happening. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing if it does. I'm just suggesting that in a world where a person who stands for marriage is classified as an opponent to marriage, there isn't much reason to expect reasonable treatment anywhere. Thank God I have a Better One to trust to take care of me.

Slavery and Freedom

We know these terms, right? "Slavery" is not freedom and "freedom" is not slavery. We get it. Or ... do we?

There is a perception that rules make us not free and a lack of them make us free. Rules are slavery and we want freedom. As it turns out, this isn't entirely true. I'd suggest, in fact, that it isn't true at all, at least not biblically.

The one with the least rules and, therefore, the most freedom was Adam. Just a couple of rules, really. You know, be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth, and, oh, don't eat from that tree. Not much else. Easy. Do anything you want ... with those three provisos. And we all know how well that worked out. The result of Adam's decision to violate one little item on the list of only three was ... death for all (Rom 5:12). Paul, quoting Deuteronomy, assures us "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." (Gal 3:10)

We think that "no restraints" equals "freedom". The Bible sees freedom differently. In Galatians we read, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Gal 5:1) Freedom, then, is work. In fact, "You were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." (Gal 5:13) Freedom can be used to fail or to serve. But failing to use your freedom to serve one another results in submitting again to slavery ... lack of freedom.

Freedom, then, is found in serving one another through love. Does that sound right? It is right, but it doesn't actually sound right because we've been fed a bill of goods on service, love, and freedom. And lest you think I'm pointing my fingers at the "liberal Christians", relax. Who would give you a faulty view of freedom and slavery? That would be the one who wishes to enslave you.

Somehow we've bought the lie that true freedom is found in doing whatever we want. Oddly enough, when we try that, it doesn't feel very free. It is not particularly satisfying. That, of course, is because it is slavery. True freedom is found in service. True freedom is found in exercising genuine, selfless love. However, that isn't found outside of Christ (1 John 4:7). So true freedom is found in submission to Christ, dying to self and serving others. Now, is that the kind of liberty you're seeking? Maybe not, but it should be.

The Chastity Error

While much of today's society would like to provide condoms to high schoolers (or earlier?), there is still a segment that preaches chastity. Oh, sorry ... abstinence. Sounds right. You know, "No sex before marriage; no sex outside of marriage." Because, you know, it's biblical. Oh, and it's right. So it's "Abstain!"

The success of this message appears to be failing miserably. Pastors and even chastity preachers seem to be collapsing in a puddle of sexual sin. How can someone like a Josh Duggar who has been raised in a "don't touch before betrothal and don't kiss before marriage" home and made his "ministry" a largely "avoid sexual sin" ministry end up on the horribly losing side of this approach? I suggest that the approach is wrong.

"Oh, good," some will say, "he's finally seen the light that abstinence is wrong." Not what I said. I said the approach was wrong. What is the standard approach? "You should avoid sex before marriage because it's bad for you." Here's from the Abstinence Works website:

Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) Abstinence Education realizes that "having sex" can potentially affect teens not only physically (STDs and pregnancy) but also, as research shows, can have emotional, psychological, social, economic, and educational consequences.

Indeed, that's the name they give it -- "Sexual Risk Avoidance". So the idea is "avoid sex before marriage because it could hurt you." And they'll tell you about sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, socioeconomic risks, psychological dangers, harm to the children, all that good stuff. The message? "Be afraid; be very afraid."

In Scripture, this is the message as well. Or, at least, part. "Flee from youthful lusts," Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:22). "Make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." (Rom 13:14) Sexual sin, in fact, appears to have a unique position in the hierarchy of sin. It alone is listed as a sin against your own body. "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." (1 Cor 6:18) So, yes, run from this one; it is dangerous. But that's only half the story, and it seems as if the abstinence-only side is missing this other half.

Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. (Prov 5:15-19)

How often do you hear that message? Is it wrong to be drunk? Well, apparently not if it's drunk on the love of a wife. You see, one half of the warning is "That sin is dangerous; avoid it", but the other half is, "There is so much better available." The sin calls for you to satisfy an itch, but God offers a lifelong satisfaction. Are you really going to be satisfied with a momentary pleasure when you can have a life of blessing?

Eve's approach didn't work. She put up hedges around the problem. "God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (Gen 3:3) No, He didn't. No mention of "don't touch it". Warnings are not sufficient. They're helpful, but incomplete. Moses in the Psalms prays, "O satisfy us in the morning with Your lovingkindness, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days." (Psa 90:14) Yes, there is real danger in violating God's instructions. He should know; He's the Maker. But there are real joys in following His commands. Miss that aspect and you lose half the story. Like so many are today.

Pros and Cons

I'm having more and more trouble figuring out terminology. With all these Planned Parenthood videos out (nine, at last count), we are having more discussions on "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice". Of course, there are other terms to be applied. The "anti-abortion" side would normally prefer "pro-life" and would prefer to call the other side "pro-abortion". Both sides object to the characterization of their positions in these terms. But what is right?

I am not, in fact, anti-abortion. If "abortion" is the termination of a pregnancy, it would include "miscarriage" (also called "spontaneous abortion"). I don't object. It is not that a pregnancy is sacred. It is the life that is in the image of God. No, my objection is to the intentional death of the baby involved. Now, of course, given our level of technology, the two are inexorably linked. We cannot, today, remove a baby from a womb and have it survive. But the removal is not the problem that concerns me; it is the life. Thus, I cannot rightly be termed "anti-abortion", only "pro-life". If there are those who think that pregnancy is sacrosanct, then they would be classified as "anti-abortion". (And don't fall for that false line about "anti-choice". Everyone is "anti-choice" in some area or another because everyone believes that your choices and mine should be limited in some area or another.)

So is it fair to classify those who favor the procedure as "pro-abortion"? They generally object. "We're not pro-abortion; we're pro-choice." Applying the same thinking to this as I did to my own "pro-life" position, I'm not sure that many are actually "pro-abortion". That is, they aren't suggesting, "Every woman should kill a baby or two in their lifetime." They are "pro-abortion" in the sense that it should be available, but only that it would be an available choice. To be fair, then, I don't think you'll find very many "anti-abortion" types or "pro-abortion" types either.

So, not many "pro-abortion" and not many "anti-abortion". And, of course, I've established "pro-life" as a viable term. Here's the difficulty I'm having. Let's say that we did accrue the technology -- the artificial uterus or whatever -- that would allow a fetus to be removed from its mother's womb and maintained until it can be self-sustaining. Would mothers wishing to terminate their pregnancies opt for this? Would Planned Parenthood switch over to recommending this choice? The sad fact is that I don't think they would. Choosing between "terminating this pregnancy without residual" and "terminating this pregnancy knowing that somewhere out there a baby that was mine will live on", I don't think that most would select the latter. So, if this is true, what term can we fairly apply? If many of us are "pro-life" and many others would prefer to terminate the life of their baby rather than allow it to live on elsewhere¹, what term would rightly be applied? This isn't simply "pro-choice". Isn't this "pro-death"? If someone prefers killing a child to letting it live, isn't that the right term to apply?

Like I said, I'm having trouble. This term disturbs even me. Unfortunately, I can't seem to escape it. When we've arrived at the point that mothers would rather terminate the life of their babies -- made in the image of God -- than let them live, can it be deemed anything but "pro-death"? And if pro-death is as prevalent today as it appears to be, is there any wonder that human life is so much cheaper today, considering all the murders and killings? I mean, if a man kills his 1-year-old so he could play a video game or a woman kills another woman because she wasn't upset enough when their football team lost a game, what value is human life? Is that not pro-death? And why would we expect anything other than murder and mayhem from a society that embraces this position?
________

¹ Lest you think this is a silly position for me to take, ask yourself a question. If most women would gladly let the child live if they could, why don't they? There are no laws against giving a baby up for adoption. There is no shortage of people who wish to adopt newborns. There are plenty of places available for mothers to have babies without excessive cost where they can give them up for adoption. Given this obvious, easy, readily available, non-lethal option, why are there so many babies still being killed in the womb?

A Model of Good Works

According to the statistics, that "adultery online" site whose name I prefer not to name had something like 37 million subscribers. Of those, something like 5.5 million were women. Tough going for guys, but ripe picking for the women, right? Think again. An analysis of the data indicated that a vast majority of the women were fake entries, largely generated by the company itself. One estimate put it at perhaps 12,000 actual women subscribers out of the 5.5 million reported. Now, I don't know if that's good or bad. Does that mean that less women were interested in cheating on their husbands? I doubt it. Stunningly, though, that 37 million number, assuming some sort of accuracy, would represent 1 out of 10 people in the United States. Of course, not everyone on that list was an American and, as we've already seen, some of them aren't even real, but the number is certainly large. And the news is reporting that the numbers of users are increasing since the hack occurred. Most disturbing, of course, is the numbers of Christians involved. Beyond Josh Duggar, reports are that pastors and others are likely going to have to resign when their names come to light, and that's just the "name" Christians. How many other Christians will be on those lists?

Writing about "You who boast in the law" but dishonor God by breaking it, Paul writes, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:23-24) On the other hand, writing about how God had transformed Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the faithful, into Paul, the preacher of the Gospel, he says, "And they glorified God because of me." (Gal 1:24) We have before us two options. Will people blaspheme the name of God because of us, or will they glorify God because of us?

The problem, of course, is in the privacy. Somehow we get the sense, "If I don't get caught, it's not wrong." You see, while the adultery site was public, they gave you a sense of privacy. Apparently a false sense. And it wasn't just the security breach that made it a false sense. Jesus said, "Nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light." (Mark 4:22) We have our own truism. "Be sure your sins will find you out." It was sure to happen, either now or later (and later isn't necessarily better).

Perhaps the magnitude of the problem should be a wake up call. Perhaps the vast reach of the problem should be a warning bell. More like a klaxon or a call to arms. You see, Christian men, (and women), we are not at peace. We are at war. And, guys, you are the primary target of this problem of sexual sin. To the church at Rome Paul wrote, "Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy." (Rom 13:13) To the church at Corinth, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." (1 Cor 6:18) To the church at Ephesus, "Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints." (Eph 5:3) To the church at Thessalonica, "This is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality." (1 Thess 4:3) Get that? Guys (especially), this is the will of God for you. To Timothy it was, "Flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" (2 Tim 2:22) and to Titus, "Urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us." (Titus 2:6-8)

The married are especially addressed. "'The man who does not love his wife but divorces her,' says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'covers his garment with violence,' says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless." (Mal 2:16) Conversely, "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love." (Prov 5:18-19)

Look, what is the problem? Jesus told us what it was. "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." (Matt 15:19) While the world around us tries to find methods to fix our problems -- gun control and laws and positive thinking and self-esteem and such -- the problem is the heart. The problem of adultery and sexual immorality is not a problem of opportunity. It is a problem of the heart. So serious is this problem that Paul said, "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one." (1 Cor 5:11) Do not associate with them.

I cannot say that I know of any other sin in Scripture that gets as much press as sexual sin. From lust to fornication (sex between the unmarried) to adultery (sex while married with someone with whom you are not married), it's always and repeatedly addressed and condemned. Opposite sex, same sex, it doesn't matter. Sex outside of marriage, whether in real life or in you head, whether public or private, is regarded by God as a sin against your own body, an assault on the glory of God (1 Cor 6:20). While we should be shining examples (Matt 5:16) of self-control (Gal 5:22-23) and self-sacrificing husbands (Eph 5:25-28), we are succumbing instead to the basest of instincts, the "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-20). Brothers, these things ought not be!

Look, guys, it's your call. Which do you want to be? Do you wish to be one of whom it is said that God's name is blasphemed because of you? Or do you want it said that they glorified God because of you? And remember, "Nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light." Now is not the time to be muddling about in sexual sin, from porn to adultery and beyond. No matter what the rest of the world tells you.

Labor Day, 2015

Today is America's Labor Day in which we celebrate those whose hard work have brought strength and prosperity to our country. Sadly, it was originally established as a celebration of labor unions. Suggested by Matthew Maguire, secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists, in 1882, it became a national holiday in 1887. But we've forgotten that for the most part and just celebrate those who have jobs.

It's interesting, though. Many -- even Christians -- regard work as a curse. The dream of just sitting back and doing nothing is regarded as a wonderful thing. Christians see Genesis 3 as proof that it was a curse, a result of sin (Gen 3:17-18). As it turns out, the text doesn't say that. In fact, Adam was "gainfully employed" before sin ever showed up on the scene. His first job was to name the animals (Gen 2:19). After Eve joined him, he was promoted to "multiply and fill the earth and subdue it", the biggest gardening job ever. Sin, then, didn't bring about a curse of work. Work was already in the garden and already classified by God as "very good" (Gen 1:31). No, sin brought about hard labor.

So work is a good thing. Paul wrote, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim 5:8) He urged the Thessalonians, "Work with your hands, as we instructed you" (1 Thess 4:11). Christians are commanded to "do their work quietly and to earn their own living." (2 Thess 3:12) Indeed, we read this striking statement, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thess 3:10) God's plan is for work. In fact, we are to "work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men." (Col 3:23)

You see, Christians don't have jobs or careers. We have vocations. We have callings. We aren't working for others. "You are serving the Lord Christ." (Col 3:24) Our task is to serve God where we are. We are to be ministers as repairmen or secretaries, managers or janitors, researchers or pastors. We are to lose that "sacred" versus "secular" line and operate as ministers all the time. Ministers of the gospel. Ministers to the needs of others. Even ministers to the families we are supporting.

You know, when it is no longer just "work" or "labor", but ministry, somehow it doesn't seem right calling it a curse. And it would seem to me those who do their work for the Lord ought to be celebrated. I would think today would be a good day for that.

The Work of God

The phrase is ambiguous, like other similar phrases. Is "the love of God" our love for God or His love for us? It's the same with this one. When we refer to "the work of God", are we referring to "the work we do for God" or "the work that God does"? In view of the Labor Day weekend and, specifically, Sunday, the Lord's Day, I'd like to take a minute to look at the work that God does. I don't think He gets enough attention there.

The Bible actually begins with the work of God. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) For two chapters, in fact, we read about God working -- creating, making, forming, commanding -- until we come to "the seventh day" (Gen 2:2-3). Some have suggested that this text indicates God is no longer working. It takes the briefest of moments to realize this simply isn't true. God told Israel in the desert, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you." (Exo 34:10) Today we see people who "were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col 2:12) If God is not working today, no one is saved. Jesus said that He did the works of His Father (John 10:37-38). Jesus said, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." (John 5:17) Rest assured. God is still at work.

What are the works of God? In Job we read, "But as for me, I would seek God, and I would place my cause before God; Who does great and unsearchable things, wonders without number. He gives rain on the earth and sends water on the fields." (Job 5:8-10) Did you ever stop to think that rain is the work of God? Eliphaz here lists this among the "great and unsearchable things, wonders without number" that God does. Indeed, "In Him all things hold together." (Col 1:17) The first, most obvious work of God is the existence of every physical thing about you. He didn't merely make it; it exists by His active work.

Of course, when we speak of the work of God we tend to think of more spiritual things. Jesus spoke of the work of the Holy Spirit.

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged." (John 16:7-11)

That's the work of God.

Jesus said He came "to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10) Seeking and saving ... that's the work of God.

John wrote, "If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7) Cleansing from sin ... that's the work of God.

Here's one I'm sure didn't spring to your mind. In John 6 after Jesus had fed the 5,000 (John 6:1-14), the people pursued Him for what Jesus knew to be more bread. But they apparently just wanted to see more miracles.

They said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." (John 6:28-29)

Interesting. They spoke of working "the works of God" and Jesus said that believing was God's work. So, which is it? Is believing the work we do for God, or is it the work that God does? To which I would answer, "Yes." Just as we sustain life and God sustains life, we believe because it is the work God is doing. Paul wrote, "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Rom 12:3) God's work, then, is giving you faith and your work on behalf of God is exercising that faith ... which God gave and God maintains as He maintains everything.

As we look to a celebration of work, it seems only fitting to begin with a celebration of God's work. As Creator and Sustainer of all things, He works even now. He gives rain and He gives life. The Spirit convicts of sin. God calls people to Himself. The blood of Christ cleanses from sin. Even our faith is a work of God. And that's just a smattering of the work of God. His is a labor to be celebrated.

Please Don't Love Me

This is what we call love.

Earlier this year a woman made the Internet hit parade with her letter to her aborted baby. It was a warm, moving letter about how much she loved her baby and so she would be killing this one because she couldn't afford right now to give her a good home but the next one, surely, would benefit from her ... choice. People were all smiles and congratulations on her bravery and honesty. And I'm thinking, "If killing someone is love to you, please ... don't love me."

In Leon Russell's famous A Song for You, he says this. "I've treated you unkindly but darlin' can't you see / There's no one more important to me / so darlin' can't you please see through me." If treating someone unkindly is love to you, please ... don't love me.

A young mother just down the road from here was arrested yesterday for drowning her twin 2-year-old sons. She said she thought they were being bullied and loved them too much to let that happen, so she killed them. If killing someone is love to you, please ... don't love me.

Miley Cyrus is in the news ... again. She has announced that she is "pansexual." Fairly new term, I know. It is a sexual attraction toward people of no particular sex or gender identity. Sex with anyone. For her role at the MTV Video Music Awards Sunday night they called her "the most narcissistic award-show host ever," with "more drug references than a Snoop Dogg song" and "With her naughty bits barely covered, she turned the entire event into a spectacle." Her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, (known as a Christian) "advised his daughter to be what she likes to be." On her sexual orientation (which, from the description, appears to be either "everything" or "none at all"), Dad said, "The world needs positive influences." If self-destructive behavior and any form of Christian morality is your version of love, please ... don't love me.

This is what our world classifies as love today. Embrace everything. Do anything. Use, misuse, abuse ... as long as we call it "love", it's love. Please ... don't love me like that.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. (1 Cor 13:4-8)

That kind of love I'll take.

The Davis Issue

I'm still not settled on the Kim Davis issue, but it sure has got me thinking.

How did we get here? Kim Davis is in jail for standing on principle in favor of the Kentucky constitution and opposition to the Supreme Court ruling. She is hauled out by the general media as a hypocrite for failing to act like a Christian in the years before she became a Christian and hated for standing on what she thought was right against those she thought were wrong. The crowds cheered when they hauled her off to jail.

It may not have been an issue of religious freedom. People are disputing it. But there is no doubt that her position as a Christian is the primary problem. Where were the complaints when the mayor of San Francisco defied the California constitution and issued marriage licenses for same-sex couples? Why are "sanctuary cities" considered progressive and friendly when they stand against federal laws? How is it that when Arizona sought to uphold federal immigration law the government sued the state in order to get them to stop, but Colorado is applauded for defying federal drug laws? How did we get so turned around in this country?

What Hill?

Maybe you've heard of Kim Davis; maybe you haven't. Depending on your news source (or lack thereof), she is the "anti-gay"¹ Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue licenses for same-sex mirage in her county. She is, of course, in trouble since she is violating the ruling of the Supreme Court on the subject. But she is in worse trouble if she does submit to the ruling since she would be violating God's commands on the subject. Now she's facing jail time.

Many (most?) are suggesting she just withdraw. Names like Conservative Ed Morrissey ("Accepting office in government means upholding the law. If that conflicts with Davis’ religious beliefs, then she should resign and find other work."), presidential candidate Carly Fiorina ("Given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate."), and even strong marriage advocate Ryan T. Anderson (Magistrates or clerks should "recuse themselves from the process behind the scenes should they have sincere objections to same-sex marriage.") are all saying that she may be right in principle, but has no standing to be there if she won't go along with the laws of the land. Davis has made this her "hill to die on" and everyone, it seems, pro-marriage or not, is suggesting this is not that hill.

This is not about Kim Davis, same-sex mirage, or homosexuals. This is about that hill. We know the phrase: your "hill to die on". It was epitomized in the 50's with the anti-communist, "I'd rather be dead than red." It means more than something worth fighting for. It means something worth dying for. A principle or belief or issue worth fighting for at all cost. Because, you see, when it comes down to it, there just aren't that many around. Hills to die on. Things worth dying for. Or even becoming significantly uncomfortable over. So we take a stand and plant the flag and won't budge an inch ... until someone takes a potshot at us and then it's probably not the hill to die on.

What is a hill worth dying on? What issue is worth fighting for regardless of cost? How do we determine which terrain mustn't be lost at all cost?

With Kim Davis still on the page here, let's consider the concept. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Just because the courts have ruled doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do. If the courts ruled (as an extreme, nonsensical example) that eating children was acceptable and your job was to place orphans in homes, would you be right to approve sending orphans to people who want to eat them? If not, why not? It's legal. It's your job. Why would that be a "hill to die on"? Or perhaps there is no such thing. Perhaps you believe that anyone in the employ of the government is obligated to do what the government says simply by virtue of that employment. William Calley thought so. He was ordered by his captain to kill all "combatants and suspects" in a particular area, resulting in the massacre of something like 347 men, women, children, and infants. He was following orders. It's what you do. Now, military laws changed because of it and Calley's captain denied ever giving the orders, but you get the idea. Do you do whatever you are told, or do you do what's right?

You see, here's the thing. Any "hill to die on" will not be the last hill. It's the nature of things. They think, "I don't have that little item. Let's see if I can get it." And they get it and think, "Well, that is just a little further, so maybe I can get that, too." In marriage terms, this approach has gone from a 1940's version of marriage where divorce was rare, sex outside of it was frowned on, all children should be products of marriage, and, oh, of course, no one even thought about something the concept of "same-sex" in connection to the term "marriage" to today's version where divorce is normal, sex outside marriage is expected, children are no longer part of marriage (either have them when you want or don't have them at all), and not only is "same-sex" connected with the term, but it is a right. The point is that this is a moving target. We didn't stand on the "contraception" hill or the "divorce" hill or the "sex in marriage" hill or the "children in marriage" hill and this is where we are now. These were not hills to die on ... and now marriage is dead, replaced by something that is not marriage, that is not even defined.

So what is "a hill to die on"? Maybe Kim Davis needs to quit. She certainly won't be able to prevent the courts from hauling her off to prison. The licenses will be issued. Things will go on. Florists and bakers and photographers and innkeepers and pretty much anyone else who tries to stand on this hill will go down. So is marriage a hill to die on? Is the Bible a hill to die on? Is the gospel a hill to die on? Is Christianity a hill to die on? Or should we just give in to a mushy version of "private belief" that, oh, by the way, won't likely remain a belief as we give more ground and won't likely make any difference anyway since it wasn't worth defending in the first place? Is there a hill worth dying on? Modern America -- especially conservatives, even conservative Christians -- seems to think no such place exists anymore. The Apostles disagreed. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge." (Acts 4:19) Do we stand (and even die) on God's standards, or do we listen to the world and surrender God's standards? Their answer was, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

Postscript
I haven't actually commented here on whether or not I agree with Kim Davis's actions or position. Here's what I do know. If it is true that "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23) and Mrs. Davis is simply trying to obey God's commands (you know, like the Apostles did in Acts 4), then I would be hard-pressed to argue that she is wrong. It may or may not be right for everyone, but I can't say that she is in the wrong here.
________

¹ Just to be perfectly clear, an objection to same-sex mirage (and I am spelling that word exactly as I mean to spell it) is not, by definition, "anti-gay" any more than objecting to killing babies is by definition "anti-choice" (or even "anti-abortion"). It is "pro-marriage" and could be "anti-gay" if the position is "Those people shouldn't get married", but if it is "Marriage means something and that isn't it", it is not "anti-gay" and every effort on the part of the media and the public to say otherwise is a lie.

Proof text

It has been said that a proof text out of context is a pretext. Lots of people have written about verses, yanked out of context, then shoved in our faces to say, "The Bible says it, so it must be true." Some are skeptics aiming to point out how wrong the Bible is. Others are well-meaning Christians hoping to prove a point. The most popular among these today is the most popular Bible verse today: "Judge not that you be not judged." (Matt 7:1) It passed up John 3:16 a while back. Of course, it cannot mean "You should never judge anyone" because everything in the rest of Matthew 7 is about judgment (Matt 7:3-5, 6, 13-14, 15-23). Context, context, context.

One that irks me every time I see it used this way is a prime favorite among well-meaning evangelicals.

'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. (Rev 3:20)

Very popular at invitation time. "Come to Jesus. He's standing at the door, knocking." Very warm. Very friendly. Very out of context.

Check out the context. It begins with "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write ..." (Rev 3:14). The context is Jesus's words to the church in Laodicea. If you're familiar at all with the seven letters to the seven churches, Laodicea was unique in that it was in serious trouble. Most of the other churches got good news and bad news. "I know what you're doing right and I know what you're doing wrong." That kind of thing. Only Laodicea got only bad news. They were "neither cold nor hot" (Rev 3:15). Worse, thinking they were doing okay, "you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." (Rev 3:17). Then the warning. "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent." (Rev 3:19) And that's when Jesus said He was standing at the door knocking. What door? Not the door to your average unbeliever's heart. The door of a church. This text is a warning and a call to a church. Not quite the altar call people might think.

There are many times that a verse says what it seems to say. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) falls in the middle of Paul telling the Romans about how we are "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:22) "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." (Rom 3:24). In fact, in the NASB this sentence begins in verse 21 and ends in verse 25. So the oft-quoted proof text of the universality of sin is offered without context. Still, it is an accurate rendition of the idea. Not all proof texts are pretexts. I'm not suggesting you don't use them. Just be sure it's saying, in context, what you think it's saying.

Invitation or Command?

Are we invited to come to Christ or commanded? The answer ... is "Yes."

¹⁴ When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!" ¹⁶ But He said to him, "A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; ¹⁷ and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come; for everything is ready now.' ¹⁸ "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, 'I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.' ¹⁹ "Another one said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.' ²⁰ "Another one said, 'I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.' ²¹ "And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.' ²² "And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' ²³ "And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. ²⁴ 'For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.'" (Luke 14:15-24)

In this story from Jesus, a man was getting married and invited many. They all had excuses. So he sent out his servants to the streets. Notice that he didn't tell his servants to "invite" them. "Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame." Lest you think I'm jumping to conclusion, in the next phase when there was still room he commanded, "Compel them to come in." That is, the first call to all the "nice people" was an invitation. After that it was a command.

Jesus said, "Many are called ..." (Matt 22:14). Invitation. So our altar calls, our "Ask Jesus into your heart" calls, our "Accept Jesus as your personal savior" calls might work in the first phase, the invitation. But note the results of the invitation. No one came. Many excuses, but all asked to be excused. This was what broke Jesus's heart. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!" (Luke 13:34) An unaccepted invitation.

In fact, prior to Charles Finney (1792-1875) you didn't hear about altar calls. You didn't hear invitations. You heard warnings to repent. We know that when the 3,000 were saved at Pentecost, Peter said, "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:39) At the end of Paul's sermon in Persidia Antioch we read, "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) Lydia of Thyatira was saved when "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14)

The term is not "Please", but "Come!" And notice, from the story, who is compelled to come: "the poor and crippled and blind and lame." The poor in spirit (Matt 5:3), the spiritually empty. Those at the end of their resources with no other way out. The spiritually crippled without the arrogance or ability to get around. Those who can't even see, blinded by the god of this world. Those who are barely limping along. The spiritually homeless in the highways and hedges. The healthy and wealthy aren't a part of this. No invitation. When Jesus called His disciples it was "Come, follow Me," not "if you want to."

By now, of course, you've likely forgotten my first answer to the question, "Invitation or command?" The answer was "Yes." Yes, invite. I'm not saying otherwise. But notice that the predominant position in Scripture is that it is God's work to bring them in. He appoints, opens hearts, and calls. Invitations are general and typically don't work. But those whom God has intended to reach are compelled to come. It's a command. It's a command you're invited to obey ... and, of course, there are consequences to either choice.

What's in a Lie?

We all know what lying is, don't we? Well, don't we? You see, I get really confused on this. The dictionary says it is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth." Okay. So far so good. But then it goes on to say, "an inaccurate or false statement." Oh, now, see? One required "intent to deceive" and the other is simply any inaccurate or false statement. So if I fully believe that what I'm saying is true, I could still be lying. Well, that's not the same thing, is it?

I was thinking about this subject while I was reading a short science fiction story. There was going to be a war between Planet A and Planet B, so the people on Planet A who were from Planet B were leaving. The last flight out was stopped by the police force of Planet A. "Someone blew up an entire city. We know they're on this ship. We're going to find them." They used a lie detector. (See, I was getting around to the subject of lying.) They asked every passenger, "Do you know anything about the destruction of one of our cities." Everyone said no and everyone passed. As it turned out, three of them did know that they had actually miniaturized the city and stolen it. "But we were telling the truth when we said we knew nothing about the destruction of any city." And I thought, "But, that was a lie." You see, to me a lie requires the intent to deceive. They knew what the question was and intended to deceive. Everyone knows how we can substitute false information for true information in order to deceive people. This would be a case of providing true information with the intent to deceive.

Back in the George W. Bush presidency, we saw lots of "Bush lied; people died" kinds of signs. I didn't think then that President Bush had lied. I thought he had likely been mistaken. But so was everyone in Congress. (He didn't send troops into Iraq by himself.) I didn't classify "mistaken" as "lying". I don't classify not intending to deceive as a lie. But I think my position is in opposition to the majority.

And, of course, there is always the "no information" lie. You know that one. He never told her about the boat he bought. He didn't tell her he didn't buy it. He just never told her about it. An attempt to deceive. But, now, see, again I run up against the crowd here. I wouldn't classify unexpressed information as a lie unless it had an intent to deceive. She never told him about the guy she dated before him because she wanted him to think he was the only one. Lie. He never told her about the girl he dated before because he assumed everyone had prior relationships and didn't think it was an issue. Not a lie.

And the dictionary is no help at all. It could be that any false statement you make is a lie. Or it could be that a lie requires intent to deceive. So which is it? Is presenting mistaken information you sincerely believe to be true a lie? Or does it require an intent to deceive? Is withholding information a lie ... any information? Or does it require an intent to deceive? And is it possible to lie by telling the truth? What do you think? (And, of course, why? That would be helpful.)

Groups or Individuals?

To me, one of the clearest passages in all of Scripture on God's Sovereignty in salvation is found in the 9th chapter of Romans. Now, of course, if you don't know what I mean by "God's Sovereignty in salvation", that might not mean anything to you. The question is this. Who chooses if you get saved? God? Or you? The standard view is that you do. "No, it isn't," some will reply. "God does. You just agree." Maybe. But in the standard view it seems that God enables the salvation of everyone and that salvation is only activated when an individual chooses to ... agree. It's like a builder wiring your house for electricity and lights. The power is there, but until you flip the switch, there is no light. So in the prevalent perspective, until you accept Christ (that's the phrase we use), all of God's building and wiring efforts -- His efforts toward your salvation -- are inoperative. In this sense, you are the final sovereign in your own salvation.

Then I read in Paul's epistle to Rome, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) Not your choice (will). Not your effort (exertion). God. As if to drive this point home again, with gusto, Paul writes, "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." (Rom 9:18) Even worse. You see, in this case God wills mercy on some ("Good!") and hardens others ("Wait ... what?!").

It doesn't take long for the prevalent crowd to find my error. "Oh, see? Here's where you missed it. Paul here isn't talking about individuals. He's talking about groups." Very, very common perspective. You see, when Paul says, "As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" (Rom 9:13), he is actually quoting not from the Genesis account, but from Malachi (Mal 1:2-3). There, you see? God, talking to Malachi, was not talking about Jacob and Esau, the individuals. He was talking about Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom), groups. He was talking about people groups. So it wasn't Esau He hated, but the people of the Edomites who opposed Israel. See? Groups, not individuals. So in this scenario, God's plan was to save a body of people, a "church" (ecclesia, the called out ones), a group. God's plan did not include the individuals in that group; that was up to the choice of the individuals.

I have a problem here. If I were to reword Paul's content to more clearly represent what is suggested here as his intent, it would look something like this (my alterations in bold).

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the group we'll call the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the group we'll call the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election of an undesignated group of people might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls--she was told, "The older group will serve the younger group." As it is written, "Jacob (that is, the people of Israel) I loved, but Esau (or, rather, the people of Edom) I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses (representing a group), "I will have mercy on [an indeterminate group of people] for whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on [an indeterminate group of people] for whom I have compassion." So then [whether this group of people are saved] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh (representing those who are not saved), "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then He has mercy on [whatever group] He wills, and He hardens [whatever group] He wills. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For [what group] can resist His will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded (referring to a group, not an individual) say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel (say, the Church) for honorable use and another (people who don't end up saved, for instance) for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (which would be the category of people classified as "unsaved"), in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy (which would be the category of people classified as "saved") , which He has prepared beforehand for glory--even us (the Body of Christ, not individuals) whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:6-24)

I'm not trying to be flippant here. Nor am I trying to suggest that Paul was wrong. I'm just trying to word it so we can see the concept of "groups rather than individuals." Does this clarify my problem? You see, almost every reference in the text is not to groups, but to individuals. There is a list of specific names: Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, Moses, and Pharaoh. There are references to individuals -- "conceived children by one man", "the older will serve the younger", "it depends not on human will or human exertion", that sort of thing. Not much in the way of groups in the references to people in the text.

Beyond that, Paul addresses a couple of expected objections to the principle he's trying to expound. He says that God's statement that "The older will serve the younger" was before either did anything "in order that God's purpose of election might continue ... because of Him who calls" (Rom 9:10-13). That's the principle. The first objection is "Is there injustice on God's part?" (Rom 9:14) What is this objection? If God chooses a particular group for salvation, can that be considered unjust if the individuals involved choose whether or not they are part? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely to me. But the second objection is stronger. "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." (Rom 9:18) The likely objection follows: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?'" (Rom 9:19) Now, if "whomever" in the principle in verse 18 refers to "whatever group He chooses" (rather than individuals), where is the objection? We choose whether or not we'll be in that group. God doesn't. He simply designates that such a group ("vessels of mercy") will exist. The "vessels" themselves determine for themselves which group they'll be in. How is "Who can resist His will?" a reasonable objection?

Now, to be sure, there are more people today that understand this text to refer to groups than those who see it as a reference to individuals. To me it makes no sense. If "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy", what depends on that? Not whether you are in that group or not. That is determined by your will, right? If it is groups in mind, in what sense does God show mercy to some and harden others? Some what? Groups? None of this makes sense to me if it is talking about groups. On the other hand, if there are individuals whom God chooses to save (Rom 9:11) and on whom He chooses to show mercy (Rom 9:16, 18), vessels of wrath prepared for destruction that God sovereignly decides to make into vessels of mercy for His glory, this all makes sense to me. It makes me a child of promise (Rom 9:8), saved by God's express choice for His express purposes (Rom 9:11) without the help of my will or my efforts (Rom 9:16). Now that makes sense to me. I'm just not getting the other approach.

Without Comment

We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, "For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:28-39)

It's Sunday, the Lord's Day, a special day to worship our Lord. Toward that end, I don't think I need to expound on this text. It's just ... good stuff.

Lucas McCain on the Confederate Flag

Old episodes of the series, The Rifleman, show up on local channels from time to time. One episode, "The Prisoner" (1961), gave us insight into Lucas McCain's history. You know Lucas. He's the good guy, "the rifleman", the guy with the cool gun. Always on the side of the right. This episode has McCain running into a couple of Confederate soldiers (after the war was over) who recognized him. Apparently Lucas was in the Union Army. Well, they caused problems and Lucas had to straighten it out and in the end both soldiers were dead.

There, at the end of the episode, Lucas's son, Mark, asked him about the Confederate flag the men had with them. He asked why they had it. "You always told me a flag was a symbol of courage." They had been cowards. Lucas offered a completely politically incorrect analysis. "This flag stands for the bravery of all the men who fought and died under it. The men who fought against it. Only to prove in the end that victor and loser were one and the same-free men in a free country."

Poor Lucas. Clearly a racist. Oh, wait ... no. He had been on the Union side. Hmmm. But how did he (Hollywood) get away with something like that? Or, rather, how did Hollywood writers get away with putting those words in his mouth? Apparently no one was paying attention? Mind you, I have no great love for the Confederate flag. In fact, couldn't care less. But when America is up in arms about a flag or Hollywood stars are working to change the name of a school because of an ancient connection to something distasteful, it all seems so ludicrous to have something like Lucas McCain's take on it out of Hollywood. And they want to tell me that morals haven't changed.

Someone Else's Job

I cannot tell you how many times in my years doing this blog I've been accused of "slander", "gossip", and "bearing false witness" (lying, if you prefer). The double standard has been amazing. On multiple blog entries in multiple places I've been trotted out and castigated for slander and gossip and false witness. And then they blithely misrepresent what I've said. They, of course, are not doing the same evils that I am because, they say, "I'm just talking about ideas, here, not people." Of course, I'd be hard pressed to find an article of mine where I've mentioned anyone by name (unlike the ones I've seen about me) and I rarely discuss people, but nearly always have ideas in mind, but theirs is not slander, gossip, or false witness and mine is. Why is that?

Now, you know, already some who have done this are leaping to their keyboards to pound out a stunning rebuke because I have slandered or lied about them ... again. You will note that no one has been mentioned, singled out, or referenced here. I've specifically mentioned "multiple places". But they'll be upset anyway and wish to tell me how stupid, ignorant, evil, or even insane I am. Now, wait! Aren't those slanderous? Odd.

But, look, pointing out that they carry around a healthy case of double standards doesn't absolve me of the accusation. So in what way am I slandering, gossiping, or bearing false witness? This is what amuses me the most, actually. Very often I will hear something, see something, read something and it will get me to thinking about the topic. I will recall things I've been told, things people have said to me, things I've read on the topic and I'll write about it. Note that at this point it's all very ... vague. That is, it is constructed loosely on various inputs and sources that swirl around to make a coherent idea, but it is not about a particular person. It is about that coherent idea.

The other day I wrote just such an entry and one commenter (see, at this point I'm lapsing into a personal reference) said "I think at least part of this post is directed at me." This appears to be the common idea. I didn't actually have this commenter in mind when I wrote it. I was thinking over a wide range of people, a far-flung history of discussions, a whole series of articles and ideas I had encountered. But the commenter was pretty sure I was talking about him. Have you heard of the "someone is wrong on the Internet" syndrome? There are just some people that seem to make it their mission in life to hunt down those darned people they know are out there that are wrong and correct them. They would much rather spend 12 hours correcting the "falsehood" than 5 minutes commending the right. Funny people. There are a few who seem to be stuck in some sort of "Stan is wrong on the Internet" syndrome and will hang on every word to point out how wrong I am. Or they perceive me to be. Even if it's "You spelled that wrong. See? What a loon!"

So, is it slander if I say, "These ideas that I've encountered are opposed to what I see in Scripture"? Is it gossip to say "I've talked to people who say ..." or "I've heard that ..."? If I hear an idea, read some articles, and then I actually represent what I've heard or read, is it false witness? There are a lot of reasons I'm wrong. I don't agree with the "latest scholars". I don't subscribe to "everyone knows". I don't concur with "the general population". I haven't aligned with "modern thinking". Or, the big one, I actually believe what I read. Serious error there. But I can't see how what I write is slander, gossip, or lying when I don't slander anybody in particular, don't talk about anybody in particular, and don't attempt to deceive anybody.

Well, it doesn't really matter in the end, does it? I'm not knocking on your door to tell you that you are wrong and I'm right and you need to change. I'm broadcasting generally, "This is what I see in the Bible." If that offends, it offends. I mean no offense. Nor is anyone paying much attention. (Recent statistics, perhaps incomplete but giving a general picture, indicate that in the 9+ years I've been doing this I've had perhaps 400,000 page views. In the grand scheme of things, that's not much. I mean, I don't anticipate ever showing up in a Huffington Post article, eh?) If "This is what I see in the Bible" offends, I don't know what else to do. Certainly the "You're wrong for telling people they're wrong" crowd can see how crazy that is, can't they? Maybe not. Maybe they're blinded. You know. If I say, "This idea has been the standard Christian position on this subject" and others claim, "Yeah? Well, we know better now!", I'll wait until they can explain to me why they figured it out when no one else had before. (No one has yet to offer a response to that.) So maybe I'll just keep writing down what I see in Scripture and let it hang like that. And they can continue to slander me, gossip about me, and bear false witness against me. You know, "turn the other cheek." That's okay with me. It's not like I have the ability to wake them up or stop them, right? No, that's Someone Else's job. So I'll just keep doing it, correcting my errors when I see them and praying for those who don't see their own. That kind of thing.

Did Jesus Preach Pacifism?

There is a segment of Christianity -- has been all along -- that believe that Jesus was a pacifist.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (Matt 5:38-47)

"See, Stan?" they tell me, "If you're going to be a biblicist like you say you are, you cannot advocate violence for any reason at all."

I'm trying to follow this thinking ... you know, the way they usually do -- by how it feels. If this is true, then it would have been wrong to oppose Hitler in World War II. We were certainly wrong in seeking to bring Bin Laden to justice. We should have invited him in to blow up a few more buildings, right? Now, I don't know a single person who would answer yes to that, but why? If Jesus is teaching that kind of pacifism here, why not? And clearly a Christian could not only not be in the military, but not in the police force either. If you're going to be consistent. If someone comes into your home and threatens you and your family, the only right thing to do is to let them do what they wish. Isn't it? "No, it's okay to subdue them." But ... isn't that not turning the other cheek, not giving to him who asks, not loving your enemy? Most would admit it isn't, but they do it by slipping off their prior position.

So is this what Jesus is teaching? My position has always been, "I want to do whatever it is Jesus wants me to do." If that means absolute pacifism, so be it. Is that what He taught?

You'll notice at the outset that nowhere does He say that. What does He say? He commands "love". Now, we're mired in this mushy version these days, but it's not the biblical version (1 Cor 13:4-8). In the biblical version love is a selfless desire for the best for the other. Now, let's think for a moment about that intruder. If we were to love that intruder (not "feel warm affection", but "seek the best"), would it be best for him (or her) to let them do it? Would it be best for our neighbors to let this proceed (and, likely, spread)?

Okay, up until this point I've been merely pointing to the difficulties. But there is a major problem if Jesus preached pacifism. It contradicts Scripture. We know, for instance, that Jesus said, "If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews." (John 18:36) If Jesus was a pacifist, He would be claiming, "My servants would be violating My commands so I would not be handed over to the Jews." In Romans Paul affirms the use of the sword as a good thing. "If you do what is evil, be afraid; for [government authority] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." (Rom 13:4) If Jesus preached pacifism and Paul claimed that bearing the sword was "a minister of God", Paul would be wrong. The worst, however, is found in Revelation. Here we have the return of the King, Jesus. "From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty." (Rev 19:15) Doesn't sound very ... pacific, does it? "Revelation is metaphor," they assure me. If it is, it is a violent one. Nor was He a pacifist when He walked into the Temple -- twice -- with whip in hand defending His Father's house of worship. "He didn't hit anyone!" Maybe (you can't prove it by the text), but it was not non-violent.

It looks like we have a standoff. Jesus preached pure pacifism ... and doesn't practice it. Jesus abhorred violence and Jesus said of John the Baptist, "I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (Luke 7:28) But when soldiers asked John what they should do, he didn't tell them to get out of the military (Luke 3:14). And, of course, the end is a known entity; Jesus comes in power and slays the wicked. Don't forget all the places in the Old Testament where God commanded war. I'm pretty sure you don't want to stand on a position that has Jesus calling His Father evil ... when He claimed He only did what He saw His Father doing (John 8:38). I don't think we can rationally, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, conclude that Jesus taught pacifism.

What did He teach? Don't be the usual fighter. Don't stand on your rights. Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount with hyperbole. That is, He exaggerated to make a point. (Note, for instance, that the verse after the passage I listed above is, "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48) If you are going to be consistent, you will need to stand on perfection as the only valid standard.) Should we turn the other cheek? Absolutely! Just not exclusively. Should we step aside for others? Without a doubt! Just not exclusively. Must we love our enemies? No question at all!! But that doesn't mean mushy, warm feelings and sometimes doing good to them involves discipline and even suppression.

Or, you might just conclude that Jesus was indeed preaching absolute pacifism and anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with Jesus and the Bible. Of course, now you'll have to figure out what to do with all that other Scripture that disagrees.

If You're Saved and You Know It ...

In terms of being saved and knowing it, there are four types of people. There are those who are saved and know it. There are those who are saved but don't know it. There are those who are not saved and know they are not. And there are those who are not saved but don't know it.

The two who know correctly are easy to figure. My grandfather was not saved and knew it. He was right. No confusion. Many who are saved know it. They're right. No confusion. It's the other two categories that get a bit sticky. I'm pretty sure we all know people (or are or have been people) who question their salvation. The famous John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, was quite certain that he had lost his salvation and was sure to be damned. In Pilgrim's Progress he wrote, "There was a Way to Hell, even from the Gates of Heaven." He was deeply concerned about the subject. It is easily possible to be saved but not have assurance. On the positive side, these people are saved and their lack of assurance is a lack of comfort, not salvation. Of the other side -- not saved and don't know it -- I'm sure you can think of examples, but the most sure one is the biblical one. Jesus spoke of those who He termed "false prophets" (Matt 7:15) who were quite confident that they were safe. "Many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?'" (Matt 7:22) Jesus states quite clearly that 1) it will be "many" and 2) they are not among the saved (Matt 7:23).

It is this last category that is the most troublesome. These people are not saved, but are quite sure they are. While the other version, saved but don't know it, is sad, this one is tragic. If you believe you're cured of a horrible disease, you no longer look for a cure. If you're not actually cured, that means you die of it. In the case of salvation, that means you go to hell for it. But you're not looking for a solution to hell because you're sure you have it already.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why assurance of salvation is not easily offered in Scripture. The book of Hebrews has several disturbing passages to shake one's confidence. We are warned that "it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance" those "who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away." (Heb 6:4-6) Over in chapter 10 we read, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." (Heb 10:26-27) The story of Esau in Hebrews is heartbreaking. "He desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." (Heb 12:17) Esau had desire and even tears, but "found no chance to repent" and was rejected. There are so many other examples. Judas Iscariot was one of the 12. Cain communed with God. The entire epistle of 1st John was written on assurance (1 John 5:13) because it is both available but not cheap.

The upshot is that those who are quite confident, even smug in their salvation ought to be concerned and those who are not at all sure have reason for assurance. Indeed, I don't think I know of a single genuine Christian who has not struggled with assurance. It shows "the seed of God" (1 John 3:9). Those who don't struggle worry me. Paul's "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24) is reasonable; "I don't have a concern in the world about this" is not.

Bottom line, I don't know if you are saved. There might be clues one way or the other, giving me greater confidence or greater concern. Oh, there are some who are quite sure they are not and I'm pretty sure they're right. And I'm convinced that there are many (Jesus's word, not mine) that are equally convinced that they are saved but will face Jesus's, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matt 7:23) On the other hand, I think you can know that you have eternal life (since, after all, that is what John says (1 John 5:13)). I think it might be an arduous effort. (Read 1 John and see.) I think that Scripture precludes, "I said the prayer and I'm pretty nice, so ..." as assurance. But it's certainly worth it.

The Jesus Hermeneutic

I only recently heard the phrase, "the Jesus hermeneutic", although I'd certainly heard of the concept before. Can you figure what it is from the words? The idea is this. If a "hermeneutic" is a method of interpreting Scripture, a "Jesus hermeneutic" is interpreting Scripture from the words of Christ. Now, of course, it goes a little farther, because the idea is that we'd be interpreting Scripture the way Christ did, which, obviously, would be the best possible thing to do (as Jesus is the Word).

Immediately, though, we run into problems. For instance, on the very heels of "I believe in a Jesus hermeneutic ..." is the almost unavoidable "... and Jesus never said ...". Many use this grand concept of interpreting Scripture through Jesus's words as a means of deleting Scripture, and they do so not because Jesus said it was so, but because He didn't say anything at all about it. Surely this is patently wrong. Jesus never mentioned rape, bestiality, or vehicular homicide. Do we therefore conclude, "Jesus didn't think these were wrong"? In fact, John ends his Gospel with this little verse. "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25) Clearly we do not have every act Jesus did or every word Jesus spoke recorded for us. Nor would we expect that during His brief ministry He would have spoken on every single matter of significance. So "Jesus never said" is an argument from silence, ignoring that "the Word" (John 1:1) ultimately said everything in Scripture. (Thus the hermeneutical principle, "Scripture interprets Scripture".)

The other major problem occurs when people use "the Jesus hermeneutic" to prove that Jesus disproved God's Word. They generally do it this way. "I don't believe that the Bible teaches X or that God favors X, so when Jesus spoke on anything related (or remained silent about it), He was favoring my belief and, thus, I am interpreting Scripture the way Jesus did." That is, they do not offer proof that Jesus interpreted Scripture they way they are saying He did (at best they offer faulty prooftexting while disregarding other things Jesus said or the bulk of Scripture on a subject). They simply assign to Jesus their own interpretation and claim it is His. "Jesus didn't condemn anyone, so the Bible is opposed to it." Where does that come from?¹ "Jesus was loving, so He wouldn't think like that." Let's be careful to avoid all the other passages about Jesus that go against that tepid definition of "loving". "Jesus never said anything about a blood sacrifice, so I don't believe in it and we must reinterpret everything Paul said on the subject." See? That's the "Jesus hermeneutic". "Jesus never said ..." When He said, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28), He wasn't talking about blood or sacrifice. "Jesus said, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' See?!" Jesus said, "Go and learn what this means." (Matt 9:13) If it means that Jesus and, by extension, God never wanted sacrifice, then God is crazy as a loon for instituting a sacrificial system and then complaining when it wasn't used or was misused². Is that how Jesus interprets Scripture?

If Jesus is actually God Incarnate and the Word is actually God-breathed, then Jesus didn't offer us 3 years of insight into Scripture. He inspired it all. And remember, it was Jesus who told His disciples that the Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13). So if you're trying for the "Jesus hermeneutic", 1) it will need to be consistent with (rather than contrary to) the rest of Scripture, 2) it will need to be relatively common among believers (unlike the popular, "Modern scholars have decided that ... all of Church History has been wrong on that subject and we've figure it out."). If you're thinking of pitting Jesus against God, think again. (And I've actually read folks say that Jesus denied God's Word.) Jesus certainly had a way of viewing Scripture that was different than most of the people of His day, but rest assured it was not in opposition to Scripture. That is not a Jesus hermeneutic.

________

¹ Generally it comes from a single verse in a questioned passage (John 8:1-11) yanked completely out of context while ignoring many other passages where He does condemn sin. Try, for instance, to lay "Jesus doesn't focus on sin or guilt or that kind of thing" against the Luke 13:1-5 passage. "No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5)

² On this text commentator Barnes writes, "This is not a declaration on the part of God that He was opposed to 'sacrifices' or 'offerings for sin;' for He had appointed and commanded many, and had therefore expressed His approbation of them. It is a Hebrew mode of speaking, and means, 'I prefer mercy to sacrifice;' or, 'I am more pleased with acts of benevolence and kindness than with a mere external compliance with the duties of religion.'” Clarke notes that it is a quote from 1 Sam 15:22 where Samuel tells Saul, "To obey is better than sacrifice." (This is consistent with what Jesus was telling the Pharisees. "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.") Matthew Henry points to Hosea 6:6 where God said, "I desire love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." In other words, "It is better to be righteous than to sacrifice for sin." All of these and more agree that Jesus agreed with His Father on the subject and didn't oppose sacrifice for sin.

The Double Standard is Strong with This One

I'm sure you heard about the sad revelation about Josh Duggar. (If you don't know who he is, he is one of 19 kids on TLC's "19 Kids and Counting", a "reality" show about a Christian family with Christian values ... and 19 kids. Of course, the show has been cancelled.) First it was a molestation charge in his teens. More recently it was an account (two?) at a website where married people can get together for adultery. And Josh Duggar espouses faith and family values. What a hypocrite! Of course, in this case, it's not my words. He said publicly that he is "the biggest hypocrite ever." "I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him."

This, of course, won't do. Confession isn't sufficient. Hanging is too good for the guy. You'll find comments like, "This was not one man's failure; this was the failure of the idea that if you just beat enough Christianity into people and refuse to allow any other options everything will be wonderful." It is "lie upon lie, the kind of lies peculiar to the evangelical world, which hasn't been able to tell the truth about anything." In other words, "He was too judgmental, so we will return the favor."

Tell the truth. You know that was a common reaction at the news ... maybe even yours. "About time he got what he deserved. All those holier-than-thou Christians are hypocrites." Josh Duggar aside, the double standard is astounding. "We hate judgmental people and gleefully stand in judgment of them." "We are intolerant of people who are intolerant of our view." "We assert with certainty that your opinion is only your opinion and not truth and if you think otherwise you're wrong." "It's wrong to push your views onto others and that's the view I will continue to push." "I am so upset by your vicious gossip and slander that I will continue to slander and gossip about you."

It breaks my heart. Someone put up on display as "Christian values" doing what Josh admits is pain and disgrace to Christ and His followers. I cannot even imagine the crushing weight his wife is bearing with a cheating husband and the public assault. It's sad that in our society there is no redemption for Christians who believe in redemption, and it's sad that people who do things while wearing the name of "Christ follower" that do not reflect Christ are touted as fine examples of how wrong Christ is. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24). A sad day all around.

John Bunyan Quotes

In researching another entry, I came across several quotes from John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, that I thought bore repeating.

• Sin is the dare of God's justice, the rape of His mercy, the jeer of His patience, and the contempt of His love.
• He who runs from God in the morning will scarcely find Him the rest of the day.
• Fear, lest, by forgetting what you are by nature, you also forget the need that you have of continual pardon, support, and supplies from the Spirit of grace, and so grow proud of your own abilities, or of what you have received from God.
• You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.

Arrested for preaching, Bunyan was offered release as long as he would stop. His response was, "I will stay in prison till the moss grows on my eyelids rather than disobey God." John Bunyan spent 12 years in a prison that had, essentially, an open door, unwilling to disobey God. (Imagine that response from some in America today that are paying the price for obeying God in the matter of, say, making cakes or floral arrangements.)

On prayer:

• There is enough sin in my best prayer to send the whole world to Hell.
• Pray often, for prayer is a shield to the soul, a sacrifice to God, and a scourge for Satan
• Prayer will make a man cease from sin, or sin will entice a man to cease from prayer

Thanks, John.

Drug Culture

Recently our area had a drug raid on three people growing "medical marijuana". As the raid struck, the owner was telling them "We are card-holding medical marijuana patients" and was upset with the reply, "I don't care." They confiscated 33 plants, 9 more than the allowed 24 for medical marijuana users. The owner was distraught. "That crop was to heal me."

How did we get here? How did we get from "This drug will ease pain" to "This pain reliever will heal me"?

Sprout Phermaceuticals of North Carolina has succeeded in its third attempt at releasing flibanserin, known as "female Viagra." It is supposed to treat women with low libido. The FDA shot it down twice before because it felt the medical risk outweighed any benefit it could provide. Groups like the National Organization for Women are insisting that it be released. "Women have the right to make their own informed choices concerning their sexual health," they say, ignoring the potentially dangerous side effects.

How did we get here? How did we arrive at "this pill will give women a sex drive"? When did sexual desire become the product of a pill?

We live in a drug culture. People take drugs for everything. They take them to lose weight and to gain weight. People take "uppers" to feel happy and "downers" to keep from feeling too happy. We have drugs advertised on television for just about anything you can imagine. You can see a commercial touting the latest anti-depressant (with possible side effects of suicidal tendencies ... what?) followed by a commercial for a law firm willing to sue the company that offers the latest anti-depressant. From cigarettes to alcohol, from illegal drugs to prescription medications, we're glad to find something we can take that will produce anything "better" than what we have now. Do they? No, not normally. They make us feel better, perhaps, but from cigarettes to alcohol, from illegal drugs to prescription medications, most of what we take only makes us feel and does not make us better. Aspirin doesn't cure strained muscles. Anti-histamines don't eliminate allergies. Medical marijuana doesn't restore cancer patients. But we take them, often and with gusto.

How did we get here?

We bought the lie. We bought the "human animal" story. We actually believe the story that people are machines. With the proper tools we can fix anything. So let's not bother with proper eating and exercise; let's take a pill. But that's not right either, because "proper eating and exercise" is simply a different tool than "a pill". What we've failed to recognize is that Man is not merely another animal, a complicated machine. He is body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess 5:23; Heb 4:12). And we aren't merely dealing with a physical realm, but a spiritual one as well (Eph 6:12) and we aren't well equipped to handle it (Jer 17:9; 2 Cor 4:4).

I am amazed that someone would believe that a drug intended to alleviate discomfort would be able to cure cancer and HIV. I marvel that people (especially women) believe that a pill is all that is required to produce sexual desire in a woman. But given our current climate of secularism and materialism, denying much beyond the physical nature of our worlds or the mechanical nature of our bodies, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Still, I won't be waiting for a "godly drug" that will make me a sin-free follower of Christ. Hey, they haven't even come up with a "skinny pill" yet.

I Read; You Say

It doesn't seem that difficult, but apparently it is. It is a constant that I will read something in Scripture and subscribe to it (because it's in God's Word) and people will tell me, "Nope! Not true!" Okay, I know, skeptics are skeptical. That's what they do. But I'm talking about self-described Christians. I'm talking about people who assure me, "I love God's Word" and other reassuring things. So I read X and they say Y and I can't figure out where the disconnect is.

I'm not talking about the obscure or the difficult. I mean, sure, even though 100% of Scripture on the topic of homosexual behavior rates it as sin and not one verse of Scripture can be found to support such behavior and the Bible absolutely and invariably speaks of marriage as between a man and a woman, I suppose that's all just "my opinion". I'm not talking about the implicit or hard to understand. We might differ on the "pearl of great price" parable or who the "sons of God" were in Gen 6. I'm talking about the explicit, the clear, the plain.

I read (God talking to Himself) "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21) and conclude "The intent of Man's heart is evil from his youth." And I read further, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5) and end up with "We are brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin." Oh, but is that true? Well, I read on and see, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3) and, for reasons beyond comprehension, arrive at the idea that the wicked go astray from birth. "Oh, no!" I get in response. Why? "Well, anyone can see that babies are innocent, that people are not conceived in sin, that no one goes astray from birth. That all takes time! All you have to do is look!" So, I've got Scripture in this hand and their perceptions of their experiences in the other and I have to decide which is true. Doesn't seem that hard to me, but it is for them. Clearly David in Psalms and God in Genesis were wrong or didn't say this stuff or, at least, were not clear enough. And I'm scratching my head wondering, "In what way do you love God's Word?"

I read (Jesus talking), "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28) and they tell me, "You know, Jesus never said anything about payment for sin or anything like it." "Now, wait," I say, "Wasn't it Jesus who said, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins'?" (Matt 26:28) "Oh, no, there's nothing in there about blood sacrifices for sin. Nothing at all." "But didn't Paul say, 'The righteousness of God has been manifested ... through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe ... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith ... so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus'?" (Rom 3:21-26) "Nope! Nothing in there at all about blood for salvation or God's justice or redemption or any such thing." Are we reading the same Bible? Or do we mean something different when we say, "I love God's Word"?

It's not like I'm taking a position outside of the norm. Christians have always believed in Original Sin, that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), that sin deserves death (Rom 6:23), that Christ paid for our sin (Heb 9:12), a ransom was paid (Matt 20:28; 1 Tim 2:6) by our Redeemer (Gal 3:13; 1 Peter 1:18) in His blood (1 Peter 1:19). But people may not like that. They may think it sounds unfair, unreal, even crazy. Fine. I'm not making it up, pulling it out of thin air, or hanging onto some bizarre, outlandish notion. It's in the text and it is historical Christianity. I read it; you say something different. Your argument is not with me. Your question is "How can you believe such stuff?" My question, to anyone who claims to love God and His Word, is "How can you not?" Rest assured. "I love God" coupled with "His Word doesn't mean what it says" don't go together. And division is not when the Bible clearly says "X" and I agree with "X". It is when someone else says it does not.