Mother's Day, 2014

It's Mother's Day. I have to talk about my mother. No, I don't "have to" because it's required. I have to because she is so remarkable.

It is often hard to measure the influence people have had on one's life. We have been influenced by acquaintances without knowing it. Passing remarks, even from strangers, can produce effects of which we aren't even aware. Factor in memory -- "Now who was it that taught me ...?" -- and determining influential people in your life can be difficult.

In my case, it's not. Without hesitation I can say that the most influential person in my life has been my mother. Now, to be sure, most of us would have to say that. Mothers are generally a major influence in anyone's life. Mine, however, has been a profound influence.

It was my mother that taught me as a child that obedience was better than sin, that truth was found in the Word, that love was something more profound than warm feelings. She taught me the truth, and she didn't simply tell me; she lived it. I'm reminded of Timothy, whose mother, Eunice, taught him a sincere faith by living it in front of him (2 Tim 1:5).

Proverbs 31 speaks of an "excellent wife" (Prov 31:10-31). She is precious (v 10), trustworthy (v 11), does good and not harm (v 12), works with her hands (v 13), provides food for her household (v 15), is strong (v 17), industrious (v 18-19), prepared and unafraid (v 21). I like this particular phrase: "Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come" (Prov 31:25). These all describe my mother.

Beyond the direct efforts, my mother influenced the rest of my influences. My mother's words and example influenced my choices of teachers and preachers, friends and the ones I did not have, the courses of action and thought processes. She taught me to think, to be responsible, to be courageous, to be honest. She taught me to be prepared to give an answer, but with gentleness and respect. These, in turn, directed other parts of my life, deciding who else would be allowed to influence me and who would not and what else I would accept as truth and what I would not.

There is one aspect that is interesting to me, one thing my mother never taught me. She never taught me what it was like to have a dysfunctional family life. I don't know by experience what it is like to be abandoned, unloved, or spurned by parents. When I was good, my mother loved me. When I was bad (and I have been very bad), my mother loved me. When I said wise things, she praised me, and when I said foolish things, she lovingly corrected me. (I like that I put that in past tense, as if I don't say foolish things anymore and she no longer has occasion to correct me. It isn't true, but I like it just the same.)

I can't tell you how many times I've known people who, upon meeting my mother, have said, "Oh, that's where you get it!" I think that's an example of my mother's influence. She didn't simply teach me by word, but by deed, and I didn't simply learn information, I learned character. I am what I am because of my mother first.

There is no bigger influence in my life than my mother save that of Christ Himself. She was the one most present in my formative years, the one most forward in teaching me the truth, the one most obvious in living a visible life as a follower of Christ. In my later years she is not only my mother, but a dear friend and respected counselor. Many people have been good influences on me, but she has been the one of the two primary (the other being my father), so she has been the biggest influence. Of the Proverbs 31 "excellent wife" it is said, "Her children rise up and call her blessed" (Prov 31:28). This child rises up and calls his mother blessed. Happy Mother's Day, Mom.

All Dogs and Heaven

Several years ago I had a prior coworker call me out of the blue. She had left the state, but she knew I was a Christian and she had my work number, so she called with a critical question. "When dogs die, do they go to heaven?" No, stop laughing. She sincerely thought it was critical. "Because if my dog doesn't go to heaven, I'm not sure I want to go."

The anecdote gives rise to a variety of possible considerations. Are you planning to go to heaven because you'll be happy or because you want to be with God? Is your ____ (fill in the blank with any earthly consideration) more important to you than God? And others, obviously. But this is Saturday and I typically try to keep Saturdays light, so here's another you may not have considered. What does the Bible say about animals in heaven?

Well, first, we know there will be horses. After all, John tells us quite often about seeing horses in heaven (Rev 6:2, 4, 5, 8; Rev 19:11, 19, 21). From the "four horsemen of the Apocalypse" to the rider called Faithful and True, horses play a part in heavenly things.

One of the well-known and even beloved verses from Scripture tells us, "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them" (Isa 11:6), so we have wolves and lambs, leopards and goats, calves and lions. Clearly there are animals.

Of course, the two most common questions are about cats and dogs because, after all, those are out two most common pets. Well, we can be absolutely certain that there will be cats in heaven because we know from Revelation 15:2 that there are harps in heaven and we'll have to make those harp strings somehow. As for dogs, I'm afraid the answer isn't quite as popular. As John describes heaven in its final glory (Rev 22), he assures us, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral ..." (Rev 22:15). Sorry, folks, dogs are outside heaven, not inside, even if the movies assure us that all dogs go to heaven.

Okay, none of this was intended to be serious and none of it should be construed as helpful in any way to the question of animals in heaven. For instance, I'm pretty sure that God can make harp strings without cats and I do know that the reference to "dogs" actually refers to the worst of sinners, not the animals itself. On the other hand, if you're one who won't be happy in heaven without your favorite pet, I think there are far more serious questions for you to consider than whether or not your pet will be in heaven.

But What About Love?

The singularly most prevalent thing you will hear from those who think that we who hold to biblical morality need to consider in order to come around to the position that homosexual behavior is just fine is the claim that "Love is good." You know. "How can you be opposed to two people who are in a loving, committed relationship?"

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

In the biblical explanation of love (1 Cor 13), we find a list of characteristics. The list is interesting, to say the least. Included are things we would expect like "Love is patient and kind" (1 Cor 13:4) because, as we all know, love is both kind and patient. We are all quite aware, from the standard fairy tale ending, that "they all lived happily ever after" because "Love never fails" (1 Cor 13:8). We're good with that. On the other hand, there appears to be several characteristics that we all take for granted that are missing from the biblical account. There is nothing in the text that suggests tender feelings, romance, or, as apparently today's modern version appears to require, "Love means having sex with each other." Hmm, interesting indeed! In the middle, between "what we expected and got" and "what we expected but didn't get", is a section of what we did not expect. Like, "Love is not arrogant" (1 Cor 13:4). Really? What does one person's arrogance have to do with whether or not they love another? Things like that.

One of the things we (apparently) didn't expect but is included in the list is "Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). Consider, for instance, the young couple "in love". He wants to have sex; she doesn't. He says, "If you love me, you will." The easiest response would be "If you loved me you wouldn't even ask." Because, you see, "Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth." And there is no doubt whatsoever that sex outside marriage is biblically classified as "wrongdoing". So that young man can classify what he is feeling toward the young lady in a variety of possible ways -- lust, desire, even hormone trouble, perhaps -- but he cannot call it "love".

And this make sense when love is properly understood. You see, love seeks to achieve the best for the loved one even at great personal cost. Most people would agree with that on the face of it. Then it should be abundantly clear that seeking to urge one whom you claim to love to violate God's instructions would not be an effort to achieve the best for that loved one. It would be seeking to put them in great jeopardy for the sake of personal desires. It would be urging them to be in direct conflict with God. And that cannot be classified as "love".

So we circle back around to the first question. "How can you be opposed to two people who are in a loving, committed relationship?" As long as we are speaking the same language, my easy answer would be, "I'm not." It would, of course, require a little further explanation. "I am in favor of two people loving each other. That requires, however, that they seek the best for one another, and that requires that they don't urge one another to be in direct conflict with God because that is not the best and, therefore, that is not love." I don't know for sure what it is two people of the same gender who engage in sex with each other have, but it is not love. I would only say that, though, because I love you enough to speak the truth.

Let Me Count the Ways

The AP story from May 4, 2014, opens with this paragraph.

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop, who became a symbol for gay rights far beyond the church while deeply dividing the world's Anglicans, plans to divorce his husband.

What's wrong with this picture? Let me count the ways.

There is the phrase, "openly gay Episcopal bishop". Scripture is not unclear when it requires that "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2). Read that in as many different ways you would like. It cannot be read to say "a bishop must be the wife of one husband." But that's a different question, isn't it? Yes. So, it cannot be read to say, "A bishop must be the husband of one husband." No matter which way you translate the text, the context, the intent, the content, a bishop (KJV) must be "the husband of one wife." You can read that to mean "a one-woman man" or "only ever married to one woman" or perhaps several other possibilities, but none of them include "the husband of one husband."

There is the phrase "plans to divorce". Without reference to "gay" or not, we can clearly see from Scripture that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). When they asked Jesus what the valid reason was for divorce, His reply was, "What God has put together let no man separate" (Matt 19:6) and assured them that the only reason there was an allowance for divorce in the Law was "because of your hardness of heart" (Matt 19:8). Without determining whether or not this particular thing is actually marriage, it cannot be questioned as to what God thinks about divorce, so "plans to divorce" must not be in the language of a church leader.

There is the phrase "deeply dividing the world's Anglicans." The biblical term for it is varied, depending on the translation, but it isn't unclear. It is "a factious man", "an heretick", "a schismatic", one who causes division (Titus 3:10-11). The Bible says without apology, "After warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

You see, then, without addressing the meaning of marriage or the morality of homosexual behavior, there is already a host of problems found in one sentence. That he retired in 2012 is vaguely helpful. That such a man ever served in the role of "bishop" anywhere is largely disturbing. That a church body ("Episcopals") would allow someone who fails the 1 Cor 6:9-10 test and the standards required by 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 for an overseer of this office (Note that he suffered from alcoholism, which, by itself is sad, but laid alongside 1 Tim 3:3 and Titus 1:7 is an additional problem.) as well as all these other difficulties to serve as an "overseer" is profoundly disturbing.

The Episcopal Church is "urging prayer for Robinson and Andrew." May I add my agreement here. Since they "went out from us" ("that it might become plain that they all are not of us") (1 John 2:19) and since in their current condition they "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10), I, too, urge prayers on their behalf, that "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). Prayer for a self-professed church body intent on accepting as leadership that which directly violates the Word of God is another matter.

Failed Strategies

Have you heard of Freakonomics? It is a book written by economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner published in 2005. It examines various aspects of economics (even if "economics" is used loosely). It talks about cheating, information control, the economics of drug dealing, and the socioeconomic patterns of naming children among other things. "Among other things" includes the highly controversial claim that legalized abortion reduces crime.

First, the reasoning. Legalizing abortion allows a woman who does not want a baby to terminate that baby's life. The likelihood of a baby who is not loved by his or her parents to become a criminal is much higher than one who is loved. Ergo, eliminating the unwanted baby decreases crime. QED¹.

Now, to be sure there have been a variety of folks who have refuted the claim. Not having read the book or the refutations, I'm not going to try. Indeed, it's not the topic this time. This time I'm looking at the thinking. "What is the problem? What is the solution?"

The problem is that there is crime. Crime is largely influenced by parents that don't love. Solution: Eliminate the child. Wait ... what? Does anyone else see a problem here with the solution? But it's not like this is the only place such a ridiculous conclusion is drawn these days. Take, for instance, the current scandals in Veterans Affairs hospitals both in Phoenix and in Colorado. And it's not limited to these. The answer to fixing problems in the Veterans Affairs system? Well, it may be necessary to fire some people, but everyone knows it has been to give the system more money. Because the failure or refusal of those in charge to do what they are charged with doing is simply a matter of money, not a failure of humans. Or how about the whole problem of kids shooting kids in schools? That's clearly a problem of bullying, a problem best solved by passing gun control laws and anti-bullying rules because the problem is insufficient regulation, not parents, teachers, or anyone else in the lives of these kids.

What am I getting at? I'm suggesting that we're following rabbit trails, that we're hunting down the wrong paths, that we're looking for solutions in the wrong places. We're thinking that better rules and more money and greater freedom (Can you get "better rules" and "more freedom" at the same time?) will solve the problem. The Bible says that the problem is sin, that we're all sinners in need of a change of heart. The answer is not in better politicians, better laws, or more money thrown at the problem. Hopefully those with the real answer aren't relying on those failed strategies to get it done.

________
¹ Without even reading the book or the paper, you can see the abstract for Levitt's claim here to get a feel for the argument.

Sexual Propaganda

Andrée Seu Anderson (that's how she spells her name) opened her May 3, 2014 article in World Magazine with

"It is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). But what if they do them in the open? What if they do them in Room 206 of the campus Physical Education Center and are graded on them? And what if you’re footing the bill, Mom and Dad?

She goes on to tell what was in her 20-year-old daughter's textbook and syllabus for the required Human Sexuality class she was taking in college. The textbook by Crooks and Baur, Our Sexuality (12th edition), (you can get it for $175 at Amazon) pretends to expound on human sexuality from an enlightened position ... and to teach your kids the "scientific truth".

This is the most respected and authoritative college textbook available on human sexuality. Written in a direct, non-judgmental manner, this edition of OUR SEXUALITY has been thoroughly and carefully updated to reflect the most current research findings. It is the first college text to bring cutting-edge and in-depth emphasis on the impact of politics on sexuality. Crooks and Baur keep you interested with the most exciting, emerging research and coverage, and focus on strengthening healthy communication among partners. The authors also have revised their overall coverage on maintaining a responsible and healthy sexual relationship, with greater attention to diversity and inclusiveness -- Amazon.com Book Description

So what kind of "authoritative" information does it offer? They tell us cool things like how physical attractiveness plays a role in sexual attraction and how jealousy harms relationships ... because they're scientists and we wouldn't have known these things. I particularly liked the keen insight, "Facial expressions of emotion are often a powerful component of nonverbal communication" because, after all, the definition of "nonverbal communication" is "communication not involving words: communication by other means than by using words, e.g. through facial expressions, hand gestures, and tone of voice." Whew! Good authoritative information! At one point they use the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill trial from 1991 as an example of workplace sexual harassment -- you know, the trial where Thomas was found not guilty. Thus, "respected and authoritative" must mean "not well researched, honest, or reliable."

How is it "non-judgmental"? Good stuff like "The religious right in America has long labored to reinforce traditional gender roles through its efforts to shape American politics." Yeah, that's non-judgmental. "The teachings of Jesus emphasized love, compassion, and forgiveness", while "Homophobia can be best thought of as a prejudice similar to racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism." Indeed, as far as "non-judgmental" goes, as long as you aren't a Christian or a Jew or some such, you'll be okay, because they assured their readers, "Beginning in the 7th century BCE, ... Jewish religious leaders wanted to develop a distinct closed community. Homosexual activities were a part of the religious practices of many peoples in that era, and rejecting practices was one way of keeping the Jewish religion unique." Really? The 7th century BCE? That would require that the texts written by Moses (according to Jesus (e.g. Matt 8:4; 19:8)) were not. (If Jesus was wrong, then why bother talking about what He said?) It would also indicate that only this elite minority actually believed such practices were sin. Certainly the Jews were wrong, and certainly the New Testament was equally wrong. This is "non-judgmental".

How is it "strengthening healthy communication among partners"? (Note: "Among" means a group, while "between" means a couple. There is bias in that phrase alone.) The book includes information on how to "come out", gives photos of sexual positions, and educates readers on things like fetishism, transsexual fetishism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, klismaphilia, coprophilia, urophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia. If you need to look them up, good for you. There are some really sick things in there. Oh, wait, we're talking about healthy communication, aren't we? So explanations without any moral component of sexual delight in enemas, feces, urine, sex with animals, or sex with dead people should be considered "healthy communication"? I don't think they're using the word "healthy" in the same sense that I would.

All of this is highly disturbing, but it is most disturbing because it is highly respected. It is most disturbing because it is considered good scholarship, good information, and good teaching. Anderson closes her piece with a quote from Cal Thomas. "The question must be asked: why do so many parents who hold traditional views that worked for them and the country willingly and enthusiastically send their children to academic institutions that frequently undermine everything they believe? And pay for it, too? Is it because of the 'prestige' of these historic schools?" I agree with the question. I also need to point out that, given what is being taught in schools (whether elementary, secondary, or "higher learning") that is fundamentally contrary and hostile to Christianity, what do you think we can expect as this next generation of propagandized children without proper parenting or education come to the fore? I don't think it will be a warm embrace of Christian values or those who hold them.

What Seems to be the Problem?

James starts the 4th chapter of his epistle with a question that any parent of more than one child has likely asked: "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you?" Yeah, we've all seen that and we've all likely, whether intentionally or in passing, wondered the same thing. Just what is it that is making two people quarrel? Maybe it's not people; maybe it's nations. I'd suspect the answer is the same.

James answers. "Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" That's the ESV. There is the elegant KJV -- "Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" The New American Standard says, "Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?" So ... which is it? Is it passions, lust, or "your pleasures"? Because these don't seem to be the same thing. Well, at least not in our minds. "Passions" refers to anything about which we are passionate, and we even encourage that. "Lust" in our vernacular is sexual. And, of course, "your pleasure" is generic enough, not requiring real "passion" and broader than sexual desire. We're all waiting to figure out what is the cause of quarrels. What did James say?

James used the Greek word, ἡδονή. "You know, Stan, that doesn't help at all." Yeah, I know, but some want to know the actual word, like it would make a difference. However, in the phonetic spelling of the Greek word, I suspect you'll begin to find your very own answer. The Greek word, when spelled out like we would pronounce it, is hēdonē. Now, surely you see an English word origin there, right? The word, as it turns out, both in sound and in definition, is the source of our English term, "hedonism". It refers to pleasure or the desire for pleasure. You know, your passions, your lusts, your pleasures. What is hedonism? It is the doctrine that pleasure is the highest good. Oh! Welcome to the 21st century!

What seems to be the problem? Why are children killing children? Why are there fights in Congress? Why do your neighbors hate each other? Why is there conflicts between races? What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? It is the search for pleasure. It is our drive to satisfy our desires. Maybe they're personal desires for sex, for power, for money. Maybe they're for more "understandable" things like respect or even just to be left alone. Maybe they are national desires for land, for power, for glory. The conflicts are always based on the pleasures of the combatants. They cannot occur if one or the other or both are not concerned about pleasure. And when these desires are elevated to the highest priority, they become wars, either between individuals or between groups or nations.

The Bible warns that hedonism -- the doctrine that pleasure is the highest good -- results in conflict and struggles. The world tells us that hedonism is right, normal, normative. We ought not set it aside. We ought to embrace it. And if you say otherwise, you're just a bigoted, narrow-minded hater. You decide.

God Cannot

It is popularly believed that God can do anything. Anything at all. I suppose the first reason for this common conception is the verse that says, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:26). Pretty much answers that, doesn't it? Well, I suppose so ... if you're going to take that without any context -- like the rest of Scripture.

For instance, Paul opens his letter to Titus, "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:1-2). James says, "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). Balaam told Balak, "God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind" (Num 23:19). The psalmist wrote, "Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but You are the same, and Your years have no end"
(Psa 102:25-27). So what are we to make of this? Clearly there is a list (this is a short list) of things that God cannot do. He cannot lie, be tempted by evil, change His mind, or cease to exist. And yet we read that "with God all things are possible."

I think the clearest answer is found in Paul's second letter to Timothy. There we read, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim 2:13). Sure, another thing He cannot do -- deny Himself -- but I think that answers the entire dilemma. With God, all things are possible that God wants to do. That would mean that all things that He does would be in alignment with His nature. All things He does would be for His pleasure. All things would be according to His will. Oh, wait ... isn't that our prayer? "Our Father who is in heaven ... Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven ..." (Matt 6:9-10). Because, you see, everything He does is His will. Everything He does is according to His character.

So there are things He cannot do. He cannot lie. That means He can't, for instance, promise to save you and then fail to save you. He can't intend to succeed at something and fail to succeed. He cannot fail to do what He intends for His good purposes. He can be trusted. He is immutable -- unchangeable. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8). Can He make a rock too big for Him to pick up? Don't be silly! It would not be in line with His nature, according to His pleasure. He can do anything He pleases.

As it turns out, for us that's a really, really good thing. Because He can be trusted. What He says He will do He will do. And since His nature is good (the definition of "good"), what He says He will do will be good. And that's a good thing.

Universal Happiness

Love and bunnies, everyone. Kittens. Baby seals. Oh, let's not forget unicorns. Giving to the poor. Helping a friend. Or a stranger. A hug all 'round. A warm smile. A contented sigh.

I get so many complaints about writing about stuff with which people disagree (you know, like "The Bible says ____, so we ought to pay attention") that I thought I'd try my hand at not doing that. Telling people why I say what I say and even explaining how the motivation is from genuine concern, not self-interest or narrow-mindedness, doesn't seem to help. I'm still labeled as a hater, a bigot, where the homosexual is my enemy and all those darn liberals ought to be shot. So here's something no one should complain about. Let's step back for a moment and see. Nope, nothing particularly controversial there. All good things. I can't imagine anyone getting upset about that. Of course, I also can't imagine anyone being edified, challenged, improved ...

Well, at least I've avoided further bloodshed, right?

Separation or Divorce?

Anyone who reads my stuff at all knows that I'm not shy about taking on controversial topics. I've dealt with such things as Reformed theology, homosexuality, "same-sex marriage", abortion, patriarchy, gender compementarianism, and even the president. So it shouldn't be a surprise if I take on another controversy. However, the title up there is just meant to be eye-catching. The controversial topic today will not be about separation or divorce. Just separation.

Before we start, I need to set down a couple of ... disclaimers. First, this is to Christians. Unbelievers need not concern themselves. Second, the arguments in this discussion (aimed, remember, at Christians) will come from the Bible. If you classify yourself as a Christian but don't find the Bible particularly compelling, there's no point in bothering with this. Now, for the rest, I'd like you to establish one thing in your minds. Will you decide to do what the Word says regardless of what the world says, or will you determine what to do based on ... feelings, culture, experience, some other source than Scripture? Well, let's see.

The government of the United States is based on the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers. So we have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, each having specific tasks and limitations. In Christianity we have our own Doctrine of Separation. This one is a little different. This doctrine starts with the relatively clear command, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14). No, we don't remove ourselves from the world, but we are not to be immersed in it either. You know, in the world, not of the world. But it doesn't stop there. So maybe I should just deluge you with Scripture.

Can two walk together except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3).

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matt 18:15-17).

Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness ..." (Eph 5:11).

I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one (1 Cor 5:11).

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these (2 Tim 3:1-5).

As for a person who stirs up division¹, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10-11).

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds (2 John 1:10-11).

You know, after awhile it starts to seem like a theme, a message, a clear statement. Over and over the Bible seems to tell Christians that, in the case of false teachers or self-professed brothers involved in unrepentant sin, the appropriate, godly, even obedient response is ... separation. That's right. Leave them alone. Don't associate with them. Don't eat with them. Don't even give them a greeting.

Now, you may say, "Okay, Stan, so ... where's the controversy?" Well, look around you. How many Christians make a practice of this apparently clear and continuous teaching and command from Scripture? How many Christians do you know who would advise you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person or some such? When have you ever heard these days of someone being regarded as "a Gentile and a tax collector" for being unrepentant? When was the last time someone turned a sinning Christian over to Satan (1 Cor 5:1-5; 1 Tim 1:20)? More to the point, do you agree and practice such separation?

It is biblical, even if it's not popular. Indeed, it is God's very practice. Hosea warned Israel, "My God will reject them because they have not listened to Him" (Hosea 9:17). God's rejection of sinners is a given. Further, the purpose of this seemingly harsh practice is to cause sufficient distress in the sinning Christian so as to bring them to repentance. And the failure of Christians to practice this very clear principle has resulted in muddied waters in the Church -- obscured doctrine, immoral practices, continued unrepentance, and outright sin accepted and embraced. It is God's command. Perhaps we should consider putting into better practice.
________
¹ This is an interesting word. In the ESV here it refers to someone who stirs up division. In the King James it uses the term, "heretic" (spelled with an additional "k" at the end, of course). The New American Standard calls him "a factious man". Young's Literal Translation calls him "a sectarian man". The Greek is αἱρετικός -- aihretikos. The Greek word is "heretic". It is derived from a word meaning "to choose" and refers to forcing a choice, to causing division, to being schismatic. I suppose, then, that all the translations appear to be correct.

A Word of a Different Feather

I know, I know, I do this a lot. I talk about the meanings of words and how they're changing. But how can I not? I am a wordsmith, you know?

So there is this phrase, "gay Christian", that is throwing itself around the Internet these days because Matthew Vines has released a new book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. There it is right there, you see? "Gay Christian". Now, there have been excellent responses to Vines, both to his book and to his video¹, so I'm not attempting to respond to his claims here². What I'm pointing out (as I am wont³ to do) is the whole problem of words.

Is there such a thing as a "gay Christian"? The problem here, you see, is, again, the problem of words. And we often miss this problem because we think we are using words we understand. So let's examine it for a moment. First, there is "Christian". What does that mean? Well, biblically it refers to disciples (Acts 11:26) -- followers of "the Way" (Acts 19:9; 24:22). It isn't "whatever I want it to be" like so many today seem to think. It refers to those who are pupils of Christ. "Ah," some will argue, "but Jesus never said anything about the subject." Is that true? He did say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" (Matt 5:17). That would suggest that He favored them, and that would include Leviticus 18:22 as well as all the other restrictions on sex outside of marriage. He did say that marriage was between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6), making sex in "marriage" impossible for two women or two men. So why didn't Jesus speak against it explicitly? Well, of course, He didn't speak about bestiality, pedophiles, rape, or any number of other sins on which we all agree. Why? Because we all agree. Because no one in His time had any question about it. So if a Christian is a follower of Christ and if the Bible is inspired by the Spirit Christ sent to lead us into the truth, then Christians, followers of Christ and His Word, have a specific meaning, not an undefined, ambivalent definition.

But then there's this whole term, "gay". We as a society have so embraced it as to mean something completely new by it. As it happens, the concept of "gay" as it is used today didn't exist prior to the 19th century. The term, homosexuality, didn't exist prior to the coining of it by German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. The notion of defining someone by their sexual desires (opposite sex, same sex, minors, animals, whatever) is new. So people will argue that the Bible didn't say anything about homosexuality because the concept didn't exist at the time (as if God had no idea). It's true. The idea of defining a person by their sexual desires is something recent. But today we hear and use the term "gay" as a definition rather than an act. And we buy it without checking it for accuracy. That's a problem in terms of word usage. Does such a definition of a human being actually exist? No one is actually able to prove it⁴, but we're going to go with it anyway.

Now we put them together ... like it means something we'll all understand. "Gay Christian." Like that says something. As it turns out, there are two possible yet opposing meanings that can be understood from the term. One is the one Matthew Vines et. al. wants us to buy. It is a genuine Christian who embraces his or her sexual desire for someone of the same sex. That is a possible definition of the phrase. Or it could mean someone that experiences same-sex attraction but who, as a genuine follower of Christ and His Word, is seeking to be holy as He is holy and that includes in the arena of sexual relations. This person agrees with Scripture that we have desires that are sinful -- and the desire to have sex with those of the same sex is just such a desire -- and that disciples of Christ need to flee sinful desires (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tim 2:22). Obviously this definition of the same phrase is directly opposed to the other. In fact, the first definition is self-contradicting. And yet we use the phrase like it has a common, understandable meaning.

This is one of my regular sayings: We are two people separated by a common language. It is, again, the case. We know "gay" and we know "Christian" and we know "gay Christian", but we seem to rarely know them in the same way. Words of a different feather, so to speak. Because, you see, you cannot stand in opposition to Christ and His Word and claim to be a follower of Christ and His Word. You can claim to be a Christian while seeking to eliminate the sin in your life. Embracing your sin while claiming to embrace the One who called it sin is clearly problematic.

________
¹ Just so you know, that rebuttal by James White to Matthew Vine's video back in 2012 is comprehensive -- 5 hours long. I've listened to it (I have a lot of driving time available for such things) and benefited from it, but it's not likely something you can do in a sitting. You can right click and save it for listening at your leisure.

² I am fascinated, however, as I often am, by these two opposing notions. First, there is the argument from consensus. "Well, a consensus of scientists believe in global warming, so it's true." They carry that over to "A consensus of Christians today believe that homosexual behavior is okay, so it's true." They do this ignoring 2000 years of Christian consensus that said the opposite. The first notion, then, is "Consensus is valid as long as it agrees with us." And this is the opposing notion. "We've figured out the truth about this issue after 2,000 years when no one else could." Again, a colossal failure of the Holy Spirit. Something that no one from that side of the aisle seems to be addressing.

³ "Wont", as in "accustomed or likely to do something", because a wordsmith is likely to talk about words, right?

⁴ By "prove it" I mean the notion that someone is "born that way" or the absolutely certain claim that it cannot be addressed treated, or controlled.

Bad Company is not a 70's band

In the book of Joshua we read, "When the LORD had given rest to Israel from all their surrounding enemies, and Joshua was old and well advanced in years, Joshua summoned all Israel, its elders and heads, its judges and officers, and said to them ..." (Josh 23:1-2). The rest of the chapter is Joshua's instructions (he gives a second set in the next chapter) to the people of Israel as he is passing on. He reminds them of all God has done (Josh 23:3). He assures them God will continue (Josh 23:5). He urges them to be strong (Josh 23:6) by obedience and by clinging to God (Josh 23:6-8). "Be very careful," he says, "to love the Lord your God" (Josh 23:11). He tells them that, just as clearly and surely that God has fulfilled His promises to them, they can be sure that if they transgress His commands, He will also give them over to servitude under His wrath (Josh 23:14-16).

In the middle of that, he warns them. "You may not mix with these nations" (Josh 23:7). He warns them, "If you turn back and cling to the remant of these nations remaining among you ... know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you ..." (Josh 23:12-13). Joshua, before he died, strongly cautioned Israel to avoid making close relationships with people whose values and beliefs were radically different than their own. It wouldn't just be unwise; it would be devastating. It is noteworthy that the book of Judges follows immediately on Joshua, and Judges is a circular set of stories where the people immerse themselves in sinful relationships with the surrounding people, fall under God's judgment until they repent, and God rescues them again.

It's not like this is the only place such a warning occurs in Scripture. David wrote

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night (Psa 1:1-2).

Paul wrote "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor 15:33). He also penned the famous, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14).

And yet we read that Jesus ate with sinners. He's famous for it. He was called "a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Matt 11:19). How do we reconcile the two? Well, the answer is in Paul's phrase: "What fellowship has light with darkness?" And if you look back at Joshua's warning, it's the same. It wasn't that they weren't allowed an interaction with the nations. It was that they weren't allowed to mix. They weren't allowed to marry. They weren't allowed to partner with them. It wasn't supposed to be ... κοινωνία -- koinōnia. That's the word used there for "fellowship". Koinōnia is an interesting concept because it defies the American sense of "individualism" and embraces a unity, a divesting of self in favor of the group, a like-mindedness. It's like "two fellows in one ship". It isn't merely proximity or acquaintance; it is walking the same path in unison (1 John 1:3-6). It is shared purposes and shared values and shared beliefs and shared lives. And while Jesus fellowshiped in that sense with His disciples, He did not do the same with the tax collectors and sinners.

Why are there so many disaffected youth? You know, they're raised in the church and they're taught the right things and they're educated properly and still they leave the faith and the family and the truth. Why? Why are there so many dissatisfied Christians? These are the ones that have decided to be spiritual but not religious. They're not ditching all beliefs -- just biblical ones. Why is it that "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) is no longer in favor¹? There are, I'm sure, many reasons. There is Satan, the roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). There are those who are "not of us" (1 John 2:19), the tares among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30), the wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15). And it is largely this tendency in our society to thoroughly and completely ignore this warning: Bad company corrupts good morals. It is our willingness to submerge ourselves in the world, to commune with rather than simply engage sinners. It is largely our blind acceptance and embrace of the world (1 John 2:15), welcoming full partnership with those around us and eventually internalizing their worldview.

Bad company corrupts good morals. Not the '70's rock band, Bad Company. The company that follows the counsel of the wicked, that stands with sinners, that sits with scoffers, that partners with unbelievers, with lawlessness, with darkness. "What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" Paul thought the questions were rhetorical, that the answers were obvious. In today's individualistic, Americanized Christianity, we don't seem to agree. But we're certainly reaping the results².
________
¹ To be fair, the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints has always been in disfavor ... which was why Jude appealed to believers to contend for it against those who "have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4) ... you know, like the prevalent approach today.

² e.g., Dan Haseltine, 'Jars Of Clay' Lead Singer, Tweets Support For Gay Marriage or folks like Rachel Held Evans.

When God Isn't Working

We have some interesting passages in Scripture that seem to point to a failure on the part of God. You find, for instance, the claim that

the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom 1:18-21).

You would think that a strategy to make Himself known within them would guarantee a following, but the text itself says "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him." A failed policy.

Take, as another example, Isaiah's commission from God.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed." Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate (Isa 6:8-11).

God called Isaiah to be His representative and to fail to get His message across effectively. His plan was to tell them to listen and for them to fail to listen. A failed plan.

Oh, here's one. This is one that you'd think would be a sure success. I mean, what do unbelievers tell you all the time? "If God would do a miracle in front of me, I'd believe." And yet,

In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to Me," says the Lord (1 Cor 14:21).

So God's plan was to give them the miraculous -- speaking in tongues -- and they would not listen. That is, that they would not listen was part of the plan. Talk about a failure.

Of course, it's not a failure. It is the same concept in all cases that is listed in the first: "So that they are without excuse." No one will be able to say, "I didn't know." No one will be able to stand in front of God and complain, "You didn't give me enough reasons." The failure of the proofs will be proof of their failure, not God's failure. You see, there is no time when God isn't working. It's just not always as obvious as you might think.

Catholicism

Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII were declared saints in the Roman Catholic Church Sunday. "Canonized" they call it. They are "to be venerated by the whole church." It's one of those things that differentiates the Roman Catholic Church from the Protestant church. We go with "'Saints' refers to all believers ... you know, like it's used in the Bible."

One of the accusations of the Protestants against the Catholics is this whole "worship of the saints" thing. "They're worshiping saints, for Pete's sake! That's idolatry!" And, of course, the Catholics answer, "No, we're not. We're just following the Scripture that says that the prayers of a righteous man avail much. Saints are righteous. We're just asking for their help." And someone might pause in their assault at that point ... until you hear the kinds of "prayers to the saints" that they're offering.

I saw a news story the other day that included a bit about a woman who met John Paul II. Afterwards she dedicated her life to service in him, even after he died. Her money quote: "I'm just waiting for the next thing John Paul II wants me to do." That's not mere "veneration". That's worship.

Worse, there's the whole "Mary, mother of Jesus" thing. Sure, Jesus was God and, sure, Mary was His mother, but they take the phrase "mother of God" to a whole other level. She is officially "Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate." "Co-redemptrix"! That's not mere "veneration". So we end up back in difficult territory.

In the media, the terms "Catholic" and "Christian" are synonymous. Likely as not, if they want a "Christian" representative in a story of some sort, it will very likely be a Roman Catholic. I have to wonder, though. If we are saved by faith, not by works, and if their entire system is set up under structure we are commanded to avoid (1 Cor 10:14; 1 John 5:21), you have to wonder how "Christian" and "Roman Catholic" can coincide. Are there genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church? I'd have to guess that there are. But I'd have to say it's not due to the official Roman Catholic doctrine.

A Miracle

My wife and I saw that new Captain America movie -- Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was amused by the guy sitting next to me with his son. Here we have a story built around a guy who died in the 1940's but came back to life and is doing quite well fighting off aliens (The Avengers) and now really, really bad guys. There is a host of essentially impossible equipment and impossible people. You know, like you would expect from a comic book story. But when one character you thought was dead turns up alive at some point, my fellow movie-goer complained. "Oh, come on!" Because that, you see, is unbelievable. A superhero? No, that's fine.

As it turns out, in a world ruled by science where all that occurs is governed by physical laws and the like, not only is that surprise resurrection impossible, but so is the entire movie and the others like it. But people watch them and enjoy them because in a world governed by imagination, such things are perfectly possible.

We meet on Sunday for a reason. The New Testament refers to it as "the Lord's Day", a repeated celebration of the Resurrection. Not just on Easter -- every week. This is no downstream miracle. The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. And in a world governed by science and physical laws, it, too, would be impossible. But it is attested to by Scripture and by witnesses (1 Cor 15:3-8). And, as it happens, in a world ruled by God -- a world that is made by God and sustained by God and for God's good purposes -- you would expect miracles. If God rules the universe, then, on occasion, these things that violate the laws of nature will occur. It would be ... natural ... in the sense of "according to the nature of reality".

So we celebrate, at least 52 times each year, a miracle. For those bound by science and naturalism, it can't happen. For those who live in God's world, it would be a given. For those of us who know Jesus, it is a fact. A great, wonderful, saving fact. Something worthy of repeated celebration.

Not a Slippery Slope

You know the "slippery slope" argument, right? Yeah, sure you do! It goes like this. You warn against a particular course of action on the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable consequence results. You know, "If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, before long you'll have all sorts of other combinations occurring." Slippery slope. It is, in fact, called a logical fallacy. And, as we all know, a fallacy negates an argument.

Interestingly, the "slippery slope" fallacy is a little unusual in that it is only a fallacy if it doesn't occur. If it occurs, it was not a fallacy.

So when the news reports a married lesbian threesome, that kind of eliminates the argument that it is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It's not a fallacy when it's a fact.

(What is that? Three paragraphs to say, "I told you so!"?)

Societal Suicide

Suicides can be pretty versatile. You can shoot yourself or cut yourself. You can poison yourself or starve yourself. You can jump off a building or off a bridge or in front of a moving vehicle. You can do a whole host of things. The idea is to deprive your body of the essential elements required to continue living. One of the picturesque ways to do it is to swim out to sea. You see, pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger is, well, a bit unnerving even to the ardent suicide intendee. So a variety of methods are devised that make it ... easier. Distract yourself while you end your life. That kind of thing. So one way it has been done is to just start swimming. Now you can tell yourself, "I'm just going for a swim. I'm not killing myself." Eventually you will reach the limits of your endurance and be unable to change your course of action and you will drown. Success! (As long as "success" is defined as reaching one's goal of ending his or her life.)

So how would a society commit suicide? The same way, of course. Deprive the society of the essential elements required to continue, and a society will die. If the society does it to itself, it is suicide. And I would offer the opinion that we appear to be doing just that.

Take, for instance, the assault on morality. A moral code is absolutely essential to the continuation of a society. It has been said that "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."¹ History tells us that corrupt societies fail miserably.

Key to any society at all is the bedrock component of the family. No society can exist without this element. Dismember the family and society ceases to exist. There is no more vital² piece of society than family. Look what we're doing to thoroughly dismantle that part of society.

Begin, first, with pornography. In my youth we knew of one or two fellows who discovered their fathers' carefully hidden "stash" of Playboys. It was hidden. It was private. It was even shameful. Today, of course, it is open, public, embraced, even encouraged. It's even considered a "marital aid". What has our society embraced? Pornography teaches that men should function a particular way and women should function a particular way in the sexual encounter. The fact that nearly no one functions that way is irrelevant. The fact that functioning that way does serious damage to interpersonal relationships is beside the point. Our thorough defense and endorsement of porn is preparing young men and women to be complete failures in their sexual relationships ... from an early age.

Then there is the problem of dating. "Dating?" you ask. "How can that be a problem?" We've decided that this is the most logical and effective method of finding our "one true love" (something else we've assumed as true). So we teach each other to hunt for "what I want", use whatever or whoever you want in that process, toss those who don't measure up to "what I want", and move on until you get what you want ... maybe repeatedly. This is not conducive to "family".

So far we haven't even arrived at "family". Marriage hasn't occurred. And there is still more. Consider the notion of contraception. Before modern contraception -- the Pill -- sex outside of marriage was risky business. Public opinion, economics, and practicality suggested that sex should only occur in marriage so that any pregnancies would occur in marriage -- in a family situation. Enter contraception, and sex eventually became a recreational drug. Do it for fun; don't worry about consequences. Marriage? Why? Without even considering the ramifications of abortifacients that kill babies in the womb, we've removed the caution and stigma of children out of wedlock.

A large part of this assault on the family found its most powerful weapon in the 60's with the "free love" movement. Going along with the assault on morality, this movement argued, bolstered by contraceptives and dating, that sex should not be limited to marriage relationships. The radical shift that occurred from that point on has been nothing less than astounding. In a decade, "living together" went from shocking to accepted and in less than half of a century it became more the norm than the exception. A few years ago I remember getting an email sent to myself as well as other coworkers inviting us to a fellow worker's wedding. One coworker commented, "He said he has been saving himself for marriage; he hasn't had sex with her yet. Who does that? Does anyone do that? Is that even safe?" A long haul in a very short time from the biblical "sex should only occur in marriage" to the current alternative.

But, okay, we've trained people to expect all the wrong things in relationships via the glut and acceptance of porn, taught them to test and move on in dating, stripped off the whole problem of "sexual immorality" and its consequences, and still people get married. So, see? We haven't done any harm, right? No, the problem gets worse. We've introduced "no fault divorce", a quick and easy method to shred any existing marriage simply because "We don't want to be married anymore." "She's not living up to my expectations" -- you know, the faulty ones he garnered from the porn. "He's not meeting my needs" -- you know, the self-centered notions built by dating. And the phenomenal, "The kids will be better off if we part" ... instead of "The kids will be better off if we learn to get along." So we've managed to strip marriage of any genuine purpose and any real backbone and render the concept of a lifelong commitment as generally pointless.

Enter the final nail in the coffin. With family shredded and teetering on the edge, we've now managed to completely redefine ... normal. Well, "normal" as it relates to family. "Marriage" once meant -- always meant in every historical venue and every biblical location -- the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and to procreate. No longer. We've factored in a new concept -- "gay marriage". This one has no "man and woman" requirement and no aim toward offspring. Coupled with the prior dismemberment of the concept with pornography, relationship-hopping, sex for recreation without consequences, and the transitory nature of any "marriage", it becomes likely a temporary relationship without any genuine sense of "monogamy" (now termed "mongamish"), and the whole thing becomes meaningless. Factor in the intrinsically related concept of "gender equality" -- that there is no difference in the genders -- and its consequent "sexual equality" -- there is no difference between sex with one gender or another -- and "family" is on the verge of vanishing in a puff of emotional logic. Today it includes unmarried couples, loosely related people, close friends, even the dog. It means nearly everything and, thus, almost nothing.

Bottom line: we've traded "family" for self-centeredness. "What I want" determines right and wrong, good and bad, the definitions of terms, and "what I will do". We're not killing ourselves; we're just going for a swim. And we slowly but surely remove ourselves from solid ground, food, shelter, safety ... life. It is societal suicide. It might not be intentional (I say "might"), but it appears inevitable.
________
¹ Attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

² Vital: 1) of or pertaining to life. 2) the source of life (e.g., "vital organs"). 3) necessary to life. Thus, "vital".

Experience

The new movie, Heaven is for Real, took in over $28 million in less than a week. It's a hit. Everyone is talking about it. It's about Colton Burpo, the 4-year-old son of a pastor from Nebraska who died and came back to life with tales of his visit to heaven. He met people there he didn't know in life and sat on Jesus's lap. Christians and unbelievers alike are lapping this stuff up. Right along with the God is not Dead movie, it is capturing attention.

Of course, the book and its resultant movie have been reviewed and there are many voices¹ out there warning about the doctrinal and biblical problems of this movie. I'm not going to do it. First, I haven't seen it. More importantly, to do so would violate the most sacred principle of all of today's culture.

You see, you and I can debate various ideas and doctrines and views of Scripture, but there is a sacred component that is beyond discussion: experience. Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that Scripture alone is the authority in matters of faith and practice, is all well and good ... until it comes to experience. If experience violates Scripture, then, as we all know, Scripture is wrong. And this movie is about the experience of a 4-year-old boy. So it doesn't matter if it violates Scripture. The account is right and Scripture is wrong.

Little Colton Burpo is not the only place you see this. Take, for instance, Paul's clear statement, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). No ambiguity there. Nothing unclear. But experience tells us that lots of people seek for God and, more importantly, lots of people do good. So clearly this text doesn't mean what it says. Even to those who relegate it to hyperbole -- an overstatement to make a point -- it is relegated to falsehood because, while Paul was ostensibly trying to make the point that few do good (their claim for hyperbole), they continue to argue that most do good. In other words, either Paul's statement or hyperbole falls flat because experience tells us differently.

Take, for instance, Paul's unambiguous, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:12-14). The protest to this passage is almost unanimous. "Well, I've known lots of women who are better teachers, better qualified, and better pastors than men." Experience, you see. Experience trumps Scripture. It trumps reason. It trumps everything.

When discussing a disputed topic with someone like me, someone who bases reality in Scripture, your worst approach would be to tell me, "Well, you know, the Bible is a man-made mythical text not of any real value." Sorry. I've already settled that in my mind. We have no common basis for discussion and we can stop this now. It works the same for those who base reality on their own experience. "Sorry. I've already determined that what I think or feel I experienced determines what is real, so anything you offer in contradiction to that is simply of no value and we have no common basis for discussion. End of conversation." Of course, the conversation doesn't actually end, but the dialog² does. Now we're hurling opposing ideas at each other without possibility of resolution.

Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience." Nice idea. Even popular. But certainly not definitive. You see, we all know that we routinely experience things that aren't, as it turns out, real. We hear sounds, see things, think things, assume things -- things all examined by a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9) and debased mind (Rom 1:28) -- and then "know" what is real ... even when it's not. And yet, experience is sacrosanct. You can't question it. Experience is the sola you can't violate. Not with your experience. Not with God's Word. Not with anything.

Not very wise in the final analysis.

________
¹ For an excellent article from CNN (because you wouldn't expect such a perfectly pointed article from CNN) on Heaven is for Real and biblical views of heaven, see this remarkable piece.

² Dialog: an exchange of opinions on a particular subject.

Too Much?

How much is too much?

On more than one occasion I've heard people -- self-professed Christians, mind you -- who have said, "If that is what God is like, I want no part of Him." The occasions vary. Sometimes it's when they find out that the Bible is full of references to "the elect" or "the chosen" and they discover that, by whatever means, God chooses some ... and, by obvious implication, not others. Or maybe it's when they receive the full impact of the Cross, a bloody sacrifice to a righteously angry God. I mean, a God who wants to save and all that ... that's okay, but a God who needs to satisfy justice like that, well, that's just a bit too much. Too ... pagan. Or it could be something else. But the idea remains the same. There are lines across which God cannot go and remain in our good graces. They judge God by their own standards and if He violates them, He's out. He's gone too far. It's too much.

On more than one occasion I've heard Christians complain about the Bible. They'll be skipping along, humming a happy tune, secure in their beliefs and then, all of the sudden, they'll come across something like, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) and they come to a screeching halt. "Oh, no! That's not right!" they'll assure me. And there are a lot of these.

Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor 14:34-35).

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor 7:3-4).

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet (1 Tim 2:11-12).

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).

And that's just a quick sample. Some have the very same response in the text that many have today to the text. For instance, Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). He went on to say, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:8-9). Now, we don't know the response of the ones to whom He said it, but we do know the response of His disciples who were listening: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). Because, you see, this was just a little too hard, a little over the top, a little too much. And there are lines across which Scripture cannot go and remain in our good graces. Many tend to judge the Bible not by what it says or means, but by the standards of the day or the standards of experience or culture and, when Scripture violates those personal standards, Scripture is wrong. It has gone too far. It's too much. It's out.

So what is "too much" for you? For me, personally, I don't want such a thing. I don't want to say, "You can go this far and no farther, God." You know, the ultimate oxymoron: "No, Lord." I don't want to determine what is and isn't true in Scripture based on my feelings or perceptions, but based on what it says. I don't want to draw human lines in the sand to dare God to cross them in His character or His Word. I don't want there to be "too much" for me when it comes to God and His Word. But that's just me.

So What's the Big Deal?

Last month I wrote that the problem in America is not the president like so many seem to think, but the people. The people voted him in. The government represents America. So if the government is a problem, it's because Americans are a problem. I concluded, "America needs Christ."

The other day I wrote about the problem of aiming at the wrong target. We tend to compare ourselves among ourselves and, when we do, "I'm not doing so bad." The standard, however, is not "ourselves", but God. Jesus said, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). If that's not enough, Paul's standard was the same. He said, "Only let us hold true to what we have attained" (Phil 3:16). What is that? "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own" (Phil 3:12). Perfection.

In both of these cases the complaint was that it was too ... legalistic. Jesus wasn't about making bad people into good people. The Gospel is not "saved by works" (because, in truth, that would not be good news at all). Jesus is about making dead people into live people. And I agree with all of this. Christianity is unique in that it is not a morality religion, but a relationship one in which Christ reconciles us to God by becoming sin for us so that we can become His righteousness. A trade, so to speak, but one unheard of anywhere else. And that is good news.

So what's the big deal? What's all this about the problem in America and the standard of perfection? Why make these kinds of things an issue? Am I trying to set up a theocracy in America or turn Christianity into a system of being good? I would respond with a resounding, "No!" Okay, so what's the big deal here?

Here's the deal. Americans need Christ. No, not America. America is a nation. No nation is going to heaven. Only people have a relationship with God. So what makes me say that Americans need Christ? It's because of that pesky standard -- perfection. You see, if we allow a lower standard (like, "that wife-beater" or "Have you heard what a gossip she is??"), we miss the point. The standard is perfection and we can't make that standard. That is why Americans need Christ. That is why I need Christ. Oh, sure, you too. But it is only when we see the distance between what we are and what we are supposed to be that we can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. And when we see that, it is either Christ or complete failure because "good enough" doesn't exist.

Now, of course, Christians are a different matter. Being in Christ, we, like Paul, should be pressing on to make God's perfection our own. No, not for merit; for gratitude. Not to gain brownie points with God. Because we want to. Because changed hearts make changed lives. Because "indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 3:8). And because, when we live as obedient children of God, "they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:16). And glorifying your Father who is in heaven is the highest thing we can do.

I don't expect unbelievers to attain to perfection. Not going to happen. Neither do I expect Americans to start voting better. That, too, requires a relationship with Christ that produces a heart of flesh out of a heart of stone. No moralizing or urging is going to accomplish that. Not from me. But I'll hold it out there for believers to see and follow and for unbelievers to hear and possibly, God willing, recognize. It is a big deal ... for both believers and unbelievers.