The Gospel

The Gospel -- that's what it's all about, isn't it? The Gospel is the primary focus of Christianity. It is our first and foremost message. We take that, by command, to the whole world. In fact, without the Gospel, we have no distinctives. Without the Gospel, we're just "another religion" among many religions with nothing much to say.

So ... what is the Gospel? The Gospel starts with an absolute necessity -- bad news. That bad news is that all of us are sinners. We have all violated God's commands. We are all justly worthy of Hell. Worse, there is nothing we can do to fix that. We can't be "good enough" to make it. We are sinners. We are damned. And nothing we can do will fix it. But then comes the Good News: God has made provision for this profoundly bad news. He sent His Son, God Incarnate, to be born as a baby, live a sinless life, then die for sins He didn't commit on our behalf. God Incarnate, Jesus, then rises again to seal the deal, defeating death and providing forgiveness for our sin. We have no ability to change things, but when we trust in Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf, we are given forgiveness. By faith in Christ's atonement on our behalf, we can have a right relationship with God. That is phenomenally good news.

We shouldn't be surprised that non-Christians find this good news unacceptable. Paul said they would (1 Cor. 1:18), so that shouldn't be news. What is surprising to me is the assault on the Gospel from within. It seems as if every time I turn around people who call themselves Christians are dismantling the Gospel as if they are doing God a favor. Oh, they don't call it that. They simply suggest they are expressing the truth. But in their expression of "truth", they cut the Gospel off at the needs.

Look around you. It's everywhere. How many Christians do you know that argue that human beings are basically good? There is a growing voice that denies the fundamental doctrine that says that all humans are basically sinful. And that doctrine of Hell, an eternal torment ... that one isn't real either, right? In an attempt to "set things right", people are arguing that the orthodox doctrine of eternal torment is a lie and all that realy happens is ... not Hell. Some say that it is annihilation -- you just cease to exist. Some say that there is a period of punishment followed by a move to Heaven. But eternal torment? No, that doesn't happen. There are those who call themselves "Christian" while denying the fundamental fact that Jesus was God Incarnate. There are actually pastors who argue that Christ didn't live a sinless life, didn't die for our sins, didn't rise again. "Christian scholars" argue that, while it was all a nice story, it is filled with myth and legend. Maybe He lived, but He didn't die on the cross. If He died on that cross, He surely didn't rise. Chances are, however, that if He did live, He lived on to be a father of a family that lived on. Come on. Let's deal with reality. And if we can see this reality, we can come to a nice, warm conclusion that perhaps we can get along with the Jews and Muslims and, well, any other equally valid religion.

And there, in a flurry of "truth", "Christians" have eliminated the Gospel. People aren't sinful. We don't need saving. Just be good and you'll be okay. There is no Hell. And Jesus ... if He lived, He wasn't the Son of God. He didn't die on our behalf. He didn't rise again. There is no atonement. That's okay because there is no need for atonement. God doesn't need that. The "good news", then, is that there is no bad news and no need for Christianity at all. Can't we all just get along?

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. We have no problem seeing that the world is against Christ. We expect it. Somehow, on the other hand, we believe that people who call themselves "Christians" like us are likely Christians like us even if they deny everything that is Christianity -- the basic message of the Gospel. Maybe you are wise to question various beliefs. Maybe you're wise to recognize when your beliefs contradict the Bible. We all find that to be the case from time to time. But please, please do not allow wolves to sneak in, pose as your friend, and steal your only hope. It is a lie, a lie we cannot afford to call "truth".

Robbing Hood

There is a dichotomy in conservative circles when it comes to the poor. Liberals want to help the poor, it seems, but conservatives don't. This, of course, isn't true. It's just the story that gets passed around so often that it seems like it's true. And on the face of it, there even seems to be some truth to it.

Think about it. The almost-a-given belief today is that the right thing to do is to tax the wealthy and give it to the poor. (Now, if you try that approach on the open market, you'd have a riot. "Hello, Mr. Jones. Just one gallon of milk today? Okay, that will be $2. Have a nice day. Hello, Mr. Smith. Oh, you're just getting one gallon of milk today, too? Okay, that will be $12. Why? Well, Mr. Jones only makes minimum wage, so he doesn't have to pay as much as you do. That's the way it is.") Conservatives wince at the "tax the rich" plan, and the suggestion is, "See? Conservatives are only concerned about themselves." Actually, while the "tax the wealthy" crowd is concerned about poor people, there are those who disagree because they are as concerned about the wealthy as they are the poor people. It's not that they aren't concerned about people in need. It's that they aren't in agreement about how to help those people. And stealing from the rich to give to the poor, while noble sounding when it is a Robin Hood story, seems like ... stealing in real life.

Christians in particular might run into difficulty with the concept. "Why wouldn't you be in favor of this type of socialism? The Early Church practiced it." And, indeed, if you read about the Church in Acts, you'll find pretty quickly that "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:34-35). "See?", someone might ask. "How is our plan to tax the rich and give it to the poor different than their plan?"

I would point out, in response, first that the process in Acts can't actually be called "a plan." It is more accurately called "an event." There are two reasons for this distinction. First, it doesn't appear from anything in Acts that someone thought it through and made the suggestion. It doesn't appear that it was mandated by the Apostles. From all appearances, it just seems to have happened spontaneously. The second reason to call it an event rather than a plan is that it didn't seem to continue. It was just short term.

The second part of my response, then, would be based on the first. The primary difference between the first Church event and the tax-the-wealthy idea was precisely in the fact that it was voluntary. If people choose to give up their wealth to help those with less, it is heroic. If someone forces them to give up their wealth to help those with less, it is theft. It's not that conservatives are against helping the poor or not concerned about helping the poor. (This is demonstrated in the fact that conservatives are documented as giving more of their income and time to help others than those who are not conservative.) It's that they are against stealing to do it.

But this voice of "Thou shalt not steal" is getting quieter and quieter. The rising throng of those with less are being told that the answer is in the government and that the wealthy must be forced to give to those less fortunate. Between the "haves" and the "have nots", we are told and most of us believe that the "haves" aren't merely fortunate -- they're bad. Good people don't have as much as bad people, it seems. Rich people are bad. Big corporations (you know, the ones that hire the most people, pay the most wages, and all that) are the worst of the bad. And we will not tolerate bad. I fear that the socialism that is touted as "compassion" is knocking at our door while we decide who our next president will be.

Freedom

We all want it. We all demand it. But do we actually think about what freedom is?

Dictionary.com defines "freedom" as "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I would suspect that this is the first thing that comes to mind when we think of "freedom." "No limits." We think that freedom means that no one tells us what to do, that there is no influences, that no one will regulate what we do. Well, we don't actually think that; we feel that. We don't think it because the minute I put it down here for you to read, you can see right away that this doesn't actually exist anywhere in the world. We have laws, rules, governments. We are told by our parents, by our employers, by our governments what to do. We have varying degrees of "no limits", but never actually no limits.

The question, though, is would we really want freedom in the sense of "no limits"? You see, in some senses "limits" means a greater freedom than "no limits." Think about it. If there were no law against murder and people were free to kill whomever they want whenever they want, how free would you feel walking down the street? Most sane people would do their best to limit their exposure to the outside world just to safeguard their lives. That's not free. How about an architect? If you give an architect "free reign" where he can design a house without any sense of limits, what will you get? Will it stand up? Will it remain standing? If a designer actually designs without taking into account loads, weight, gravity, design constraints, and legalities, exactly how free will you be in that home? In fact, since it was designed without constraints, will it even suit your taste or needs?

You see, while we love freedom, absolute freedom is not something we can actually survive. It has a name. It's called "anarchy." This kind of freedom isn't really freedom. Human beings need limitations just as children need limitations. You need to prevent a child from running into the street because they likely won't survive that kind of freedom.

We often think that we want life without limits. Life without limits is like a human being without a skeleton. Sounds simple enough, but without a skeleton we would lack the ability to stand upright, chew, or move at all. We need the structure of a skeleton on which to attach muscles and tendons. We pull against those structures to cause other parts to move. We use that structure which is by definition a limitation to give us the greatest freedom of movement and living. Humans need structures.

Some parents will tell you that they don't want to put any limitations on their children. I would argue that this is a cruel thing to do to a child. They need direction. They need limits. Their limits give them structures upon which they can climb and against which they can push. While children without limits may go places no one thought of, they are also too diffused. Without limits there is no focus, no direction, nothing upon which to stand. Children with limits are allowed to accelerate in directions that are valuable without wasting time in directions that are pointless at best and harmful at worst. And people, child and adult, will find that, while anarchy is not good, directed freedom can be very liberating. That's a freedom worth defending.

Heroes

Heroism. What is it? The dictionary is extremely helpful. Heroism is defined as "heroic conduct." Great. Thanks. So what is a hero? A hero is someone who goes above and beyond. A hero is someone who gives of himself or herself. Heroism is when someone gives up what the ordinary person would not for another person.

Heroes are people like Edith Evans. Aboard the Titanic when it was sinking, Miss Evans, already safely on a lifeboat, volunteered to get off so it wouldn't be overloaded. No one ever saw her again. Edith Evans acted heroically, giving her life so others could live.

Heroes are people like Gerrit Kobes. Sgt. Kobes is a medic from Kettle Falls, Washington. In the middle of RPG's, heavy machine-gun, and small arms fire, Sgt. Kobes ran 500 meters "through a storm of enemy fire" to help injured Iraqi soldiers.

Heroes are fire fighters that run into burning buildings to save others. Heroes are people who surrender a kidney so someone who needs one will survive. Heroes are police officers who put themselves in harm's way so that ordinary citizens will be safe. Heroism is when someone lays down their own life, in one way or another, for someone else.

And there are everyday heroes. There are wives who give to a husband who doesn't love them. There are husbands who serve wives who hate them. There are parents who love children who do all they can to drive them away. There are employees who willingly give up their rightly deserved credit so that others above them can take the glory. There are heroes every day.

I'll tell you where the heroes are not. They are not there by force. When the government takes your taxes to give to the poor, it's not heroic. Heroism requires that it be voluntary. A good deed requires that it be done by choice, not by coercion.

Here, try this illustration. There is a "bad dog". This dog has attacked five people in the last week. So I take this dog and put it on a short chain and put it on that chain in a cage. Lo and behold, that dog stops attacking people! It goes an entire month without a single attack! It's a "good dog" now, right? Of course not.

It is a virtue for people to voluntarily surrender their time, energy, and resources to assist others. These folks are heroic. They are going above and beyond. The minute we take it from being voluntary to being mandatory, we remove the heroism. It becomes theft. A person who has been robbed of their goods is not more noble if that robber gives it to the poor. Do we really want to give the government the option of removing "good" for the "greater good"?

To Tell the Truth

One of the fundamental problems with the sin nature is "the suppression of the truth" (Rom. 1:18). Yeah, nice phrase, but what does it mean? It means we lie. We lie in what we say. We lie in what we don't say. We know the truth and we don't tell it. We attempt to deceive others in what we say and in what we withhold. Worse, we deceive ourselves. Of course, that's not just my opinion. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9).

The thing I find most disturbing is that part about deceiving ourselves. We are often conscious of the deceit we feed others, and if we are conscious of it, we can work on it. We can repent of it. We can stop it. We can correct it. It is the deceiving of self that is the problem. We often aren't aware of it. Being unaware means we can't do anything to fix it.

We lie to ourselves in all sorts of ways. We lie about how we feel. We lie about what we believe. We lie about how we see ourselves. This one is a big problem. We lie about ourselves to ourselves all the time. We lie in both directions. We tell ourselves that we are better than we really are ... and we tell ourselves that we are worse than we really are. It's as if we do all we can to avoid the truth about who we really are.

We are encouraged to lie to ourselves positively. The "Self-Esteem movement" tells us, "You need to tell yourself that you can do anything you set your mind to." Have you heard that one? Have you told others that? Have you told yourself that? Do you know it's a lie? I can demonstrate it so that it is undeniable. If I am stuck in traffic (like I was this morning) and I set my mind to turning myself and my car into a dragon to fly over this mess and get where I'm going, no amount of positive thinking will accomplish it. That's simply a lie. It is not true that I can do or be anything that I set my mind to do or be.

Why do we encourage one another to tell ourselves this lie? Well, it's to counteract another lie. The other lie says, "I cannot ..." when no such impossibility exists. My junior high coach told me, "'Can't' means 'didn't try'." My junior high coach was wrong, but his intent was to motivate me to try. I still can't jump 10 feet into the air and slam dunk the basketball, even though I've tried. But the coach wanted me to try, so he lied to me. We don't want people to put artificial barriers in their way, so we lie to them. "You can be whatever you want to be." You see, one of the most common lies people tell themselves is that they cannot do what they actually can do.

According to Paul, the opposite is also true. Perhaps the most common lie people tell themselves is that they are better than they really are. Paul never warned about low self-esteem, but he did say, "I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (Rom. 12:3). You see, we often tell ourselves lies about how good we are. We tell ourselves we're good wives and it's that rotten husband who is the problem. We tell ourselves we're good fathers when we're not. We tell ourselves we're good spouses, good parents, good students, good Christians ... when we're not. You know these lies. There are those folks who tell themselves, "I'm a great singer" and try out for shows like American Idol only to demonstrate that they can't locate a musical note twice on the same day. There are those folks who tell themselves, "I'm too sexy for my shirt" while not a single person of the opposite sex can tolerate their presence. I am thoroughly convinced that we lie to ourselves in the positive far more than we lie to ourselves in the negative. "That doesn't bother me." "I don't have a problem with that." "I have that sin under control." Lies, all lies.

The answer to self-deceit is not another lie. We don't solve the problem of telling ourselves we are better than we are by telling ourselves that we're no good at anything. We don't solve the problem of lying to ourselves about being awful by telling ourselves the lie that we can do anything. Paul's answer was this: "Think with sober judgment." That's what we really need. We don't need "self-esteem training." We don't need to get pumped up. We need a dose of truth. We need it now. And we need it far more often than any of us likely realize.

Puzzled as Usual

There are things in the Bible that I don't understand. Now, if you are saying, "What? I understand everything!", you're lying. But some of the things I'm unclear on don't seem like they should be so unclear.

Here's one:

Children , obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth (Eph. 6:1-3).

Simple, right? All good parents quote that to their children. All good Sunday School teachers tell the kids this. No problem. Well, not for you, maybe, but I'm not clear.

Look, I get that children are to obey their parents (and honor them). But here's the question: When does that end? Since it's tied to "honor your father and mother," maybe you can stop obeying them when you can stop honoring them? No, that doesn't seem right. I think you should always honor your parents. So, since it's not when you stop honoring them and it's clearly not when they stop being your parents, it must be when you stop being their child. That's the common answer. But I can't find a biblical definition of when someone stops being the child of their parents. Americans immediately think "at 18", but no such biblical definition exists. Scholars tell me that Joseph and Mary were likely in their early teens, but no parent today is going to buy that a 14-year-old doesn't have to obey anymore. Some try, "As long as they're in your house," but since a lot of these kids are part of the boomerang generation -- you know, the one that keeps coming back -- they'd be children for a long time. Or is it simply that we must always obey our parents? I feel like I'm the only one asking these questions, but it's not entirely clear to me.

Or try this one:

For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:24).

Paul had some troubles with this one, I think. About this he said, "This mystery is great" (Eph. 5:32). In a conversation I was having with multiple people about homeschooling and the responsibility of the father to teach the children, I asked, "If it's the father's responsibility, then he can't hand it to others (like the mother, the teacher, or the pastor)?" Part of the response was, "Mom is one flesh with me." Now, wait. I understand that biblically it says that, but what exactly does that mean? If they are actually one flesh, then when he eats, she is fed. When he sleeps, she is rested. Parents can't share the load of watching the children because there is only one. And all that stuff about "wives submit to your husbands" is nonsense because they are their husbands! I am, of course, being silly, but I'm trying to illustrate my confusion. To what extent and in what sense are the husband and wife "one flesh"? I'm quite certain it is much more than mere sexual union, but I also know there is still a separation of the two. Oh, I don't know. I'm with Paul.

Sure, there are lots of things many of us don't understand. Despite Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye's certainty regarding the Revelation, I'm quite confident that I'm not the only one that is not clear on that book. Parts of Hebrews are elusive to me. Ecclesiastes is a bit tough in places. And, seriously, what is all that "begat" thing doing in the Bible? No, I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who finds some passages more difficult than others. I'm just disappointed that I can't seem to get these "easy" passages down while everyone else is crystal clear on what they mean. Yeah, I know, "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." I've been told that before. Or maybe it's just, "Dude, you think way too much." Who knows?

State of the Union

Sometimes my government scares me. One would think that some of the things that were said in the Stat of the Union address were universally accepted, yet too often I saw "the other side" sitting stoically by while the rest stood in applause.

Two were striking to me. The first was when the president said that it's best to trust the people with their money. It's best to keep taxes low. It's best not to take more money from Americans. One side rose and applauded; the other side stayed seated. What am I to conclude? "No, we don't think Americans should keep their money. We think that we should take their money from them and spend it as we see fit. Oh, we'll do it in ways that we think are best for them ... but we don't intend to let them keep it. Taking their money and spending it is our job."

I wasn't the least bit surprised when the president urged that health care reform leave health care in the private sector rather than government control, and the likes of Obama refused to respond. Of course he plans to fix our health care problems. He and those like him plant to do it by taking our money and taking over the health care system of America. We don't know what we're doing. The health care system isn't doing its job. Who better to fix it than the government? No surprise there.

The other one that was striking, though, was when President Bush spoke of how adult skin cells had been modified to act as embryonic stem cells. The president spoke of the need to make medical advances to save lives while respecting life and moral values. The Republican side stood and applauded, and the Democrat side sat silent. What can I conclude? "No, we don't care about moral values. We don't need to respect life."

Maybe my assumptions are wrong. Maybe the majority factor of my government isn't intending to take away my money at higher rates. Maybe they don't plan to increase my taxes. Maybe they don't think that it's better to take control of the health care system than it is to assist the market in managing it. Maybe they really do care about life and morality. Maybe. But I'm afraid that there are too many -- some of them are running for president -- who are of the opinion that government is the answer and we need to set aside our life, our liberty, our freedoms for their better interests.

A Common Word

A Common Word is an attempt by a group of Muslim scholars to find common ground between Islam and Christianity. The basis for this common ground is the mutually agreed "first law", "Love God with all your heart." Islam agrees. Judaism agrees. Christianity agrees. Voilà! We're all in agreement! Oh, and since Jesus said, "He who is not against us is on our side" (Luke 9:50), well, hey, the Muslims aren't against us, so they're on our side! It's all good. Can't we all just get along?

It is a nice attempt to avoid conflict with Christians. It is, in fact, in their view, a vital attempt:

... we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony.

What they are trying to avoid is "hatred and strife." The fact that someone feels the need to try to avoid "hatred and strife" on the part of Christians is indeed distressing. We have lots of room for standing for the truth, defending the faith, exhorting, reproving, and other such things, but "hatred and strife" shouldn't be in that list. I'm in favor of avoiding hatred and strife with Jews, Muslims, atheists ... anyone you care to mention. And, bottom line, it is absolutely true that Christians ought to be concerned about exactly what this document calls for -- loving God and loving our neighbor. Absolutely!

So am I endorsing the document? No, I really cannot. Here's the problem. When they say, "Love God with all your heart," they mean something quite different than Christianity does. That's because "God" has a different definition to them than He does to us. You'll find the first hint of it where they say:

Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s nature), but in the following way: the Messiah Jesus son of Mary is a Messenger of God and His Word which he cast unto Mary and a Spirit from Him.... (Al-Nisa’, 4:171).

This Jesus they call "Messiah" is not the Jesus of the New Testament. He is a messenger -- a prophet. He is a messenger of a lesser type than Mohammed. And Jesus did not die or rise again. Absolutely, Jesus is not God. Islam doesn't leave that up for question. Islam specifically denies it. In the document itself they reiterated the phrase "He hath no associate" as part of the basic teaching of Islam. There is one God. "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" is a statement straight from the Qur'an (Surah Al-Ikhlas (112)). Islam at its core denies the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Since Christianity absolutely affirms that Jesus is God Incarnate, for us the command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" is a command to love Jesus with all our hearts as well since He is God. In Islam, that would be blasphemy. It's really difficult to call one thing "obedience" or "blasphemy" and say, "We see things basically the same."

I find the website thoroughly depressing for multiple reasons. Part of the argument for peace between Christians and Muslims is "Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s nature." We gave them that ammunition. The early church put the question to rest and it was over, but today we're much more tolerant. "If you want to call yourself a Christian and deny the fundamental nature of God consisting in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who am I to suggest you're not a Christian?" Today we're much nicer than they were in days gone by. In the past, heretics were burned at the stake. Today we define "Christian" as "anyone who chooses to define themselves as such." I don't wish to go back to the burnings, but we've clearly come too far away from "contend for the faith." That's sad.

It's sad to see the list of folks that have endorsed the document. I'm not at all surprised to see the applause from the Yale Divinity School or its 300 other signatories. I'm not the least bit taken aback to see that the World Council of Churches or the Disciples of Christ (whose main premise seems to be "Can't we all just get along?") have endorsed it. I am deeply saddened to see hearty approval from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Saddest for me, then, is that those who would call themselves Christians and affirm this document and its intent -- that we need to love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors -- would do so at the peril of the Muslims and Jews it calls on for unity. If we deny who God is -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- in the name of peace, we nullify the first premise that we are to love God with all our hearts. If we surrender in the name of peace the only means by which peace with God can be obtained -- faith in His Son -- we deny the second premise of loving our neighbor. I'm against hatred and strife. I love my fellow humans too much, however, to lay down their only hope for salvation in an effort to be at peace with them. That, indeed, would be a violation of both of the top two commandments. In my deep desire for their peace, it is mandatory that I continue to share the truth with them in love. They are afraid that their very eternal souls are at stake if they fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace. I am sure that their very eternal souls are at stake if we give up these fundamental truths in the name of peace.

Simple Sunday

I thought a brief entry today would be helpful because the verse carries all the message I intend to convey:

Blessed is the one You choose and bring near, to dwell in Your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, the holiness of Your temple (Psa. 65:4)!

Savor that one ...

How Do I Look?

How do I look? This question is likely one of the most asked questions, in its various forms, that we ask. We ask it verbally and non-verbally. We ask it of others and we ask it, more often, of ourselves. Men have hated the question from women when they ask, "Does this outfit make me look fat?", a no-win question most of the time. But we ask the question when we stop in front of the mirror to check ourselves out. We ask the question when we consider our responses to people. We ask the question when we are deciding what we will wear, what we will say, what we will do. "How does this make me look?" It was the question the Pharisees asked when they were considering their response to Jesus's question.

When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matt. 21:23-27).

Wrong question: "How will our response make us look?" The real question was "What is the truth?" which was sadly jettisoned.

The reason this has come to mind of late is not because I've seen it in folks around me. The reason this is on my mind is that I've seen it in myself ... and it's not pretty. I've noticed, as an example, that when my step-son is doing something well, I refer to him as "my son" to others, but when he's doing something wrong, he's "my step-son." I don't do it consciously. It's an automatic event. You see, when he does well, it reflects well on me. When he does poorly, it doesn't reflect well on me. So when he does well, I'd like to enjoy looking better, but when he does poorly, I'd prefer to distance myself. "I didn't raise the boy ... he's my step-son." How ugly! I caught it the other day. Another son is getting married this year. His in-laws-to-be asked if we might be able to help out with wedding expenses. The truth is that we have very little extra at the end of the paycheck. The truth is that, while we are getting by okay, we're not really able to provide much more. But I was in a dilemma. If I said, "Yes," I'd have to figure out how that was even remotely possible, but if I said, "No," it would look like I didn't care ... or worse, I wasn't rich. The only possible answer was "No," but it was hard for me because it would make me look bad. Sometimes I don't need a mirror to see how ugly I can be.

On very rare occasion it is okay to ask, "How will this make me look?" Solomon wrote, "A soft answer turns away wrath." In other words, I want to continue to engage this person in their best interest, so perhaps I had better make for a softer answer, making me look less strident, so that I can continue to be of help to them. A pastor does well to ask his wife "How do I look?" before he stands up in front of the church on Sunday because if he has a rip in his pants or hair sticking out all the wrong ways it will be a distraction to his hearers and he needs to be careful not to distract them. In other words, on those very rare occasions where "How do I look?" is motivated by "What's in their best interest?", it works.

There are so many better questions we need to ask long before we get to "How do I look?" We need to ask, "Will God be glorified?" We need to ask, "What is in their best interest?" We need to ask, "What can I do for you?" We need to ask, "What is the best I can give?" It would be helpful for all of us -- me in particular -- if we could push "How do I look?" way down toward the bottom of our question lists. In the final examination, it's just not that important compared to so many other things we should be considering.

Biblical Music

One of the hottest topics these days in churches is the topic of music. All sides are deeply entrenched. "God doesn't like that kind of music." "God is glorified in music regardless of the style." "We need to use music in church that is respectful of God." "We need to use music that reaches people." And the argument, unspoken generally, is that the Bible doesn't really say. So ... is that true? I took a survey of biblical music and here is what I found.

The main goal of music in Scripture is to express a response to God, not generate a response to God. Biblical music is more than anything else a response to God's grace. It is most often a response of gratitude for what God has done. Exodus 15 is the song of Moses, praising God for saving Israel from Pharaoh. Judges 5 is the song of Deborah and Barak, where they praise God for saving Israel from Jabin, the king of Canaan. Over and over people of God break out into song to thank Him for His goodness, grace, and mercy.

The Bible records other purposes in music, such as prayer (supplication), teaching (Col. 3:16), a language between believers (Eph. 5:19), and even mourning. Music is used throughout Scripture. Sometimes it is a celebration. Sometimes it is a sin (when they celebrate something they shouldn't.) God often threatens to remove it as a consequence of sin. Solomon warns that it is foolish to sing joyful songs to someone who isn't joyful (Prov. 25:20).

You'll find, in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that music will be a very real part of heaven. It appears that, despite the arguments to the contrary, that God is a real music fan.

And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." (Rev. 5:8-10)

And I saw, as it were, a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had come off victorious from the beast and from his image and from the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God. And they sang the song of Moses the bond-servant of God and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and marvelous are Thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Thy ways, Thou King of the nations. Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy; For all the nations will come and worship before Thee, For Thy righteous acts have been revealed." (Rev. 15:2-4)

Music has been around, biblically, as early as Jubal (Gen. 4:21), an inventor of musical instruments. There are a host of instruments listed, including the harp, lyre, timbrel, trumpet, and horn. The most common instrument, of course, is the human voice. All of these and more are mentioned as musical methods of communication.

So what kind of music does God prefer? "Obviously it's organ music. Everyone knows that" ... except that organs weren't invented until somewhere around 3 BC and not put into use in the Church until somewhere around the 15th century. "Vocal music, of course; the church is no place for instruments." That's problematic when Scripture lists so many instruments in use to praise God. "Well, whatever it is, it has to be melodious." Maybe ... but Psalm 150 really doesn't make it sound melodious.

Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.

Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD!

With all due respect to the older generation, that really doesn't sound like subdued, melodic music. It sounds like a cacophony of praise to me.

I'm not sure you'll be able to find a style of music that the Bible deems acceptable. I think you can find unacceptable forms of music. Music that draws attention away from the God to whom it is offered is obviously not going to make it. Music that breeds attitudes and emotions that is contrary to the biblical purpose of music shouldn't be in church. Music that is intended to cause a response rather than be one shouldn't be part of our worship. These forms of music aren't inherently evil; they just have no place in church worship. And maybe, just maybe, those who decide what music is going to be used ought to take into account what the Bible says music should be used for. "Making people feel good toward God" is not on the list. Perhaps there are things here to think about?

Abstinence-Only Education

Our governor, Janet Napolitano, plans to turn down federal money for abstinence-only education. She believes that teaching only abstinence in high school is a mistake. She believes that, since abstinence education doesn't seem to be working, teaching only abstinence would be a disservice to the kids. Since they are going to engage in sexual activity, we also need to teach them how to do that safely.

This isn't new thinking. It was the line of reasoning that pushed schools into handing out condoms to kids and clinics into handing out needles to addicts. We can't stop them -- why not teach them to do it safely? No one really seems to question the wisdom of teaching the right thing. Abstinence until marriage is better. Not having sex while you're in school is better. Not doing drugs is better. No one doubts any of this. The question, however, steps off the theoretical ("We know these things are better") to the practical ("But they will do them anyway"). Encouraging the right thing is good, but the truth is that it doesn't always work. And it is irrefutable that abstinence-only education isn't working. Kids are still having sex.

And why would we expect that teaching high school kids to avoid sex before marriage would work? Picture that lone voice on the street corner: "The end is near!" You're surrounded by a myriad of voices that say, "Oh, shut up! The end isn't near." Which do you believe ... the lone voice or the myriad? Even if that lone voice is right, which will people believe? Kids today (and I mean kids of all ages) are inundated with a myriad of voices telling them to have sex. It's on their televisions. It's playing on their iPods. It's on the radio. It's coming from their peers. Much of the time it's coming from their families ... maybe even their own homes. A lone teacher will stand up in front of them and say, "It's best to abstain from sex until you get married" and someone will say, "But, what does the guy (or girl) you're living with think of that?" Is it any wonder that abstinence-only education isn't working?

There is a problem with the logic, however. "It doesn't work" is the logic that demands that we give them ways to have sex safely. Try that line of reasoning on other things. Try the known: "Drug addicts still take drugs, so let's give them clean needles. That way when they fry their brains, drain their cash, and kill themselves, they can do it safely." Yeah, that works. Try the unconsidered: "It's best if gang members didn't drive by and shoot people (especially innocent bystanders), but they will do it anyway. Let's give them classes in safe driving and teach them to shoot from moving vehicles so they'll hit fewer innocent bystanders." See? That's not working.

"Oh," you say, "sex outside of marriage isn't the same as drug use or drive-by shooting. Those things kill you; sex doesn't." And now we're back to the reason why abstinence-only education doesn't work. It's a failure to comprehend. It's a lack of understanding about the significance of the effects and purpose of sexual relations. Our culture -- in fact most of our world -- has moved "sex" from a beautiful joining of two married people for the purpose of procreation to the dull, base world of "recreational activity." It's just something we do to have fun. Why make a big deal about it? And my suggestion that it's something more is marginalized as being "Puritanical" and "overly religious." "Hey," they'll tell me, "this isn't Sunday School, you know." Unfortunately, just because they don't believe in the consequences of illicit abuse of sex doesn't mean they won't suffer the long-term consequences.

I have to be honest here. We don't need abstinence-only sex education in schools. It's a band aid on a slashed throat. If our society doesn't wake up and recognize the glory and beauty of the sexual relationship in marriage as God intended it, we will continue to reap the consequences. The consequences of unwanted pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases are certainly consequences to be considered, but the larger consequences are suffered in declining marriage, damaged marriages, and an inability to comprehend or enjoy the union that God intended marriage to be. We don't need education; we need a fundamental change. The only way that change will occur is if we who know the truth preach the Gospel and let our lights so shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify God in heaven. Better education, better rules, and finger wagging aren't going to help this one. This problem requires an act of God.

Rabbit Psychology

Okay, this is just a story about my experience the other day. It's not life changing. It's not political. It won't help your marriage or improve your theology. But it has me baffled, so maybe, just maybe, someone out there can suggest an explanation for what I saw.

The other day I was in the back yard getting ready to fill the birdfeeders. Now, my yard here in the desert is completely fenced in with a minimum of 6' high fencing, and my yard has no grass. It is a desert landscape, which means dirt covered by rocks. So as I was going to the side yard to get the birdseed, I noticed a hole had been dug in the side yard along the wall. I took a closer look. It was a brand new hole -- the dirt was still damp -- and it was maybe 3" in diameter. I couldn't see the end of the hole.

My wife, my neighbor, and I all puzzled about what it could be. A coyote could make the hole, but couldn't get into the yard. A rabbit could make the hole, but would likely have to travel a ways from the only possible entrance. A squirrel could make the hole and could get into the yard easily, so that's what I figured it was. I was wrong.

Just before bed, I took a peek out the window with a flashlight and caught the culprit at work. It was a small cottontail rabbit. It was busily digging away at the hole. Mystery solved. How it got into the yard I wasn't sure, but it was definitely a rabbit.

The next morning I looked again and it was still working the hole. I could see little bursts of dirt shooting out from behind as it tunneled further in. I went about my business. At lunch time I took another look ... and the hole was gone. I don't mean somewhat gone. I mean there was no hint that the hole had ever been there. The spot where the hole had been was completely filled and the rock that had been over it was back over it. There was no sign of turned earth, no bare spots, nothing that would indicate that there had been anything there at all. And the rabbit was still there working on it. The little thing was picking up rocks in its mouth and moving them around. I went outside to see where it would go from there, and it was gone, teaching me that rabbits can fit through much smaller spaces than I realized.

So, I'm stuck with this mystery. A wild cottontail rabbit came into my yard and dug a hole which it then covered so perfectly that it was as if it had never been there. Why? If it had been a squirrel, I would figure it was hiding food. Rabbits don't do that. If it had been a turtle, I would figure it had laid eggs. Rabbits don't do that. If the rabbit had just decided that the hole wasn't going to work (what with running into the wall and all the rock in the soil), he might abandon it, but I can't figure out why he would fill it in. I can imagine an anthropomorphic rabbit who thought, "Well, this hole won't work for me. If I leave it the way it is, the owner might be mad, so I'd better put it back the way I found it." But rabbits don't do that. I cannot think of any sort of logical explanation why a rabbit would do what this one did.

As I said, it's just a funny little story. It won't change your life. It won't change mine. But I'm naturally curious and cannot figure out a reason for the behavior. If any of you have an idea, let me know. I'm puzzled.

Falsehoods

Have you ever heard this one? NASA was running their computer simulations of objects in space and, amazingly, discovered a lost day that, of all things, corresponds to the day that the sun stood still in Joshua's time.

It's a fun notion. NASA has these computers that map the locations of heavenly bodies so they know where and when to put their space ships. The idea that science finally validated a miracle is a nice one, and this one sounds so lovely that it has been repeated over and over as fact ... even though it is manifestly nonsense. No amount of math or science can trace backward to find a missing day. It's just not possible without sufficient data points, and we don't have the required data points.

How about this one? Have you heard about the time that Albert Einstein confounded the atheist professor who was proving that if evil exists, there is no God? He demonstrated that, just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good and, therefore, evil does not exist and God does. How nice to have such a brilliant man on our side, eh? Of course, the story isn't true. There is no evidence anywhere that Einstein was involved in this type of brilliant maneuvering of a hapless atheist professor. It's an urban legend.

The truth is that we are often told things that aren't true. Hillary Clinton, for instance, was told that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary. Of course, that's not possible, since she was born 6 years before anyone had ever heard of Sir Edmund Hillary. Still, that's what Senator Clinton was told, and that was what she believed for a long time. We are all told things that aren't true and we all believe things that aren't true. The trick of it is 1) recognizing the possibility that something we believe may be false, and 2) figuring out when that is the case.

Have you considered the possibility that you might have some false beliefs? I have. In fact, the beliefs of which I am most sure are the ones that fought their way into my life tooth and nail. Some things I hold dear came to me contrary to my own positions. I defended my beliefs against them. I pushed them away. I went to war. Eventually, the sheer bulk of evidence and logic overwhelmed me and I was forced to surrender to a truth I hadn't expected. You see, those are the most sure to me because, well, I didn't want them. Today, of course, those are some of the most blessed beliefs I hold, offering me the most comfort and solace and strength. Do you hold false beliefs? Do you look for them? Do you expect them? Do you know how to recognize them? Or will you hold to them regardless? Something to think about ...

All the Wrong Reasons

Identity politics ... that's what they call it. According to Wikipedia, the term is defined as "political action to advance the interests of members of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity." According to David Brooks's op ed piece in the The New York Times, both Clinton and Obama are playing the identity politics card ... and doing it poorly.

It's not just the Democrats. Vote for Obama because he's black. Vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Vote for Huckabee because he's an Evangelical Christian. They said Mitt Romney won in Michigan because he was the hometown boy. And it's not all the candidates' fault. There are just as many blacks, women, and Christians calling for the election of their candidate solely on the basis of this identity. Looking at the Republicans in the upcoming Florida primary, we find that Rudy has a lead in southern Florida because there are lot of snowbirds from New York there and he's from New York. We find that McCain has a large following because of the large numbers of retirees that identify with them. We find that Huckabee has a large following because of the large numbers of Evangelical Christians in the state. And currently there is no forerunner.

There are a couple of real problems here. First, none of these groups fall in the category of "oppressed". To be accurate, we'd have to say that they fall in the category of feeling oppressed, I suppose, but anyone who doesn't have everything their own way feels, at times, oppressed. The other problem is that none of these candidates with whom folks are identifying are suggesting anything on behalf of the "oppressed". Obama isn't offering to make things better for black people. Clinton isn't going to make things better for women. Huckabee isn't suggesting any steps to make Christians better off. And so it goes.

It's tempting. We might think that electing Obama will say, "We're no longer a racist country." It won't. It's tempting to think that a vote for Hillary proves that women have no limits. It doesn't. And Mike Huckabee's Christianity is no guarantee that he'll be what Christians want or need in office.

I think we need to step off a bit. It is just as wrong to vote for a candidate simply because he's a Christian like me as it is to vote for one who is black like me, old like me, or a woman like me. Stop looking for identity and try to find ideas. Do you want someone who will increase our taxes enough to give universal health care? Find that person. Are you hoping to get a president who will withdraw the troops from Iraq? Find that person. Do you think there is a candidate who will make a difference to our economy? Vote for that person.

Vote for ideas, not identity. The minute we begin to vote for someone because we identify them with our oppressed group, we verify that we haven't gotten passed the petty differences like race, gender, religion, or age. We simply demonstrate our refusal to think rather than feel. Think!

Free at Last

Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. His dream, basically, was that someday people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." He dreamed of racial freedom, where "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"

It would be foolish of me to claim that Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled. Racism still exists. But to those who would suggest that no progress has been made, I would have to say, "Open your eyes! Look around you!" It's difficult for some to admit it, but racism really is in a serious downward spiral.

Why has it taken so long? Why has it been so hard? When you deal with racism or sexism, you're dealing with something in human beings that is hard-wired. It's called xenophobia, the fear of anything alien. Humans naturally want to stick with what they know instead of that with which they are unfamiliar. If you're raised in a white neighborhood, you'll naturally be likely to be more comfortable with white people. If you're raised in a black neighborhood, the reverse would be true. The fact that there are "white neighborhoods" and "black neighborhoods" is evidence that this is true. Look around. You'll find cultural clusters, groups of people who are Arabic, Hispanic, Chinese, American Indian, Korean ... the list goes on and on. Culture tends to gather with like culture. And it's not merely races or cultures. It extends to gender, economic conditions, just about any classifying category you can think of. It is a basic and generally unexamined aspect of the human being.

Some groups, usually those not in power, will try to tell you it's a function of Caucasian (or whoever is in power). It's a lie. It's a function of being human. Just look at the Louis Farrakhans, Jesse Jacksons, and the Dr. Jeremiah Wrights of our world. There is just as much racism on that side as anything you'll find on the white side of America. Some will tell you that it's just the same as it ever was and it will never change. You can get this from the black separatists and the white separatists. You can get this from disenfranchised folks who have experienced racism ... whatever their race. And you might conclude it from the fact that this problem is a basic human problem.

Xenophobia, the fear of anything different, is a natural human condition. It is a normal response to anything different. But we err if we think that because it's natural, it's good, right, or inevitable. We spend years teaching our children not to do what's natural, but to be civilized. We don't assume that whatever comes naturally to them is good. And Christians understand that human beings are fallen, sinners by nature. That's not good because it's natural. Neither does the natural have to be accepted.

I share Dr. King's dream. I also think that we've come a long way toward achieving it. In my world I see very little racism. People are hired where I work for their qualifications, not their color. I work with people from a wide variety of racial origins without it being a factor. It is illegal in my neighborhood to disqualify someone from living here because of their race or skin color. Human nature can be addressed. Today there is a rise in the concern about racial profiling based both on the events of 9/11 and the current problem of illegal immigration. We need to deal with these very real problems without surrendering to the dark side of human nature. I share Dr. King's dream. Unfortunately, humans being what they are, I suspect that we won't join hands and sing, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" until that great day when we sit in the presence of our Savior and share the same focus -- Him. Until then, great strides have been made and there is work yet to do. So today we remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Be exalted above the heavens, O God

Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Thy glory be above all the earth (Psa. 57:5).

It's a glorious verse. It focuses our attention where it needs to be -- God's glory. It recognizes God's primary concern -- His glory. This is a prayer that God will answer.

It's a bit of an odd prayer, however, when you look at it in context.

My soul is among lions. I must lie among those who breathe forth fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Thy glory be above all the earth. They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down. They dug a pit before me; they themselves have fallen into the midst of it (Psa. 57:4-6).

There it is, tucked neatly between "My soul is among lions" and "My soul is bowed down." The psalm was written by David when he was running from Saul. He was hiding in a cave. The king was out to kill him. It wasn't a friendly camping trip; it was a hunting party -- with David as the quarry.

In this passage David sees things as they are. He has enemies, dangerous enemies, who are out to kill him. He is in trouble. And there, in the midst of the very real trouble, David looks in the right direction. "Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Thy glory be above all the earth."

Most of the time when bad things happen to people, the question is "Where is God?" David had his own answer to the question: "Right here, in the middle of everything. He's my reliable place to stand, and He will be glorified."

I can't think of a better place to stand -- in good times and in bad -- than in the gracious hands of God.

Discerning and Mean

Tim Challies asks "Why are so many discerning people so mean?" I think it's a reasonable question. Have you ever noticed it? There are those people, apparently self-appointed, whose job it is to go about pointing fingers at the wolves in sheep's clothing hiding in our midst. As far as I can tell there is never any claim to being a prophet or called by God. It's just something they do. And while I can appreciate the need to contend for the truth and the need to exhort and reprove, I have to wonder why it has to be so ... mean?

Challies suggests that one reason is that the longer we are immersed in the muck, the more mucky we get, so to speak. I don't doubt that this is the case. But there seems to be more than enough "righteous indignation" going around out there for mucky people, and it really seems that there are more angry Christians shouting about the evils of this or that than Christians who have actually examined this or that.

Why do I think this is the case? Well, I've been labeled a "Calvinist" because I believe in the doctrines of grace. As such, my beliefs have often been the target of some of these angry ravings. (Please don't misunderstand. I understand that many who call themselves "Calvinists" are equally guilty of angry ravings. Don't miss the point.) The problem I have seen likely some 95% of the time is that the things about which they are raving are not the things I believe. They hold up a viewpoint, call it "Calvinist", and rant about how evil it is. It's not "Calvinist", but because it is labeled that way, that's what is being attacked. They are not an accurate representation of the doctrines of grace, but they are still considered an attack on the doctrines of grace.

This is simply my example. It is, in fact, the norm. So many people who rant about the evils of this view or that view don't actually understand the view about which they are ranting. What I have seen, in fact, is that most of the time while the people who are angrily decrying the views they oppose without actually understanding them, the people who actually understand the views they oppose are discussing them calmly and carefully. It seems that when we really know what the view is that we oppose, there is less of a need to get riled up about it. (And here is a side question: Why is it that all these words I'm using such as "rant", "rave", and "riled up" all seem to start with "r"? But I digress.)

I know that right-thinking, godly, God-called people in history and particularly in Scripture did some loud ranting about the truth. I am not suggesting that all ranting is evil. I'm not saying that there is no room for righteous indignation. What I am suggesting is that far too often our attempts at "defending the truth" with anger and mean-spiritedness are not informed by knowledge, formed by wisdom, or motivated with purity. It is too often not a deep personal love for the truth of God that motivates our ravings, but too many other sinful things. Just understand that when you descend into unkind comments, it tends to take away from your arguments rather than giving them credence. Generally there are better approaches as you try to discern the truth from the lie than a lot of shouting.

Do We Really Need Fathers?

Have you seen this website? It's called Single Mothers By Choice. It is a website dedicated to providing "support and information to single women who are considering, or who have chosen, single motherhood." The site isn't too overbearing. It admits, "In general, our members feel that it is preferable to raise a child with two loving parents." The world around us, on the other hand, isn't so convinced, it seems.

Folks like Jennifer Aniston, Rosy O'Donnell, and a host of other celebrities have moved publicly to single parenthood by choice. The argument is that dads are optional ... often even a poor option. Societies in developed countries have marginalized men, either implying or stating outright that fathers are optional. The statistics are in, and it's not pretty. Since 2004, 31% of babies born in Australia have been born to single mothers. In the UK, 23% of the families with children are single mothers. The US is similar, with more than 22% of children living with mothers only.

The arguments are many. Men are scum. Lots of women are raising their families without husbands just fine. Besides, women are better suited to parenting than men. Too many men are just sperm donors. Why do they need to be in the picture at all?

The easy answer, of course, is the biblical one. The Bible considers fathers as having ultimate authority in all matters of the family. They are to teach their kids, discipline their kids, train their kids, nurture their kids. Even if they aren't the ones doing all this, they are the ones that God holds as responsible. If you were to put the question to the Bible, "Are fathers necessary?" the answer would be a loud, "YES!!" Of course, many people don't buy into the Bible's arguments, so are there other reasons to suggest that fathers are necessary?

What is it like for kids who grow up without their fathers in their lives? The statistics in this area are staggering. Kids (male and female) tend to engage in sexual activity at a much younger age. Insurance companies will tell you that children who live at home with their mothers and birth fathers have a much lower rate of illness or injury than those who don't. Drug and alcohol use in kids without fathers is highly increased. Children without fathers have a much higher tendency toward suicide, psychological and emotional problems, and problems at school. Contrary to what one might think, boys without fathers have a higher tendency to violent behavior. Without fathers there is greater likelihood of rape, criminal behavior, lack of achievement, divorce, and poverty. And there is much more:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

Biblically, fathers are necessary. Statistically, fathers are necessary. And still the question gets asked, "Why are fathers necessary?"

It seems patently obvious, but one of the first things to consider in the question is the sharing of labor. No one could rationally question the fact that it's easier for two people to take care of a child than it is for one. It's a no-brainer. That, of course, simply calls for two people. Why does one of them have to be the father? Well, one of the arguments is that it is necessary for fathers to be around to teach boys how to be men. This seems like a given. Perhaps it is a silly illustration, but when you ask, "What can men do that women can't?", one of the answers is "Men can throw a ball like a man." Who teaches that boy to throw a ball like a boy instead of like a girl? Not a woman. This principle carries over into all facets of life. But, while it is accurate to say that fathers teach boys to be men, it is incomplete. It also takes mothers to teach boys how to be men. It takes mothers to teach girls how to be women and it takes fathers to teach girls how to be women. Fathers teach their sons on issues of manliness, but mothers teach their sons on issues of relating to women. Fathers "ruggedize" their sons while mothers "civilize" them. Both are necessary. Conversely, mothers teach their daughters to be ladies, but fathers teach them how to relate to men. It is a common perception that women tend to marry men like their fathers. Kids need both parents.

Here's the bottom line. (Hold on to your hats; this may be bumpy.) A home comprised of father and mother is better than a home with a single parent (or even a home with a parent and step-parent). We don't like to voice that. It seems like a slap in the face to all those single mothers out there working so hard to raise their families. (Why is it that no one seems concerned about all those single fathers out there ... who are not a small number and who are a growing demographic?) I think you'll find that the first ones to agree with my bottom-line statement are single mothers. Most aren't single mothers because they think it's best. Most are single mothers because they either had no alternative (he died or left) or felt they had no alternative. The failure of some men to be fathers is not relevant to the discussion. It is always the case that a home comprised of a good father and a good mother is always better than a home with a good single parent. Kids need both parents. Dad, Mom, let's keep that in mind as we relate to each other and our kids. And parents, don't let society tell you anything different. It's a lie.

The Optional Marriage

Dr. Mohler wrote an entry titled, Does Marriage Matter? about an article in Newsweek. The author of that piece said "Yes To Love, No To Marriage." I don't want to repeat what he says. He does a good job. I recommend you read it.

I have been struck lately, however, with this apparently absolute presumption that fornication and cohabitation is the standard forerunner of marriage. According to a recent survey, a growing number of Americans believe that "love doesn't necessarily mean marriage." That is, 44% said "they didn't need marriage to validate their relationships." A large majority of 30-somethings (73%) preferred to live together before getting married. I remember hearing a conversation between two coworkers some time ago. He said, "I'm getting married." She said, "When?" He said, "Soon. We're still virgins and we're somewhat anxious." She said (with loud incredulity), "Who gets married without sleeping with the person first??!!" While the fellow in the conversation expressed the norm of my day, it is the exception today. Beyond that, more and more are opting out entirely of marriage, choosing cohabitation instead. "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love." And so it goes.

Without marriage, how does one show a life-long commitment? Or is "life-long commitment" another casualty of "progress"? In the Newsweek article, Bonnie Eslinger writes, "Last year Jeff asked me to marry him, and I willingly gave my heart to the intent of his question." She didn't say "Yes" to marriage. She agreed with "the intent". What does that mean? If she refused to marry but agreed with the intent, what is the intent of "Will you marry me?" It says, "Will you surrender who you are to me while I surrender who I am to you?" It asks, "Will you commit the rest of your life to me while I commit the rest of my life to you?" It seems to me that minimizing or discarding marriage in no way agrees with "the intent of his question."

One of the things that "Will you marry me?" asks is "Will you join me in forming a new family?" Family ... what a concept. In the article, Eslinger talks of family. Unfortunately for her, family is defined. It includes blood and marriage relationships. It includes blood-line and legal bindings such as marriage, and adoption. It doesn't include "well-loved friends" ... by definition. But there are many other reasons for marriage. One of the most obvious is the legal ramifications. Our society places a value on "family" that does not include "good buddy" in matters of health issues, financial issues, property ownership, and so on and so on. We give honor to that overt commitment called "marriage" when it comes to matters of legal issues in a way that "lover and friend" doesn't get. Death benefits, Social Security benefits, health insurance, it goes on and on.

"Well, we should change the laws then," someone might argue. Maybe ... but there are so many other issues at stake in marriage. We Christians are aware of the moral ramifications. I almost wrote "acutely aware", but society has so invaded the Church that too many Christians are succumbing to the dumbing down of society in this issue. Still, there is no doubt that the Bible recognizes marriage as the only valid venue for sexual relationships and sees marriage as not merely "a piece of paper" or "a ring and a white dress," but a life-long union of two beings. "Union," perhaps, has become too weak a term. The joining of two people in marriage includes "the two shall become one," an idea that many have side-lined. But the moral ramifications of that union, the need for it, and the breaking of it are huge, so huge that in the Old Testament adultery was punishable by death. God thought very highly of marriage ... and still does.

Of course, what we Christians think isn't of real importance to many people, and the decline of Christian morality among people who call themselves Christians isn't helping matters. Still, setting aside the moral issues, besides family and the legal reasons there are the emotional reasons for marriage. In her article, Eslinger writes, "I don't need a ring as a daily reminder to myself or others that I am loved." It appears she has completely missed the point of the ring. The circle symbolizes eternity. It is not saying "You are loved." It is saying, "I promise so much more than love. I promise to love you for the rest of my life. I promise to give myself to you and no one else. We will be family, a unit, a 'forever' commitment to each other that we proudly display to anyone around us." There is so much more in marriage than "you are loved." I can't even begin to express how much more "husband and wife" means than "you are loved."

The fact that marriages fail is not a valid argument against marriage. Cars fail ... therefore it's better not to have a car, right? Because some people fail to do marriage correctly doesn't invalidate marriage. It may be a popular argument, but it is pitifully wrong. So many people trot out this, "Marriages fail" argument. In the Newsweek piece, Eslinger has a foster daughter. She hasn't adopted her; she is a foster daughter. Doesn't this say much the same thing as saying "No" to marriage? "Because marriages fail, I won't marry." "Because kids grow up and leave home, I won't be your legal parent. I'll just be your temporary guardian." Both say, "I will not commit myself wholly to you because of the potential for my pain. Bottom line: I will not give up my self." (Note: I'm not commenting on foster parenting as a whole; just in this specific situation.)

Eslinger says, "I am Jeff's partner, his friend and his lover, and he is mine. The terms 'husband' and 'wife' wouldn't even begin to describe our relationship." What an incredible statement. The suggestion is that "husband" and "wife" do not include the concepts of "friend" and "lover." She is saying that "friend and lover" is so much more than "husband and wife." Jeff, her boyfriend, worried that his family wouldn't be willing to come to some sort of "commitment ceremony". Imagine that! The couple isn't interested in marriage, isn't concerned about the legal, moral, or emotional ramifications of a marriage, and is so much more than "husband and wife", but is dismayed that his parents might not be interested in attending a "commitment ceremony." I think this hints at the truth, doesn't it?

Marriage in our society is in trouble. There is no question. People are refusing to do it right, and marriages are failing at a high rate. The definition of marriage is blurred because of our societal distance from the truth and too many voices between society and the truth. The value and necessity of marriage is not clear anymore because of the noise. Still, with or without the voice of truth, people know intuitively that marriage is important. But, to tell the truth, I can't fix the problem. Neither can you. So if you are married, consider this approach. When it comes to your marriage (as in all else), "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).