Double Standards

They tell me it's not racism if a black person denigrates a white person. Black Pride month--good. White Pride month--racist.

They tell me it's not sexism when a woman insults a man. A woman slaps a man--he probably had it coming. A man slaps a woman--domestic abuse.

They tell me it's not hate when a homosexual sends death threats to a heterosexual. A homosexual says that marriages should be "monogamish"--forward thinking. A heterosexual suggests it might be better if children were raised in a home with a married mother and father--homophobic.

They will stand should to shoulder to defend the rights of the Muslim to believe and practice his or her faith, but not the Christian.

Well, you get the trend. Seems like a lot of double standards these days.

Noah Was a Righteous Man

It's an interesting thing. In Genesis 6 we read, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God." (Gen 6:9) "Now, wait," someone might venture to ask, "does this mean that Noah was righteous by his own efforts? And, if so, doesn't this mean that we can be saved by works and, in fact, that Paul was wrong when he said that all sinned and fell short of the glory of God?" Reasonable questions.

It has been suggested by heretics and sincere questioners alike. Aren't there people in Scripture who were found to be righteous? Pelagius was a heretic that argued firmly in favor of Free Will and against God's election, declaring that Man's Free Will was sufficient in itself to desire and attain sufficient virtue to gain heaven. After all, Noah did it, didn't he? Didn't Job? Weren't there biblical characters who were, of themselves, righteous?

When you examine the case of Noah, perhaps it's not as simple as Pelagius thought. We read before the ninth verse, for instance, "Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (Gen 6:8) That is, God's grace was applied before Noah's righteousness was declared. God's grace--unearned favor--isn't given for human righteousness. Thus, God's grace precedes it.

But that's just rational thought. We find a very specific reference to Noah elsewhere that clears this whole thing up.

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Heb 11:7)

In this text we understand that Noah, by faith, "became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." There is, to a limited extent, the possibility of human righteousness. It is the righteousness that God classifies as "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6). (And "filthy rags" is a nice way of putting it.) The only useful form of righteousness available to us is the righteousness that comes by faith.

Noah had God's grace. Noah had faith. Noah, then, was declared righteous, was "blameless in his generation". Not because he was a good man. Because of God's grace and because of faith. If you're counting on self-effort, Man's Free Will, and God's merited favor, I'd recommend you rethink that position. The Pelagian heresy has been refuted, but it isn't entirely dead. It is, in fact, one of the most popular ones around. Unfortunately for its adherents, it just doesn't work.

To Save His Life

The Book of Ezekiel has a lot of stuff about God talking to Ezekiel. You know, messages God wants Ezekiel to take to His people. Chapter 13 has messages for false prophets. Interestingly, there is a particular section addressed to "the daughters of your people", a particular group of false prophets (Ezek 13:17-23). At one point God says through Ezekiel to these false prophets:

"Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life, therefore you shall no more see false visions nor practice divination. I will deliver my people out of your hand. And you shall know that I am the LORD." (Eze 13:22-23)

Two errors are in view here. First, there is the disheartening of the righteous. Second, there is the encouraging of the wicked.

On the first, we're well aware of that one these days. You might hear (although it may be somewhat archaic) someone referred to as "goody two-shoes". It refers to someone who is being moral ... and insulted. It is a reference not to someone who is hypocritical. Nor is it a reference to someone who is of questionable morality--that is, someone who thinks "X" is moral but we're not sure it is. No, we're all pretty sure that the morality of this person is high; we just don't like it. It is meant to dishearten the righteous. To those of you who are harassed for trying to follow God's Word I say, "As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good." (2 Thess 3:13)

The second is quite interesting to me. Oh, sure, we understand it's not good to encourage the wicked. And most of us are aware that it's in vogue in our culture today. But that's not interesting. What's interesting is God's concern in the matter. It's not that wickedness was encouraged, but that the wicked "should not turn from his evil way to save his life." The concern is for the wicked, not against wickedness. To the wicked Jesus said, "Repent." (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3,5)

I wish I knew how to get that across better. Because that's my concern. It's not making the sexually immoral more sexually moral. It's not making the homosexual heterosexual. It's not making anyone conform to my sense of morality. It's the welfare of the wicked (where "wicked" is defined by God). It is the concern for eternity. It is the concern for the consequences of sin. It is concern, also, for the glory of God. I don't get extra points for making people behave better. But I am concerned about the well-being of others, and that well-being must first be defined by the Creator that made us. That they should turn from evil and save their lives is a good thing. Not for me; for them. For God.

But, of course, that won't be coming across any time soon. It's always there, at least for me. It's always in mind; at least my mind. But those intent on discouraging the righteous and those intent on encouraging the wicked will only hear "judgmentalism", "intolerance", and "self-righteous bigot". Even God appears to have some difficulty in getting that truth across. I guess I'm not alone in that.

Who Do You Love?

Before Jesus left the scene in Acts 1, He had a dialog with His disciples that most of us know about. You've likely heard sermons on it.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" and he said to Him, "Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." (John 21:15-17)

Now, I'm sure most of you have heard the interesting discussion about the particular use of terms in this exchange. You know, how in the first two instances Jesus used the term for unconditional love and Peter answered with the term for brotherly love, but in the third Jesus used the term for brotherly love, as if He came down to Peter's level. Interesting, sure, but not where I'm going. I'm simply looking at the face-value question: "Do you love Me?"

Most of the sermons I've heard on the text focus on "How do you love?" You know, is it agape or philos or whatever other fancy terms you like. But the basic question Jesus asked was "Who do you love?" He asked, "Do you love Me?" Because, you see, in general--the default human condition--is self-love.

Paul assumed this. He told husbands that they "should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church." (Eph 5:28-29) No question. "Learning to love yourself" is not an issue. We all do it. Not a question. But Jesus asked Peter something different. "Do you love Me?" And that is the question, isn't it?

We all have things and people we love. Truth be told, that list starts with "Me". If you don't recognize that, you won't be able to address it. Because, as it turns out, while self-love is a given, it is not the important one. Because I am not the important one. Christ is. So, who do you love? Or, rather, who do you love first? That is the question.

Law of Non-Contradiction

The fundamental principle of rational thought is the law of non-contradiction. The concept is pretty straightforward. Simply stated, a thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.

Let's think that through briefly. Take, for instance, two statements.

1. "It is sunny outside."
2. "It's overcast outside."

If taken at the same time and in the same sense, it would be nonsense. It cannot be both. But if we take it at different times ("Yesterday it was sunny outside; today it is overcast outside."), we have no problem. If we take it in different senses ("It's sunny outside in Arizona, but overcast outside in Seattle."), we have no problem. These are not contradictions. Or a biblical example. John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Are we looking at a contradiction here? Is it saying that Christ was both God and with God at the same time and in the same sense? No. John is saying that in one sense Christ was with God (the Father) and in another sense He was God (the essence of God). It's a standard Trinitarian view.

Proving the law of non-contradiction (LNC for short) is somewhat problematic, of course, because it is a fundamental premise. It is a starting point. Without it, there is no means of significant communication or determining truth. It is, for instance, the way we determine if someone is lying. We assume "truth" and locate contradictions to it. Besides, refuting LNC assumes the law in order to refute it ("It cannot be both true and not true in the same sense at the same time.") It isn't proved; it is a given.

So why do people argue that contradiction is perfectly acceptable? "Well," you have likely heard, "your religion may be true for you, but it is not for me." Like that makes sense? Look, if Christ said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6), then no other religion can be true ... or Christianity is not true. There is no "true for you but not for me" here. Cannot be. (Cite LNC.) I know you've heard people argue, "Sure, that's what the text says, but that's not what it means." It doesn't matter if you trot out multiple Scriptures, dictionaries, commentaries, Church history, even 2000 years of Christian concurrence. It doesn't matter if you point to Jesus's promise that the Spirit would lead His disciples into the truth. This privileged class has apparently bypassed all of that and come to a clear understanding that no one else ever did. And, oh, by the way, it's not what the text says. Because, you see, they have "new insight", some special means of divining what it says different than ... well, you know ... what it says. I've even heard people argue that God could contradict Himself, as if that is possible, reasonable, or suitable.

Dear reader, rest assured, the Law of Non-Contradiction is not a mere human construct. It is the nature of truth. If a single one of you at this very moment is saying, "No, it isn't", you're employing the very law you intend to negate. And if you embrace contradiction, you leave yourself nowhere to stand. In that case, the God who does not lie (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 7:21; Mal 3:6) is certainly capable of lying, His promises are not reliable, and you may find yourself standing in front of the Judge Who says, "Sorry, changed My mind ... you go to Hell" just because He wants to. Further, if this is your position, please feel free not to bother arguing the point (or, frankly, any point) with anyone else, since all arguments hinge on that law. This ought to ease a lot of the debates, right? (I don't suppose I'll be holding my breath on that one.)

Love Without Labels

Perhaps you've seen it. It has gone viral. It is a PSA, of all things, an ad by the Ad Council promoting ... well ... love. It is the Love Has No Labels campaign. The video shows x-ray-style skeletons on a screen dancing, kissing, holding hands, embracing--lots of pleasant interaction--followed by the "reveal" where the skeletons step out from behind and you get to see who they are. As they stand in front of the audience, a message displays, appropriate to the actors of the moment, extolling "Love has no ...". It could be "no race" or "no disability" or "no gender" or "no age" or "no religion" or whatever else. (I've never sat through the whole thing.)

I'm a little baffled by the campaign concept. Is there someone somewhere that disagrees? Is there a person or a group that believes that it is inappropriate to love? Does someone believe that love is limited by age, gender, disability, or whatever else you wish to list? Isn't it a given that anyone might love anyone at any time?

I don't actually believe that such a person or group exists. So what is the point? I suspect the point is ... missed. That is, we--they and I--are defining "love" in a different way. It's supposed to be "shocking", for instance, when two "skeletons" who were kissing come out from behind the screen to show that they were two women. Because two women, to some people, aren't supposed to love each other. Really? I'm pretty sure my sister loves my other sister, my mother loves my sisters, my wife loves her sisters, and on and on and on. They may embrace. They may kiss. They certainly love. What's the question?

The question is not, as it turns out, love. The question is sex. Sexual relations. And they know this. They obscure it, however, when three "skeletons" dance around--two adult-sized and one child-sized--and we're "surprised" when a child and two men come out from behind the screen. But no one is suggesting adult sexual relations with children. (Well, almost no one.) So we know it's not about sex. But if that's true, who protests love (non-sexual) between anyone?

Look, I'm heterosexual. Fine. But I love men. I know quite a few men I love. That shouldn't be shocking to anyone because there is nothing included in that love which includes sexual relations and, therefore, nothing in the least morally objectionable to anyone. I would, in fact, be concerned about people that don't love both genders, all ages, people with disabilities, people from various religions, or whatever other factors you wish to imagine. It is, after all, a command of Christ. We must do it.

I can only conclude, then, that either I'm missing the point of the ad campaign or the campaign is missing the point of what love is. And when the latter happens, all sorts of confusion follows. Like "I should be allowed to marry whomever I love." Think that through to its logical conclusion.

Postscript
In case you aren't really trying to think that through to its logical conclusion, consider. "I should be allowed to marry whomever I love" cannot be limited. When the standard is "whomever I love", then arbitrary "only one" or "only adults" or "only humans" become untenable. "Oh, you're such a scaremonger," I can hear already. Maybe. Except that it is already hitting the streets and your petty "only between two adults" or "only between humans" or even "only between adults" isn't going to hold water. To claim that it is doesn't take into account either the logic or the trends. And a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when it is actually happening.

Incite to Right

The book of Hebrews can be somewhat difficult at times for the Gentile mind to encompass. It is, after all, written to Hebrews ... and we are not Hebrew. So there is all that stuff about sacrificial systems and such of which the Hebrew mind was well aware but eludes 21st century Americans. That's okay. We can work through it. We can get a handle on it.

Then we read stuff like this: "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb 4:11) Now that's a little bit difficult to grasp, isn't it? We are to work to enter rest? I mean, don't you cease work to enter rest?

Then, over in the 10th chapter, we read, "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works." (Heb 10:24) Now how exactly are we to do that? The word there, "stir", is an interesting word. In Greek it is παροξυσμός--paroxusmos--from which we get our word "paroxysm". You know, a sudden attack of emotion or activity. We are to cause fits of love and good works. The word means to incite or dispute, to provoke or contend. It is rooted in the thought of sharpening and, figuratively, to exasperate. And we are to do it carefully and intentionally ("consider how to").

Now, you and I are Bible-believing Christians. You and I want to shape our lives by the instructions of God's Word. So you and I want to follow this command: "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works." How do we do that? How do we excite fellow believers into love and good works? How do we incite them? How do we provoke others to love and good works? How do we stimulate/sharpen/urge love and good works?

There are clues here. We do it by holding fast the confession of our hope (Heb 10:23). We do it by not neglecting to fellowship (Heb 10:25) (which, in this day and age, is alarmingly popular among self-professed Christians who "don't need to go to church to be a good Christian"). We do it by encouraging (rather then tearing down) one another (Heb 10:25). All this stuff is in the surrounding text. All are convenient ways to spur one another to love and good works. (Interesting, isn't it, when there is a sizable group of Christians who argue that "good works" are meaningless to Christianity?)

You can work through this on your own. What (in addition to the ones listed) are ways you can stir fellow Christians into love and good works? Remember, the command is to consider it. So think about it. Who will you incite to godliness? How will you do it? What will it look like? I'm not offering a comprehensive answer. I'm just encouraging you (and me) to be aware that it is a command, that we are to be doing it, and to go out and do it. Do we have time for a lengthy conversation about sports? Or politics? Or how she looked at church last week? Maybe. But you've got some stirring up to godliness to do. We should get started on that. Hey, wouldn't church be a good place to start?

Traffic Patterns

Overheard in a conversation between a couple of classic rock aficionados:

So, let's see ... we have Highway to Hell and Stairway to Heaven. I guess that sort of gives an indication of expected traffic patterns for the two places, doesn't it?

Converting Homosexuals

I bet the title caught your eye, didn't it? Some are groaning, "Here's another rightwinger trying to make gay people straight" and others are cheering about how we ought to offer means and methods to help people out of the homosexual lifestyle (which, in some states, is actually illegal, believe it or not). Well, relax. I'm not going there.

In the ongoing back-and-forth between "gay rights" advocates versus biblical Christianity, it is my suspicion that Christians might be losing their perspective. It's easy for believers who recognize the very clear biblical statements that homosexual behavior is a sin to get caught up in trying to get homosexual practitioners to stop that particular sin. And since that particular sin is generally deeply rooted and even poorly understood, that can become a full-time occupation.

A friend once told me his own little parable. A group of mountain climbers set out to conquer a previously unconquered peak. On their trek, they came across an apparently impassable gorge. Pooling their skills and ideas, they came up with an innovative way to bridge the gorge and, after some time, continued on their way. They came across a second such obstacle and set about building another crossing. About the time they were finishing, a group of hikers came up. They were impressed with the first bridge and wondered how it was done. The climbers finished their second bridge and set up a shop on the other side of the gorge, selling plans and procedures for building bridges over gorges. It was lucrative ... but not the point of the trek. They had forgotten that.

So, it seems, we tend to go. We set out to assure our society, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Then we forget immediately that "inherit the kingdom of God" is the point, not the particular sins at hand. We appear to think, somehow, that if we can provide a remedy to adulterers or homosexuals or drunkards, we can get them into the kingdom. And when I say it, every Christian can see it just isn't so.

Our job it not to convert the sexually immoral to the sexually pure or the homosexual to the heterosexual. Our job is to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to teach them to observe what Christ commands (Matt 28:19-20). The basis of Christian behavior isn't obedience, but gratitude. Working to coerce the unsaved into Christian behavior is working against the unsaved nature. So we work at showing people how to cross gorges, forgetting that the goal was salvation by faith in Christ, not overcoming obstacles.

This doesn't mean we stop pointing out that Scripture considers homosexual behavior to be worthy of hell, but everyone knows that an alcoholic or a drug addict won't change until he or she recognizes the problem and wants to change. For them and for the sexually immoral, the adulterer, the homosexual, and the rest, the solution isn't a 12-step program, but a change of heart. And that is not within our power to supply. We need to remember that our aim is not converting homosexuals to the good news of heterosexuality, but to the good news of Christ. After that, we won't be working alone on the obstacles. After that it's a changed heart and the power of God at work. We shouldn't lose sight of the goal of preaching Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2) and lose it in some ordinary morality plan. The homosexual--we all--needs Christ. Let's offer Him.

How Times Have Changed

Paul wrote an epistle to Titus in which he gave these instructions:

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:1-8)

We note, first, that, contrary to the opinion of many Christians today, "doctrine" could be both good and "sound" rather than nebulous, merely contentious, or simply opinion. Okay, good. But then Paul lapses into foolishness.

In what world are older men to be "temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance", older women to be "reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good", young women "to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands" or young men to be "sensible" or "an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach"? My, my, how times have changed. We're far beyond that, aren't we? Old men are to be a bit wild, pushing the envelope (especially with that "little blue pill"), and older women are to live for gossip and pretty much stay away from the younger women who have no need to love their husbands, let alone be subject to them--and by no means tied down to that male-domination notion of "workers at home"--or "pure". Young men? It's their time to sow their wild oats. Let them get it out of their system. Oh, yes, Paul lived in a different time. We're much more enlightened now.

Or, are we? Is it possible that we're wrong, that the "progress" we've seen is not positive, and that God, speaking through Paul, is right? Do you find it disturbing at all that Paul's descriptions of how men and women should be is so diametrically opposed to what our society (and, therefore, often the Christians in it) think men and women should be? Or is this just another example of how we've progressed and the Bible got it wrong? You know, like in the area of marriage as a man and a woman, female leadership in church, or the nature of the Bible as God-breathed?

The Washing of Water with the Word

I have always encouraged Christians (because, let's face it, it wouldn't be remotely reasonable to expect if of unbelievers) to allow the truth of God's Word to shape their understanding of reality rather than the reverse--allowing their sense of what's real to shape biblical truth. Now, sure, the left-leaning types (Eccl 10:2) will complain "That stuff is just your opinion!", but I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you Bible-believing Christians. Even you--we--tend to apply our experience and (misguided) thinking onto Scripture rather than vice versa. Brothers, these things ought not be.

Let's look at some examples. In John 6 Jesus said things that actually caused some of His followers to leave. He recognized it. "Some of you don't believe," He said. And then He explained why people don't believe. "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) So, Bible-believing Christian, what do you do with that? Do you explain that everyone is granted from the Father ... which nullifies what Jesus was saying but agrees with the general view that anyone can believe? Or do you question that general view because Jesus said this?

Here's a tough one. "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Prov 21:1) Many Christians are dedicated to Man's Free Will. (Don't misunderstand. We all agree that Man makes uncoerced choices. The question is about just how free that will is.) So this text cannot mean ... what it says. But factor in other texts. "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." (Prov 16:9) Well, now, that looks like a problem for the Free Will (capitalized version) folks, doesn't it? Or will a prior adherence to a non-biblical definition of "Free Will" decide how you will interpret Scripture?

There are lots of these. If you are affirming that love is a good thing even when expressed as a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender and every Scripture on that subject disagrees with you, will you question your affirmation or will you re-imagine Scripture? When Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12), will you interpret it based on Paul's call to the order of creation (1 Tim 2:13-14) or will you interpret it in line with modern perceptions shaped by feminism? When the Word says, "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12), will you understand it light of your experience or will you take it as it is written? When John writes, "Love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7), will you conclude, "Everyone loves, so everyone must be born of God" or will it make you question your understanding of "love"? There are lots of these.

It stands to reason. The world is naturally opposed to God (Rom 8:6-8). Therefore, it must be that the Scriptures will say things we don't think of as true because we, suffering from deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9), have been blinded (2 Cor 4:4) and are desperately in need of a renewed mind (Rom 12:2). I'd be skeptical of the person who didn't find his or her views challenged in the pages of Scripture. It isn't a surprise that Scripture will certainly contradict at times what we think we know. My question, though, is this. Will you allow God's Word to reshape your mind, or will you dedicate yourself to your preconceptions and reshape God's Word?

That's Your Opinion

There is an ongoing debate about the value of the Bible. A major sector would like to eliminate it as a viable option. "It's written by men 2000 years ago; who cares?" There are many (like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon Church) that argue that what we have isn't reliable; it was changed from the original. (They often go on to argue, "But what we have is not", as if that solves the problem.) There are those who argue that the Bible has some good stuff in it, but it's certainly not "God's Word". "It may contain God's Word, but it is not, actually God's Word." There are those who argue that the Bible is God's Word, but the only way to figure out what it says is pure opinion and "your opinion is as good as mine", effectively eliminating any solid ground. The Roman Catholic Church (among others) argues that the Church has the keys to understand the Bible and ... so sorry ... you don't. So your understanding will be flawed, but they can give you the Word of God from the texts without error. (This is problematic since the Roman Catholic Church hasn't agreed on the meaning of texts.) Then there are those who claim that the Bible, as God's Word, is perspicuous. Okay, so I've never actually heard anyone use that word, but the idea is that God has made His Word capable of being understood. This doesn't mean that it is easy or even always understandable, but that ordinary people who approach it in faith and humility and the Holy Spirit will be able to understand what the Bible is getting at, even if they meet with particular points of difficulty here and there. This position is predicated on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the claim of biblical infallibility. That latter claim is that God's Word, as God-breathed, is incapable of making an error. (If the text is erroneous, concluding what is true or meaningful is purely subjective.)

The position, referred to as "the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture", can be misunderstood. It is a simple misstep, for instance, to go from "understandable" to "I am the supreme authority on the meaning of Scripture." That's an abuse. Or perhaps you've heard, "I got it from the Holy Spirit that this is what that means" with the assumed "and you'd better not question the Spirit if you know what's good for you." Wrong place to go. And there is a question of this position given the differences of understanding of Scripture. (How many Protestant denominations are there?) So the doctrine might lead you to think that all understanding is valid. It's not.

What, then, is the idea? Well, given the Holy Spirit and given those who are in the faith, it seems given that believers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be able to properly understand what God has said in His Word. This doesn't mean that human understanding is infallible. It means that God is capable of explaining it. It doesn't mean that we don't make mistakes. It means that God is capable of explaining it. This does not mean that it's a simple thing, like reading a Dr. Seuss book. It means that God is capable of explaining it to those who are willing to listen and learn. As such, understanding the Bible, despite popular opinion, is not simply a matter of opinion. It is a matter of communication with the Spirit.

So, look, I gave three "warnings" in that previous paragraph. We are not infallible. We do make mistakes. It requires diligence. Have I just managed to move us away from any real confidence that what we have is reliable communication from God? Or is it, in the final analysis, just your opinion? I don't think it needs to be. I think there are means of discovering the truth.

First, What does it say? I am stunned at the number of Christians (genuine and not) who claim "The Bible teaches _____" only to discover that it's not in there. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is not in there. "Money is the root of all evil" is not in there. "God helps those who help themselves" is not in there. "God will not give you more than you can bear" is not in there. And yet I've heard multiple Christians espouse these as biblical. On the other hand, "The Bible has nothing to say about homosexual relationships" ignores what is in there. First rule, then: Read the Bible. Seems like it shouldn't have to be said, but I can't tell you how many people tell me what's in the Bible without themselves having actually looked.

So read what it says. Read the text. Read the context. Read it as it is written. (For instance, poetry is poetic and may not necessarily be completely literal. Consider literary types as you read.) Compare Scripture with Scripture.

Truth be told, in the vast majority of cases this is sufficient to figure out with some measure of confidence what most passages say and mean. It's not that hard.

Second, what do others say about it? Scripture says that God has given us "apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph 4:11). That is, we need those people. Christianity is, at its heart, relational--Christians to Christians. The "Lone Ranger Christian" is not in view in Scripture. So find out what others say. Compare other teachers, other commentaries, other writers. You can even ask your pastor. Or someone else who knows. Since a good portion of the difficulties with Scripture are solved by comparison with Scripture, it is helpful to have someone who has some experience with this process of comparison, so find out what they have to say. If the Bible is God's Word, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Don't toss the difficult parts. Figure out how to align them.

Third, how has the Church historically understood it? I know, that sounds questionable, especially to the Protestant mind. But if Jesus was accurate when He said that the Holy Spirit would lead His people into all truth, it would stand to reason that you should be able to trace a line throughout Church history that gives the constant and proper understanding of a text. This should be helpful. (Note: If you are going to go to teachers who tell you, "Well, biblical interpretation is purely a matter of opinion and your opinion is as good as any" or "First, you must understand that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God and then work from there" or even "Just listen to the Spirit within and you'll get it fine", perhaps you are going to untrustworthy teachers. Avoid the ones Scripture refers to as "false prophets" ... or "antichrists".)

These are just a few hints. There are rules of hermeneutics, the process of textual interpretation that you should likely know and follow. While I'd like to think that things like "Interpret the implicit by the explicit" would be obvious, it isn't always the case. And always allow Scripture to shape your reality rather than vice versa. I am convinced that one of our primary problems that cause erroneous interpretation is our predispositions that are not formed by God's Word, but by other sources. I would suggest, though, that using these tips will allow you to come to a much more reliable, biblical, and true understanding of what Scripture is saying. Skeptics may say it's merely a matter of opinion, but if Jesus was right about the function of the Holy Spirit, it just isn't so. It's only a matter of opinion if you're not reading, listening, paying attention, learning in faith and humility. Oh, and one little hint. If you come up with something completely new, trust me--it's wrong. That might save you a lot of mistaken effort right there.

Update:
It looks like Ligonier Ministries is reading my blog! Okay, maybe not, but they posted this today: "What Difference Does an Inerrant Bible Make?" So, okay, no, it doesn't mean anyone there is reading my blog. It does mean that the principles and concepts are relevant, important, and current.

And then, of course, there's this. This year's Shepherd's Conference from John MacArthur et al is a summit on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Biblical Standards on the Block

The Washington Post reports that Erskine College in South Carolina is not free in heart or mind when it comes to homosexual behavior. Apparently the Student Services and Athletic Committee issued a document on human sexuality that reads in part, "We believe the Bible teaches that monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intended design for humanity and that sexual intimacy has its proper place only within the context of marriage." Stunning. Simply stunning. In this day and age! And from a college "which is aligned with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian tradition." Well I never! Indeed, they had the audacity to give Scripture references! Has it come to this!!??

Apparently it's a new policy caused by a couple of volleyball players announcing their sinful disposition to sexual relations with the same gender. It's outrageous! Oh, not because it bans those guys from playing on the volleyball team. No. It doesn't do that. It simply makes it "a bit awkward for two of the school's volleyball players who came out as gay last year." Because by no means should those who hold to positions contrary to a Christian perspective be subjected to possibly feeling awkward. That's reserved for Christians who stand by the Bible.

So Erskine is compared to the Westboro Baptist Church and a negative view on Galileo. They're accused of cherry picking the Bible to "keep gay people out" because, as everyone knows, any opinion that does not fully embrace homosexuality is bad ... even if it's in the Bible. Even if it doesn't do anything. (The policy simply declares what they recognize is the right conditions for sexual intimacy--biblical marriage--and doesn't appear to prevent anyone from doing anything.) Erskine College has stated clearly, "Rooted in the historic Evangelical and Reformed Christian tradition, Erskine has always sought to show hospitality and respect to all members of its community, regardless of their religious or philosophical commitments." Doesn't matter. This will never fly.

Don't worry, folks. It won't last. College accreditation boards will not give accreditation to colleges that stand on the standards of the Bible, even if they are Christian colleges. Maybe you've already heard about Gordon College threatened to lose accreditation for such a position. Perhaps you've heard about the movement known as Safety Net in opposition to such schools as Bob Jones University, George Fox University, Biola, Wheaton College, and Fuller Theological Seminary protesting "a set of biblical teachings" with their focus on The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU), the accreditation body for such universities and colleges. Oh, no, it won't last. It will require either coerced discarding of biblical standards or the end of the school as an accredited entity (and, likely, the end of the school).

Fortunately, the inclusive, loving, LGBTQ community is spreading its arms wide in order to shoot down every possible opposition to their personal sexual satisfaction. They'll get rid of those lousy Christians with Bibles one way or another ... because that community is so tolerant.

What then shall we say to these things?

²⁸ And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰ And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified. ³¹ What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:28-39)

This is a glorious passage. It is a wonderful passage. We write songs about it, we memorize it, we just love it. It is the pinnacle of Romans 8 which is the pinnacle of Romans. Really, really good stuff.

Well, mostly good stuff. You see, that stuff in verses 29 and 30 gets in the way. You know, "foreknew" and "predestined" ... that kind of stuff. Look, let's start with "God works all things together for good" and end with "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" and be done with it. That's okay, right?

Well, perhaps. Except if we do we're missing something--something radically important. In verse 31 there is a pivotal phrase: "What then shall we say to these things?" You see, the glorious wonders of the rest of the passage are in response to a truth claim before. That truth claim includes the part we like--"God works all things together for good"--and the part we prefer not to deal with. But it is critical to the conclusion. What conclusion? "If God is for us, who can be against us?" "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" Oh, yes, we really love those things, but we can only appropriate them if we have the premise.

So what is the premise on which we base our confidence of those wonderful conclusions? First, we know that God works all things together for good to those who love God. But that's not the end of the premise. There is a second part. Indeed, this second part is referenced in the conclusion. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" You see, these promises of love and safety in Christ are only for "those who love God" and only secured by being "God's elect". We see this right in the text. "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." Predestined. And then there is this glorious chain. "Those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." Now, let's see ... which part of that is yours? Where do you factor in? What effort do you need to put forward to achieve or maintain it? Nothing. Nothing at all. From "foreknew" to "glorified", it is an act of God and unbroken. It is this wonderful statement on which Paul hinges the conclusions we love.

How can we be sure that God is for us? Because He is foreknowing and predestining and calling and justifying and glorifying us. On what can we pin our confidence that no one can bring an accusation against us? Because God is foreknowing and predestining and calling and justifying and glorifying us. How can we be sure that nothing at all can separate us from the love of God? Because He is foreknowing and predestining and calling and justifying and glorifying us. He works all things together for good to those who love Him.

I know. That whole "predestination" and "election" thing is a minefield, a point of contention. Deal with it however you will, except by setting it aside as unimportant. Because you really don't want to lose the glorious certainty we have of His care for us and our security in it. That is just too good to ignore. And it is all predicated on Him.

Who Said?

Let's play a game. Who said:

Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith.

The quote is from Dwight D. Eisenhower after his second inauguration. Eisenhower was the only president to ever be baptized while in office. He classified himself as a Christian. He held a deeply felt religious faith. And he followed the statement above with "and I don’t care what it is." It is indeed true that our form of government cannot be maintained without a deeply felt religious faith, but not just any religious faith will do. The secret to a functional democracy is an intrinsically moral society, only possible in a Christian society.

Okay, next one. Who said:

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.

The quote comes from President Barack Obama at the prayer breakfast so irksome to so many where he compared Christianity and the Crusades to Islamic fundamentalists (although, of course, he never used that term). The president spent 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ under, for many years, Jeremiah Wright, who preached, among other things, strong forms of racism against whites and Jews and that 9/11 was retribution to white America. In that quote above the president was absolutely correct. Unfortunately, he makes a practice, as does a large portion of America, of asking God to respond to our notions of truth rather than simply accepting truth from His Word.

Both statements were accurate, but outcomes were mistaken. What a pity. In both cases.

Biblical Absence

We live in tough times. Many Christians are deeply concerned about our political conditions. Finding good people to run for office is hard. Dealing with the bad ones already in office is hard. The political trends toward less morality and less religious freedom are hard. Times are tough. We are concerned about the economy. We are concerned about an ignorant and even anti-Christian education system. We are concerned about the legal system. We are concerned about police brutality. We are concerned about a rising national immorality. Times are tough, and we're concerned about our world.

Have you ever noticed the glaring absence of something in the Bible? There is precious little about politics. Jesus and the Apostles after Him lived in some of the worst possible times. While we bemoan "unfriendliness" against Christianity, they were looking at prison and execution. Followers of Christ were classified as "atheists" because they didn't believe that Caesar was God. The Jews, the Romans, their families and neighbors were all their enemies. And nothing in the texts appear to address what we consider today some of the biggest problems facing us.

Could it be that we might be concerning ourselves with the wrong things? When Jesus was asked about the oppressive taxes paid to Rome, He answered, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's." (Mark 12:17) Now, wait, Jesus. Nothing about "No taxation without representation!"? No "These are unfair taxes and we must write our governor about this!"? Where is the stand for human rights? Where's the push for fair treatment of women? Why is there not one, single political commentary in the New Testament? Oh, except for that nasty "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." (Rom 13:1) We really don't like that one.

God told Israel, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways." (Isa 55:8) Is it possible that we might be spending too much time complaining about our president or our Congress, our laws or rights? The Bible seems to be most concerned about you and your relationship with God. Could it be that we should be more concerned about that than our complaints about how others are treating us unfairly? Could it be our concern should be more for God's purposes and others' welfare?

Questions, you know, just in the absence of biblical content on the subject.

Limited Atonement

The so-called doctrine of Limited Atonement is perhaps the most contested doctrine in Reformed Theology. So hotly contested is it that you can find people who classify themselves as "Reformed" but deny that particular point. There are "5-point Calvinists" and "4-point Calvinists" because that one point is just unacceptable. My intent here is not to defend the point. My intent is, rather, to find common ground. Look, I didn't even put "Reformed Theology" as a label here because I don't think I am going to talk about Reformed Theology. I think I'm going to find agreement.

So, where do we agree? First, we agree that "Limited Atonement" is wrong. It is, from your perspective, a falsehood and from my perspective a poor way to put together an acrostic. Let's start, then, by just throwing that one right out, okay?

So, on the concept of the Atonement, what do we believe? Well, we believe in the sufficiency of the Atonement. We believe, that is, that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all the sin of all mankind. We are all in agreement on that point. It was funny to me. I once heard a preacher defending the doctrine of Limited Atonement where he asserted "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." Not a week later I heard another preacher preach against Limited Atonement. His claim? "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." Indeed, word for word. So we're all in agreement here on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

What else? There are a small number who call themselves both "Christian" and "Universalists". This is problematic since Christ spoke more of the threat of Hell than anyone and the warnings that "few there are who find it" (referring to the way to God) are throughout Scripture. So I think I'm fairly safe in suggesting that we largely agree that the Atonement does not apply to everyone equally. It's a reference to that shared quote above: "Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." That is, "efficient for some" means "not for others". The Atonement only applies to some. We all agree that the Atonement is offered to all, but is only appropriated by those who repent of their sin and believe. I'm pretty sure, even though the phrase will catch in your throat at this point, that in this sense the Atonement is limited. We're pretty comfortable with that fact as biblical and clear. Not everyone has their sins atoned.

Well, now, look at that. We're all in agreement so far. On the sufficiency of the Atonement, we agree that it was sufficient for all. On the efficiency (how effective it is), it was efficient for some. To disagree with the first is to diminish Christ's work. To disagree with the second is to subscribe to Universalism. I think we're all on the same page so far.

So where is the controversy? The question isn't about the sufficiency or efficiency. The question is about the intent. When Christ went to the cross, what did He intend to accomplish? When God gave His Son to die, what did He intend to achieve? The question was of the Divine Plan. What did they expect to do?

The Open Theist will argue that God didn't know what would happen. He had possibilities in mind, of course, but couldn't actually know what they would accomplish with this sacrifice of His Son. So this view is of the opinion that God was just playing a big gamble, so to speak. Oh, no, they wouldn't actually say that. I don't mean to suggest that's their stated position. But, in essence, God, not actually knowing the outcome, played the odds and sacrificed His Son with the theoretical possibility that no one would be saved but reasonably sure that someone would believe.

On the other hand, the orthodox Christian--the one who subscribes to the historic Omniscience of God--has to say that God knew what would happen as a result of His Son's death on the cross. To us, then, what was God's intent? We would have to conclude that God's plan was to save some. Not all. If His plan was to save all, God failed. And we don't believe that God fails. So His plan must have been to save some, and those "some" (however that number is determined) will be saved because, as everyone knows, God does not fail. It is, in fact, what Jesus said. "I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:15) (In case there is any question, "the sheep" are specified as "My sheep" in the same chapter. Christ says "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice." (John 10:16) In case you might be confused and think "sheep" refers to "all people".) So it seems obvious that we--all Bible-believing Christians--agree that the intent of the cross was the salvation of some, not all, and that this intent will be fully realized.

You see, then, that I arrive at a point of confusion. I'm confused about the confusion. What I've laid out here on which I think we're all agreed is, in the final analysis, the doctrine badly named "Limited Atonement". It is not about limited sufficiency. It is not even about limited efficiency, even though we're all in agreement there. It's not about limited opportunity. This atonement is offered to all, contingent on "repent and believe". It is about intent. And I think we're all in agreement that God did not intend to save every man, woman, and child and fail in that intent. I think we're all in agreement that He intended to save those who repent and believe and is succeeding in that plan. So my confusion is why this doctrine is so hotly contested when I think it is actually agreeable to all Bible believers. With the exception, perhaps, of the Universalists and the Open Theists, with whom we have more difficulties, are we not agreement here?

Higher Criticism

The term "higher criticism" refers on the surface to a critical way of viewing the Bible. It is distinct from "lower criticism". Higher criticism is defined as "the study of the Bible having as its object the establishment of such facts as authorship and date of composition, as well as determination of a basis for exegesis." This idea was started in the 19th century. Lower criticism is a form of biblical criticism having as its purpose the reconstruction of the original texts of the books of the Bible. The usual name for this criticism is "textual criticism". All this sounds all well and good. The "higher" side looks at origins and authorship and the "lower" side looks for meanings of texts. But, if you were paying attention, you might have seen a sinister component in the definition of the "higher" side. They look for "determination of a basis for exegesis." Through whatever means they might use, they tell you, "Yes, it is possible to do useful exegesis on this text" or "No, there is no basis for exegesis on that text."

You see, despite the harmless, even beneficial-sounding concept, the "higher critics" became Bible critics. They began disassembling the Bible. "Well, this part is probably not written by Moses" (as Jesus indicated it was) "and that was certainly not written by Paul" (even though the early Church fathers and the text itself indicates that it was) "and ..." And so it went. Eventually we ended up with things like the Jesus Seminar in which "enlightened scholars" are voting on "Did Jesus say or do this?" and "the truth" is determined by a vote. (By the way, they generally voted, simply as a matter of principle, that Jesus did no miracles. Everything else was suspect.) The Higher Criticism movement spawned the Fundamentalist movement, a call back to biblical fundamentals rather than "higher critics" falderal. What the Higher Criticism movement did was start with Enlightenment principles (like "There can be no miracles") and work from there. Superimposing predetermined beliefs on top of the Bible, they ended up with a highly questionable, sharply reduced version of "Scripture" that, frankly, left little solid ground on which to stand. Unless the higher critic had a devotion to Scripture as well as scholarship (rather than scholarship over Scripture), it was inevitable that Scripture would suffer when pressed against the standard of humanism. So, based for instance on style and an author's qualifications, they would determine who wrote what. The higher critics (at least most of them) ended up with a "superior" position based almost exclusively on subjective analysis. With a prior commitment to rationalism and subjectivism, they, in essence, removed the Bible.

I would suggest that Higher Criticism would be a good thing. I would simply suggest that the version where God's Word is measured by human predispositions is not Higher Criticism. It would be like allowing a Dr. Seuss book to be your mode of evaluation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not "higher". I would suggest that "Higher Criticism" would work much better if we allowed that which is higher--the inspired Word of God--to bear on that which is lower--our deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. Now that would be a Higher Criticism worth pursuing.

Here, try a couple of examples. When you read, "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12), do you understand that to mean "There is none who does good" or do you do what so many others do? "Well," they tell me, "I know lots of people who do good, so that can't be what it means." (You see, their experience trumps the text.) So "It's hyperbole," they tell me. And this hyperbole which says no one does good actually means almost everyone does good ... a hyperbole failure. Could it be that it means what it says and our understanding of "good" needs to change? That's the kind of higher criticism I'm talking about. When John writes, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7), do you say, "Well, just about everyone loves"? Because if you do this text says "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God", so you would be affirming universalism--everyone is born of God and knows God. Or could it be that this love is far more rare than we might think and we need to figure out how our understanding of love is not aligned with God's version? That is the higher criticism I'm recommending.

Much of Christendom handed the reins over to "scholars" who decided their prior beliefs were a suitable method of evaluating Scripture rather than subjecting their prior beliefs to Scripture. And the whole cart has been careening across the field of history ever since. Don't question it, mind you. They're scholars; you're not. But if it is true (again, my version of "higher criticism") that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), it would seem to me that we would welcome a reliable source like God's Word to provide corrections to our deceived hearts and offer renewal to our debased minds. I'm in favor of that version of higher criticism.

Salty Language

Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Col 4:5-6)

The Bible teaches that Christians should use salty language. Okay, that would be an example of a cultural language problem. You see, "salty language" today means more like "swears like a sailor", but when Paul wrote that your language should be "seasoned, as it were, with salt", he didn't have that version in mind. So what did he mean to say?

Well, we can conjecture because we don't have a "Paul-to-21st-century English" dictionary. First, whatever it is, there is a clear parallel. "Let your speech always be with grace." Whatever the "seasoning" of "salt" is, it is grace. And we can find other parallels from Paul that might help further. Whatever that "salt" is, it is not "unwholesome words" (Eph 4:29) or "filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting" (Eph 5:4). I think that all pretty much rules out foul language. And this gracious speech is both truthful and loving (Eph 4:15) and "good for edification according to the need of the moment" (Eph 4:29).

After that, we have to figure it out on our own. Salt, for instance, is a preservative. Use language that preserves rather than tears down. Salt obviously adds flavor. Use language that means something rather than dull words. Proverbs 27:6 says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend", and salt, rubbed into wounds, can sting.

You will note that the verse on salty speech follows a prior thought and, as such, is likely part of the same thought. "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders." These "outsiders" are most likely those outside the faith. The New Testament is full of places where believers have a special bond with believers. Jesus said they (those who are not His) would know we are His disciples by our love for one another (John 13:35). So these outsiders would be unbelievers. How do we conduct ourselves with wisdom toward them? Well, the way that Paul highlights is to make the most of every opportunity. In what sense? In your speech. Thus, the primary focus of this gracious, salty speech is the way you talk to outsiders.

You can see this in Jesus. He was gracious to the lost and sinful and sick around Him. To the "insiders", the Pharisees who should have known better, He was not so gracious. (Describing them as "white-washed tombs" and "hypocrites" is not "gracious".) To those who at least believed they were on the "inside" He was relentless. But to those outside, He was gracious in His speech.

In the end I don't think we can definitively say what it is. We can clearly eliminate some possibilities. It is not foul language. It is not misleading or dishonest language. It is not coarse or filthy language. It is not aimed at tearing down, but at building up. It is not gossip or backbiting (Prov 25:23). I think, on the other hand, that it's safe to say that it is aimed at "flavoring" the conversation to get their attention. (Again, without foul language.) It makes for a lively dialog. It gives grace to those who hear.

Let me give a couple of examples of how this does not work. It does not work by using intentionally inflammatory language to describe those with whom you disagree. I know of some who inflexibly use the term "sodomite" to describe those who commit homosexual behavior. It doesn't matter that the term from the King James English no longer means what it did then. It doesn't matter that this intentionally and unnecessarily creates tension between the speaker and the listener. This is not "wisdom toward outsiders", speech with grace, or the salty language Paul commanded. Likewise, people who use foul language to express their views when they know such language is an offense cannot be classified as speaking with grace. The Scriptures specifically rule out this version of speech "seasoned with salt".

Christians, I know that the heresies and confusion and the assaults on the faith and the lies and the outright sin classified as "good" and "loving" is a problem. I know that such things can create tension, even anger. And we ought to be diligent for the truth and for the glory of God. But it isn't necessary to use intentionally inflammatory language to do that. We are commanded to make the most of every opportunity by speaking with grace. The anonymity and lack of accountability afforded by the Internet is not an reason to ignore the clear command, and, frankly, complaining about people who defy Scripture by defying Scripture makes no sense. We can do better than that, can't we?

Lines Are Our Friends

If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (Gal 5:18)

I have been assured by fellow Christians that this clearly teaches that the law is no longer in effect for Christians. That was "Old Testament". We're new. "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes," the tell me (Rom 10:4).

Unlike those who think we are still fully under every aspect of the Old Testament law (admittedly a very small number, but in existence nonetheless), there are many who avoid the whole accusation of "pick and choose" by rejecting the law wholesale. These are actually antinomians, those opposed to the law. In this view right and wrong becomes irrelevant. "It's between me and God," they will argue and then sort of make it up as they go (because they'll still argue that you're immoral for suggesting the law is of any value anymore).

Is the law dead? I, for one, hope not. As it turns out, lines are our friends. God didn't give us rules to strip away our fun or simply to condemn us. He gave us law to offer the best, as love always does.

There are, today, multiple uses for God's law. For one, Paul wrote, "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." (Rom 7:7) That is, the law teaches us what God views as right and wrong and tells us where we transgress it. (Thus, "transgressions".) The word "sin" in the Greek language means literally "to miss the mark" and if you don't know what the mark is, you can't know if you missed it. That's the function of the law. Along that line of thinking, anyone who wishes to please God would want to know what He wants. So God's law serves that purpose. It offers to those who want it (even to those who don't), "This is the way, walk in it." (Isa 30:21) A third purpose, and one we can see clearly today, is to use the law to restrain sin in society. There are cultures, for instance, that value murder. (Do I need to offer current examples (hint: ISIS)?) But the Bible forbids it and laws against it aim to help restrain it. While adultery is just about everywhere, God's law condemns it and we all know it's wrong which helps decrease the occurrences. Indeed, Paul claimed "the work of the law is written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Everyone has it. If it were not so, there wouldn't be nearly the outrage against people who claim "God says this is wrong." No, the outrage is caused by the conscience warring against desires. A function of the law.

As a whole, God's law may look like a restraint to our freedom, but it serves good purposes. Imagine, for a moment, a child that would like to learn to draw. Setting that child down in a room and telling him or her, "Go to it!" without guidance is not helpful. You haven't assisted that child in learning to draw. You need to make rules. "Here are some implements to use. Here is the medium you can use. Here is a book to give you some instruction." That sort of thing. Teaching them sociology (for instance) is all well and good, but it is not within the "lines" of learning to draw. So, as it turns out, limiting their choices serves to direct them toward improving their skills, while eliminating all limitations will simply allow random activity without achieving the ends they had intended. Now, step up from drawing and it gets clearer. The child that wants to learn to design buildings will need to learn foundational truths (yes, that was a pun) in order to do the job. Limitations? Yes, but limitations that make everything work.

In a nation whose god has become "liberty" that means "do whatever I feel like", laws--especially God's laws--are an affront. To the antinomian Christian, even God's law is an affront. But Jesus assured us "Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) And, as it turns out, lines are our friends.