More on Biblical Slavery

The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. - Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996, 4:1190f.

It is important to note, as I have multiple times, that biblical slavery is not the same thing as modern slavery. Consider this. Modern slavery has basically been 1) involuntary 2) for the economic advantage of the elite, 3) typically included mistreatment, 4) where slaves lived separately from their owners, 5) were considered property (and could be disposed of as with any property), 6) could not own property, and 7) were slaves forever.

Old Testament slavery was different. It was 1) normally voluntary 2) for the purpose of solving a debt problem 3) with strict rules against mistreatment. Typically, 4) slaves lived in the homes of their masters, 5) were not property, 6) could own property and, in fact were given property when released, and 7) were only in the position temporarily. Old Testament slavery wasn't very much at all like the modern version.

Further, to suggest that God approved of slavery would be as wrong as saying that God approved of divorce. God's preference was no slavery at all. His original plan for marriage was no divorce. His original plan for His people was no poor (Deut 15:4-5). So He orders His people to give freely to those in need (Deut 15:7-8). He provided for a cancellation of debts (Deut 15:1, 9). He commanded farmers to leave food in the field for those in need (Exo 23:10). He ordered that money be lent without interest (Lev 25:35ff). If we were faithful to our marriage vows, there would be no divorce, and if Israel had followed the commands of God, there would be no poor among them. Since they wouldn't, God made provision to protect people in trouble.

There were two other types of slaves in the Bible. One is outlined in Deut 20, and it appears that it never actually happened. The text explains how to treat slaves from nations conquered outside of the Promised Land. Israel was never authorized to conquer people outside of Canaan. (Why do I say it is outside of Canaan? Read Deut 20:15-18.) Therefore, the type explained in Deut 20 didn't actually exist. The other type was the foreign slave. Hebrew slaves were bountifully protected. Foreign slaves were purchased and apparently owned (Lev 25:46). Foreign slaves were exempt from Jewish dietary laws (Deut 14:21), the 7-year debt cancellation plan (Deut 15:1-3), and no-interest loans (Deut 23:20). Female foreign slaves were to be elevated to wife status with special protection (Deut 21:10-14).

On the matter of captured females, I think it is important to point out that this particular passage has been sorely abused. It is not about "going to war to steal women". That would be a gross mischaracterization. The passage is about being at war and finding a woman in that situation. Not the same thing. Look, here's how it would work. The men of Israel go to war. They kill the men they are fighting with. Soldier A (whoever that might be) notices a virgin daughter of such a slain man and falls in love with her. He has two options. 1) Leave her to die or, perhaps, be cared for by the survivors, or 2) marry her. There was no command to carry off sex slaves nor any provision for such a conquest. Those who would argue for such a reading of the text can only do so from the viewpoint of Titus 1:15 -- a defiled mind.

The accusation is made by skeptics and so-called Christians alike that God commanded Israel to attack their enemies to steal their virgin women and force them into sexual slavery. I could mince words and call it a misunderstanding or an exaggeration, but it is nothing less than a lie. The Jewish perspective never allowed for it. The biblical accounts never allowed for it. The practice of slavery at the time didn't allow for it. The standard Mosaic Law didn't allow for it. Don't buy into such a lie. It can have only two possible outcomes. Either God is a monster for ordaining such practices or the Bible is not a reliable source as it is written, or both. Neither option is acceptable to a genuine Christian.

Dyslexia

It's a broad term for a learning disability. It affects people in various ways and in various intensity. Some effects are mild; some are serious. It has to do with the way symbols are processed in the brain. What happens, in general, is that symbols get jumbled or exchanged. Characters in words may get reversed or words in sentences. "God" may be read as "dog", for instance. It causes difficulties in learning and reading and spelling, and, well, all sorts of things.

The most common form, I think, might be spiritual dyslexia. Here, let me demonstrate:

²⁵ I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me, ²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not part of My flock. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand (John 10:25-29).

Now, ask yourself, why don't people believe? Well, we know it's because they're not convinced or because they're not informed or because they're hostile to the message or ... all sorts of stuff. On the other hand, if they believe, what is the result? Well, they become Christians, they become part of the Body of Christ, or, in the sheep/shepherd terms above, they "join the flock". Right? Sure! That's how we see it. Pretty clear.

Except, that's not what Jesus said. We've managed to switch around "part of My flock" and "believe" so that being part of the flock is the product of believing, while Jesus says that the reason people don't believe is because they aren't part of His flock. That is, "part of My flock" precedes "believe", and not the reverse like we normally see it. Spiritual dyslexia.

We generate the faith even though Scripture clearly teaches that faith is "assigned" (Rom 12:3), "granted" (John 6:65), "through Christ" (Acts 3:16). Spiritual dyslexia. We present the Gospel and they see the kingdom of God and accept it, even though Jesus said without ambiguity, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Spiritual dyslexia. We are quite sure that we choose Christ even though Jesus assured His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and Paul said that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God" (Rom 9:16). Spiritual dyslexia. We're switching cause and effect, what comes before what. We're mixing up the symbols of our faith. And, like the dyslexics of our world, I don't think we're really aware of it. One thing's for sure. It can't be good for our spiritual learning.

Directions

At 12, Soya Keaveney was dieting, working out, "even posed for provocative photos, which are posted on her own website for anyone to access. Wearing a skimpy bikini and flaunting herself in an overtly sexual manner, Soya looks every bit the wannabe glamour model." That was at 12. That was 3 years ago. Now she's 15 and pregnant ... "and her proud mum's delighted." Why? "The council will now have to give her a bigger house." While mom, Janis, claims she is strict, Soya "was going to discos in Thornaby, Cleveland, from the age of seven, wearing make-up, mini dresses and revealing tops."

Well, you can read the story. It's horrifying. And it's not as rare as we'd like to think. Add in the preteen beauty queens. You remember JonBenét Ramsey, murdered at 6 years old. She was part of an entire group of child pageant contestants. An entire generation of little girls from very young through early teens are attempting emulate older idols. It brought Abercrombie & Fitch to the brink of selling bikinis (bad enough) with padded tops (worse) for second graders. It's really bad.

But, I have to keep in mind that it's the world. It's those who have been blinded by the god of this world. It is the product of a sinful world. And it's even held somewhat in check by the Holy Spirit. Natural Man is sinful to the core, but not as evil as he possibly can be.

So why am I bringing it up? I'm disturbed by all this and saddened. I'm upset by the messages I have to fight off for my granddaughter (my kids are grown). I'm concerned about the next generation. But what disturbs me most is that I don't see this exclusively in the world. It's not just a "them" problem. It's an "us" problem. I see it in church. I've seen presentations from the youth that had the little girls dancing like any of the pornographic pop stars, shaking things they don't even know they have. I've seen mothers dressing their children in clothes that adults shouldn't wear, let alone to church. I've seen people classified as "Christian" exhibiting all the same misguided values as the world from which we are supposed to be distinct. Now that is a problem.

I went to a private Christian school in the early years of my schooling. I remember in junior high when the teacher was talking about the problem of girls wearing two-piece swimsuits to the beach. I remember foolishly telling her, "My sister won't do that. When the rest of the world is at the beach naked, she'll be wearing a bikini." Like that's a good thing. I didn't see the erosion I was offering as "good". As the world shifts to the left, to "evil", the church stands its ground to the right. But as the world shifts further, the ground that was once "evil" to the church that was vacated by the left is the "good" ground on which the church now stands. Self-righteous, we point at those evil worldly values not realizing that yesterday's evil worldly values are today's accepted mores.

There is little doubt that our society is headed in the wrong moral direction. We've decided that what we knew to be evil a generation ago is no longer evil and what the generation before that knew to be evil we consider commendable. Kind of like Romans 1. But, brethren, these things ought not be. Remember, it isn't society that sets the standard; it's God. And it isn't society's standard that we are in danger of meeting; it's God's standards that we seek to violate. Perhaps we need to get back to biblical standards of morality. "Perhaps"? That shouldn't even be a question.

Glorifying God

The primary purpose of Creation in general and Man in particular is to glorify God. What does that mean? Does it mean to create glory for God? No, that makes no sense. Does it mean to increase glory for God? No, that's not right either. What, then?

David writes, "O magnify the LORD with me, And let us exalt His name together" (Psa 34:3). Now, "magnify" means basically "to make large". One version of "magnify" would be what we do with the very small. We make them appear bigger. We ... exaggerate. That is not possible when it comes to God. We cannot make Him appear bigger than He is. Another version, however, makes more sense. A telescope can be used to magnify stars. Now, stars, in fact, are huge. Compared to stars, we are less than a piece of dust. But they can appear so distant that we need a telescope to really get a good look at them. They appear very small, but when we magnify them we see them better for what they really are.

And that is the idea behind "glorify". We don't make God more glorious than He is. We don't invest Him with glory. The idea behind us glorifying God is that we realize that we've lost our attention and we take the time to call attention to His glory, to see Him for what He is, to bring His glory into focus with greater clarity and magnitude.

Glorifying God. Bringing attention to God, His beauty, His magnificence, His greatness, His attributes and character. There is no shortage of God to which to call attention. And it is our primary purpose, the reason for which we were made. Once a week isn't enough, but it's a start. It's a good start as the aim for an entire week.

Inquiring Minds

I saw a report (which I can't find so I can't reference) on PBS about how Antarctica is melting and we're all gonna die. Okay, I'm exaggerating. They're quite sure, however, that we're in trouble due to global warming. They predicted something like a 20-35 foot rise in the ocean levels if the western shelf melts, which it appears to be doing now. If, as they said it would, the eastern shelf follows the western shelf, estimates are that sea level would rise by 200 feet or more. They were concerned, you see, because the levels of carbon dioxide are reaching dangerous levels. As I said, I couldn't find that report, but I did find another piece written as a similar warning up in the Arctic. In it we read that "Modern levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are now flirting with the same CO2 concentrations that triggered" temperature cataclysms of the Pliocene Epoch. That was something like 2 to 5 million years ago. Both accounts tell me that we are again reaching the levels of greenhouse gases that were reached during that time period ... and we're all gonna die. No, no, again, an exaggeration. But it will be bad.

Now, since we all know that global warming (sorry, "global climate change") is caused by humans with our industries and autos, here's what I want to know. What low-life mammals of the Pliocene Epoch were so careless as to drive their SUVs, build their massive factories, and clear-cut the forests so as to cause their own extinction? Okay, of course that's silly. But there were some large mammals around then. Maybe it was their methane (don't let your mind form that image too clearly) or maybe ... well, someone was to blame. (Kidding aside, I did find an accusation that Paleolithic hunters caused global climate change.) I mean, we know that this kind of "greenhouse gas" problem doesn't happen naturally, so who was to blame then?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Love One Another

I've been having a conversation with someone via email discussing the intent of the command, "Love one another." Now, he has contended that "one another" means "everyone". (Thus, when Eph 5:21 says, "submit one to another", it means "everyone has to submit to everyone." Since this is logically impossible, "submit" must mean something other than our standard English usage.) I have contended that "one another" references a select group. For instance, Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Was He saying, "... if you love everyone that exists" or was He saying, "... if you love My disciples"? My correspondent assures me that "one another" means "everyone to everyone". So I'm asking my readers.

Here is my reasoning. First, "one another" means "one another". That is, it does not mean "everyone", but a reciprocal relationship between two people. It can be one with that one and be done, or it can be one with that one and that one and that one (and so on). But "one another" simply requires "one" and "one other" to satisfy the phrase. As for "love one another", then, I would contend that the requirement is "all of those with whom you have some connection". It may be a close connection like family, friends, coworkers, roommates, church members, any of that. Or it may be a looser connection like strangers with whom you come in contact or that guy on the corner asking for a handout. Or it may be an even looser connection like "those in the 1040 window who need Christ" or some other burden for a distant but not personally acquainted group which God has laid on your heart. That's a connection, too. It is, then, a potentially far-reaching concept, this "connection", but I would contend that it is not all-inclusive.

Why would I say that it is limited in any sense? First, if it is unlimited, logically that would require that I love people who no longer live and people who don't yet live. "No, not them," some would say with that "what-a-goof" smirk. Well, okay, but now you've placed a limit. So we're back to negotiating limits to "everyone". But more of a biblical concern would be James's example in James 2. There he uses the picture of faith without actions and calls it "dead faith". His example of "dead faith" is "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" (James 2:15-16). In fact, the parallel looks like love without evidence. You say you love them and you indicate that you're concerned for them, but if you don't actually demonstrate that love, it's useless ... "dead love". So if "love one another" means "love everyone everywhere without limitations", I have a pretty broad task. I mean, I'm on the freeway with a host of people that I don't exactly know how to love, and that is at least some connection. (We're in the same geographical location.) How in the world am I supposed to demonstrate in any sense a love for people about whom I'm not even vaguely aware? And if I simply say, "Well, I'm praying for everybody in the world to come to Christ" (for instance), that's a good thing, but how is it different from "Be warmed and filled"?

I agree that we are commanded to love one another. I agree that this goes a lot farther than most of us imagine. It includes associates (quite obviously) and strangers (a la "the Good Samaritan") and even enemies. It is really, really big. I'm agreeing with all of that. It just seems to me that a command to love everyone everywhere with any meaningful use of the term "love" doesn't seem reasonable. Nor does it seem mandated in the language. And my email buddy disagrees. Of course, if we conclude that "love one another" doesn't necessarily mean "love everyone everywhere", then he's going to have to deal with "submit one to another" as possibly not meaning "submit to everyone", and that's an entirely different hurdle (because then "submit" might just mean "submit" or some other reasonable assumption). But at this point, all I'm asking is what you think. Does "one another" require "everyone everywhere"? Does "love one another" mean "love everyone everywhere"? Or are there limitations? If so, what? If not, what does it look like to "love everyone everywhere" when there is no reasonable means of actually demonstrating that love?

Is Faith a Work?

We know that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. We know that we are saved apart from works. We know this quite clearly because the Bible repeats it more than once. Saved by faith, not by works. So it is pretty clear that faith is not a work.

Still, the question pops up, and for good reason. You see, if faith is something we produce, if it is something that we create, something that we work up, then how is that not a work? Thus, the most common perception of faith is a work. Which, of course, causes me to question the most common perception of faith.

Here, consider the logic:

- We are saved by faith.
- We are saved apart from works.
- Therefore, faith is not a work.

Good. Now:

- We are saved by faith that we produce.
- Producing something is work.
- Therefore, we are saved by work.

Bad. See the problem?

Now, I have contended that it is abundantly clear in Scripture that faith is a gift, that it is given by God. If this is the case, then faith is not a work, but a tool. God provides the tool and we return it to Him. Not work.

One might think this is a bit ... redundant. Why would God give us something to give to Him? But isn't that His modus operandi? He gives us life with the expectation that we'll give our lives to Him. He tells us to "work out your salvation" while it is He who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure. He tells us to do good works which He prepares beforehand and those good works give Him glory. It seems to me that this isn't redundant. It seems to me that this is normal.

Biblically, faith is not a work. Faith is presented in opposition to works. However, if we continue to make it something that we produce, it is unavoidably just such a thing -- our work. Since God is in the business of giving to us what we need and He is in the business of giving us what we need so we can give back to Him, it seems to me that the fact that faith is a gift would be unavoidable. But, hey, that's just me, right?

Defining Normal

When "what I desire" becomes the definition of "normal", we're lost. We instituted this faulty premise a long time ago and even codified it, attributing it to, of all beings, God Himself. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You recognize that, I hope, as coming from our own Declaration of Independence. And it gives all human beings the divine right to pursue happiness. Thus, "what I desire" becomes the definition of "normal". Oh, of course they didn't think that at the time. "What I desire" was limited by "what is right". But we in our 21st century world have moved it away from moral absolutes to relative morality.

You may think I'm referring to homosexual behavior and the shift in the prevailing winds about such activities. I'm not. Those shifted a long time ago. That would be water under the bridge. We gave that up already. No, we've moved beyond that. Now the Mental Health community would like to go farther still. Oh, they removed "homosexuality" from their list of mental disorders a long time ago. Where are they now? They would like to redefine pedophilia as "minor-attracted persons", remove it from the list of mental disorders, and, instead, allow pedophiles to be involved in the revision of the list of mental disorders. It is, you see, a stigma they have to bear, and it shouldn't be! It's simply an attraction.

That, as we are aware, is the way of the world. It is the sequence of God giving them up to their next round of depravity. Unfortunately, it also affects believers. It is a product of our failure to stand on biblical standards on earlier issues like the sin of sex outside marriage, the sanctity of marriage (and the evil of divorce), the acceptability of abortifacient birth control, the definition of marriage, the biblical roles of men and women, and on and on. It will also serve to be a future definition of "Christian morality". Not that we will necessarily agree to it. The church has simply been following the downward moral spiral. We're a few steps behind because we're the moral ones, but we're not where we once were by far. So when "pedophile" becomes "unfortunate" rather than "evil" to the world, then divorce will become acceptable -- even recommended -- and sex outside of marriage a good thing and homosexual behavior perfectly acceptable and ... oh, wait ... we're there, aren't we? See what I mean?

When "what I desire" becomes the definition of "normal", we're lost. Two Scriptures come to mind. The first is from the mouth of our Lord Jesus. "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). The second is from Revelation. "He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev 22:20).

Whose Faith?

We all know that faith is ours. It is something that we have, something that we exercise, something that we generate. And then I run across Hebrews in which the author describes Jesus as "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb 12:2). Now, that's odd. And we read from Paul that we are to regard ourselves "according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (Rom 12:3).

So there I was, reading through the book of Acts. This shouldn't be a jarring experience or containing much in the way of controversial doctrine; it's about what the Apostles did after Jesus ascended. It's a story. I was in Acts 3, in fact, where we find the classic and beautiful line from Peter, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I to thee." And Peter healed the man born lame. It's a cool story and it caused quite a stir in the temple where the man sat every day to beg. So everyone wanted to know how he did it. Peter's second sermon takes place here and he starts with the friendly lines about how they murdered the Son of God, and then he says this:

And His name--by faith in His name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all (Acts 3:16).

Well, I have to tell you, that really struck me. You see, normally we do think of faith as something that is ours, something that we produce, something that we exercise. Peter specifically indicates here that that's not the case. Here Peter says that Jesus healed this man ("We didn't" - Acts 3:12) and He did it "by faith in His name". Okay, good, we're all tracking just fine. But whose faith was it? According to Peter it was "the faith that is through Jesus". Peter says that the faith that healed this man came from Christ. Sure, Peter exercised it. (Some suggest that it mentions faith twice because it references Peter's faith and the lame man's faith, but I see no reference whatsoever in the account to the man even being given a chance to believe.) The faith by which the man was made in perfect health was faith through (instead of "in") Jesus.

There are many biblical references that call on us to have faith, to be strong in the faith, and that sort of thing. No doubt. It appears, however, that we would be mistaken if we thought that this faith is something that we originate and we generate and we build. It appears quite clearly to come through Jesus, a faith "assigned" to us, authored by Christ and returned to Him. Perhaps, when we think of faith as something on our part, we give ourselves too much credit.

An Arranged Marriage

I was going to do this in comments, but I think it's important enough to make an entry out of it.

As you can imagine, my recent post affirming the biblical perspective on God and Sex Slaves (where I denied that Scripture favored sex slaves and tried to show that it was marriage that was carried out, not sexual slavery) didn't really receive a lot of warm responses. The posted comments weren't bad, but you didn't get to see the emails I got. They also were outraged by my accusation in the comments that the objections were "a 21st century value overlaid on a BC culture." It is, you see, not acceptable to suggest that anywhere or any time it might have been a good thing that marriages were arranged rather than our "enlightened" version of today -- "for love". The fact that arranged marriages far outweigh marriages of choice in the history of mankind and the fact that our modern marriages for love have not been so successful (We're at ... what ... a 50-60% divorce rate as opposed to less than 10% for arranged marriages?) is not something I should be mentioning. Clearly our modern method is superior and no one should suggest otherwise. But I'd like to point out that it isn't merely a trivial concept. It is, in fact, a key biblical concept.

Up until fairly recent times, the Jewish concept of marriage had very little to do with love. Not that love was not included, but it was not basis (one of the reasons why it was commanded in Eph 5). Here was the normal process¹. Parents arranged marriages, sometimes before birth. The selection was binding, except that generally the bride had the right of refusal. At some point, the bride price was paid. At this point, the two were "betrothed" which was much closer to "married" than our modern version of "engaged". The only way to break this betrothal was an actual divorce (see Matt 1:19). So now the groom-to-be would begin the preparations for a place for the couple to live. When the preparations were complete, he would return with his entourage, often accompanied with a shout and a trumpet, to gather his bride to himself and take her to be with him.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. You see, a commonly understood description of the Church is "the Bride of Christ". Note all the parallels. "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), before you or I was born. We were promised by the Father to His Son before time began (Titus 1:1-3). At the proper time, the Son came and paid the price for His bride. Then, as He told His disciples, "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:2-3). We know that "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God" (John 14:7), just like the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13). And we know that once we are with Him we will enjoy the marriage feast of the Lamb in heaven (Rev 19:6-9). Now does it sound familiar?

You see, we who are in Christ are the subject of an arranged marriage. We were selected by the Father. We were purchased by the Son. We will be joined with Him forever. If the notion of an arranged marriage sounds like slavery to you, then you're in the wrong relationship with Christ. Further, if you recall the reason that Moses didn't make it to the Promised Land, it was because he messed up a picture that God was making of the Rock that was struck once and then spoken to afterwards. The cost of messing up that picture was that he never made it to Canaan. God thinks His pictures are important. If you find it repugnant that a price would be paid for a bride, then you might want to reevaluate whether you want to be part of the Bride of Christ, because that is exactly the marriage God has in mind, and when we mess with that image God has built, we do so at our own peril.

I'd Rather Have Jesus

I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold;
I’d rather be His than have riches untold;
I’d rather have Jesus than houses or lands;
I’d rather be led by His nail-pierced hand

Refrain:
Than to be the king of a vast domain
And be held in sin’s dread sway;
I’d rather have Jesus than anything
This world affords today.

This lovely little song was written back in 1922 by Rhea F. Miller. I've always loved this song. So simple, yet so deep and so rich and so ... true.

Yet, today it begs the question. Is it true? By that I mean is it true for you? Most Christians would nod vigorously, of course, but let me ask this. Imagine a heaven where you get all that you've heard about. There are no more tears, no sadness, no pain, no hunger or thirst. There are streets of gold and glorious light and constant joy. Nothing but peace and harmony. If you had an offer to have all of that without the presence of Christ, would you take it? Or would you rather have Jesus?

The question really hits home, then, because we have Him now. Are we enjoying that reality?

The New Mission Field

Christianity started in the Middle East. It grew out of Judaism and came to fruition with the coming of the Jewish Messiah. From there, according to Scripture, it "turned the world upside down". It spread to Europe and Asia. Eventually it made it to North America. Missionaries were sent to Africa and South America and other remote places to seek out people in need of salvation. And the quest to spread the Gospel continues today.

It seems ironic, then, that the new mission field opening up today would be the Protestant churches of Europe. "Really?" Yes, that's what it looks like.

According to the BBC, the leading Protestant churches in the Netherlands, for instance, are "experimenting with radical new ways of understanding the faith." These new ways do not include a genuine "God" or a historical Jesus. There is no actual Bible to use. Instead, they are "using the Bible in a metaphorical way so I can bring it to my own way of thinking, my own way of doing." They are conforming Christianity to their own image. They are discarding standard Christian doctrines like theism, the divinity of Christ, even truth. Instead, "Here you can believe what you want to think for yourself, what you really feel and believe is true." They believe they are competing in a market of ideas and are "ready virtually to reinvent Christianity." They warn that the Church "has to change to stay Christian." When a leading pastor wrote his book, Believing in a Non-Existent God, there were calls for his dismissal. "However, a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out." In fact, a study indicated that 1 out of 6 Protestant pastors in that country are atheists or agnostics.

Such magnificent Christian churches as the Dutch Reformed Church have come from the Netherlands. Now we see a slide away from Christianity ... by Christianity. Well, to be fair, it's not possible to call it "Christianity" when it excludes either God or Christ. Instead, the arena called "the Church" in places like this become some of the most difficult mission fields on the planet. Inoculated by false teachers and time, it becomes nearly impossible to tell them "You're in danger of eternal death" when they're quite sure they're healthier than they've ever been. But without God and without Jesus, there is nothing about this religion that is "Christian". As such, there is nothing about this "medicine" that is restorative and these people need Christianity. Ironic, then, that the new mission field today is becoming the church.

God and Sex Slaves

One of the ever-so-popular objections that skeptics and critics like to raise is the complaint that the Bible approves of slavery. Now, I've already dealt with that. Remember two key points. First, regulating something is not approving of it. (We see this quite clearly in the parallel of divorce.) Second, slavery in the Bible was not the same thing as the slavery we recognize today. But this doesn't smooth too many ruffled feathers (as if reasoned arguments are what would do so), and when they get hold of the more powerful "ammunition", they think they really have something. What ammunition is that?

If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money (Exo 21:7-11).

Well, there it is in plain language. God has approved of the sex slave trade. Worse, He has approved of selling your daughter into sexual slavery! Talk about morally reprehensible!! What a fiend!!!

Now, remember, we are to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Is there a response that would "make a defense"? Let's see.

The most common defense I see is appalling to me. "That was then; this is now." It's "Old Testament" and we don't do that anymore. The suggestion is that somehow God changed. I'm not sure how. Maybe He figured out it was a bad idea. Maybe He saw the light and came around to a better way. Maybe He didn't really have an opinion back then, but has a more reasonable one now. This approach admits that God ordained the sex slave trade and we're just past it now. No, thanks. I'm not going with that answer.

Others suggest that this isn't real. It is indicative of a time, written about by men, not condoned in any way by God. It is simply the rules they made for themselves. It should not be used to reflect negatively on God. This, of course, eliminates the Bible as "the Word of God" and, as such, a reliable authority for faith and practice in the Christian life. Not going there, either.

Let's try out the text and see what it says. First, for purposes of transparency, I will point out that older translations indicate that she was sold as "a maidservant", but almost all newer translations say "slave". Having given that caveat, it should be abundantly clear that this is not intended to be a command. No father is commanded to sell his daughter. There is no command to do so. Instead, this is clearly an attempt to protect people in this condition. (We'll need to get to what "this condition" is, but let's finish this first.) The buyer can marry her, have his son marry her, allow her to be redeemed, or release her without obligation. He can't use her, sell her, abuse her, or diminish her. These are not bad things. These are protections.

"Yeah, sure," I can hear the critics saying, "but it's still a sex trade!" Why do they say that? Well, it says, "If she please not her master" which is clearly a reference to how good she is in bed. He takes her for a "trial spin" and if he "likes how she performs in bed", he can marry her. There it is, plain as day. Really? What in the text requires such a reading? Indeed, doesn't it violate the rest of the Law that forbids sex outside of marriage? Are we going to go with an irrational God as well as an evil one? I don't think so. So let's look at what else it might be saying.

First, the various translations do differ. Is it "slave" or not? The question is there because "slave" in the Near East in this time was a different concept than today. A "slave" could be someone owned for work or someone hired for work or even someone who was lower on the social ladder (see A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.). These don't really meet our vision of "slavery". Second, that culture operated on a different method of courtship ... as in, not at all. The parents arranged the marriages. Marriages included a price paid for the bride. Indeed, the dowry was called "the bride price". In other words, every father "sold" his daughter. It was a means of insuring her welfare. So there is ample reason to question whether or not this is slavery in the sense that we understand the term, and that is why the various translations differ.

Now, it would appear from the text that the family is in financial crisis and almost all commentators agree. This isn't the normal "bride search" kind of thing. The term applied for this situation is "concubine". Today's "concubine" is a mistress, not a wife, but among the people of those days, a concubine was a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank. It wasn't that they weren't considered married. It simply means that there was a "primary" wife and she was a "secondary" wife. Often, the concubine's offspring weren't considered heirs. So this would appear to be the situation here. The discussion is not regarding a sex slave trade, but protecting a daughter by giving her for the purpose of marriage to someone else for a price. Note that the purpose is clear. It is not a sex slave. No such possibility existed. The one who paid the price could marry her, give her in marriage, allow the debt to be paid by someone else, or release her without obligation. I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! Nothing in there about "Keep her around as a sex slave to abuse as he wishes."

It would appear to me that we're the victims again of a smear campaign without any real basis, lazy attackers intent on diminishing God and His Word. Slavery in those days was not the slavery we know. Further, marriages were arranged. Clearly this text is a protection scheme for people in financial problems who need to collect money. Their daughters are protected, offered as wives, and not as sex slaves. The only way to come to another conclusion is to begin with the premise that the only means by which a woman can please a man (Exo 21:8) is sexually. I would suggest that that is a thoroughly reprehensible perspective. We don't sell ourselves into jobs to pay off debts anymore and we don't think it's reasonable for parents to arrange marriages anymore (at least, most of us don't), but these are the things in view here, not selling into lifelong abuse and ownership. Sorry. That just doesn't work with the times, the text, or the character of God.

Unfair?

Fox News is reporting that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" serial killer, has found Jesus in prison. He says he won't be seeking parole because he has found freedom in the forgiveness of Christ.

I have no idea if the claim is true. I have no idea if Mr. Berkowitz has come to Jesus. And at this point it's not my call. Nor is it my topic. My first thought when I read it was "I hope so." My second thought was "Will people think that's fair?"

Christianity stands (or falls) on this premise: You are saved from your sin and from an eternity apart from God if you place your faith in the blood of Christ who died for you. Fairly simple, but fair? The claim, you see, is that the Son of Sam killer might be going to heaven despite his notorious and horrendous murders, but that really nice atheist down the street who was good to his wife and kids and helped out at the food bank is going to Hell. Regardless of whether or not Berkowitz is among the saved, is the premise fair?

The question seems logical, but I'm sure if you think about it for just a moment you'll find the problem. The comparison between that nice guy down the street and that evil guy in prison is using the standard human measuring tape. "I'm much better than ..." and we'll figure out who the worst possible being is -- Hitler is ever popular -- "so I'm okay." Further -- and this is astounding when you think about it -- we would lay the accusation at the feet of God that He would be unfair if He did not recognize our good deeds.

The skeptic isn't alone in this faulty standard. We Christians balk at the idea. It's only natural. And that's the problem. We don't really get that our righteousness is as filthy rags. We don't really grasp that sin in one point is carries the guilt of all sin. What we fail to see is that "fair" would be damnation for all. We don't really want fair. We don't really want justice. What we really need is mercy. If we could actually see the horror of our sin through the eyes of God, then the silly question, "Is that fair?" wouldn't even come to our minds. The real hard part would be asking, "How is it even remotely possible that anyone gets saved?" And that's the first step of recognizing God's truly amazing grace.

Respect

In a recent conversation with someone, we were discussing the problem of "submit" as meaning "respect" rather than "subordinate". This person suggested that we are all required to submit to one another (each of us to everyone) which obviously couldn't mean that all subordinate themselves to everyone, so "submit" must not mean "subordinate". No, we're all to respect each other. That's the only possible answer. Now, it's possible to pull this out of the air like that because my Bible actually does say, "Let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). "There, see? It is defining the earlier 'submit' as 'respect'." Maybe.

First, I would actually define "submit" in Eph 5:21 by the texts that follow it. Wives submit "as to the Lord". Husbands submit by loving their wives "as Christ loved the Church." Children submit by obeying their parents. Slaves submit by obeying their masters. Masters submit by not threatening or dishonoring their slaves. All submit, but not all in the same way. But, hey, that's just me, right?

Beyond that, I made a simple mistake. I looked up the word "respect" used in Eph 5:33. Yeah ... shouldn't have done that. Why? Because the word used there is not "respect". It is phobeo, the verb form of phobos, our source of "phobia", and meaning the same thing -- fear. It is almost always translated as "fear" or "terror" and almost never as "respect" (or "reverence" in some). So, if we're going to use Eph 5:33 to define "submit", we'll need to do so with some accuracy ... and that would be fear.

But I had to ask myself, "Why do so many translations use 'respect' or 'reverence' here when in almost every other place it is 'fear'?" And then I thought, "Why ask myself? I know an honest-to-goodness Greek scholar. Ask him." This is what he told me:

Protestant translations tend to translate phobos and phobeo as "respect," "revere," or "reverence" because of a general failure to grasp the biblical distinction among the following concepts: "fright," "terror," "fear that," and "fear to." "Fright" or "terror" are appropriate translations of phobos in 1 John 4:17-18. "Fear that" is the kind of fear that subverts and destroys confidence. Anyone who "fears that" he will fall to his death should never go mountain climbing. "Fear that" is the kind of fear that an abused child has toward an abusive father. "Fear to" is proper fear. Anyone who does go mountain climbing had better be governed by "fear to fall," for such fear incites caution, preparedness, and the proper use of climbing gear. "Fear to" is godly fear, "fear to fail," "fear to incur God's anger." "Fear to" is the kind of fear that regulates behavior to be godly, pleasing to God, and to shun sinning that provokes God's displeasure. "Fear to" is the only kind of fear that is compatible with confidence and assurance. In fact, gospel-borne assurance of salvation always entails the godly "fear to fall and to perish."

Hence, when the NT exhorts wives to "fear" their husbands, it is certainly admonishing them to "revere" their husbands, but such "reverence" is generally an inadequate translation, for "reverence" must entail fear, "fear to" incur the husband's displeasure. Such fear is the godly kind of fear that governs a wife's conduct in relation to her husband. Such fear is the kind of fear that we all are to hold within our hearts toward those whom God has placed over us, for to hold such fear is to manifest the proper posture of fear ultimately toward God himself upward through the ranks of authority that God has established. We are to fear those who govern over us, not cowering in fright but fearing to incur their wrath, for God placed them in authority over us for good, not for evil (though many of them choose to do evil toward us). Cf. Romans 13:1-7.

If, then, you want to understand "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" to mean what Eph 5:33 says it means, please, by all means, go right ahead. It means a fear of incurring the husband's wrath, a right fear that governs conduct, demands respect to those in authority, a fear that drives us to obey. Go ahead. Use that one. I'm okay with that.
___________________
Side Note: I wrote this post a day before I read this blog entry. Note just from the summary that "The following context specifies the kind of submission Paul has in mind" ... like I said up there in my second paragraph. The referenced material points out that "one another" cannot mean "everyone to everyone" because texts like Rev 6:4 ("Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another") become impossible. (Seriously, would anyone argue that everyone gets slain?) Imagine if we did that with 1 Cor 11:33, where we are told, "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." That would require that we never eat because we need to wait for everyone. Thus, there are obviously limits to "one another". When Paul told us to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal 6:2), he didn't mean "bear all burdens", but "bear the burdens of those who need help." Thus, "submit one to another" does not require "submit to everyone", but is explained in the texts that follow and does not correspond with an egalitarian reading of the text. But, you'll have to read the thing yourself. I just found it interesting to get such support right after writing this.

Does the Bible teach slavery?

Does the Bible teach slavery? Well, of course it does! Everyone knows that! Silly question! Or ... is it?

There is no doubt whatsoever that the word "slave" in its variety of forms (slave, slavery, bond-servant, servant, etc.) appears in the Bible. There is no doubt, either, that there are many regulations given in the Old Testament about slavery. I wish to point out first and foremost that nowhere does the Bible command slavery. So don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The biblical regulations around slavery limit slavery rather than command and endorse it.

One thing that should be noted right off the top is that biblical slavery was not the same thing that we moderns recognize as slavery. For instance, stealing a person and selling them was punishable by death (Exo 21:16). Further, the regulations in Exodus (ch 21) gave real protections to slaves. If a master knocked a tooth out, the slave was set free. Killing a slave resulted in the death penalty. They could only be kept for seven years unless they chose to remain. (Think about that. If slavery then was the same as the slavery we know, why would anyone want to choose it?) Note that slavery was primarily a means of paying off a debt. However, that debt was considered paid after 7 years regardless of how much was actually owed or paid in the transaction. In Deut 15, these laws are expanded. Not only did they have to release their slaves after 7 years, but they had to release them with goods. "You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him" (Deut 15:14). Slavery of a sort existed, but it was not the same thing that we know today. Did you know that it was a matter of divine command that you were not allowed to return an escaped slave to his master (Deut 23:15-16)? This is not your great, great grandfather's slavery. It was not a matter of kidnapping or force. It was not a matter of ownership or lifelong bondage. Hebrews sold themselves into slavery. Nor was it a matter of cruelty, but, rather, protection.

Another reason we know this to be true is the repeated terminology of the New Testament. James, Peter, Jude, and Paul all referred to themselves happily as bond-servants -- doulos -- slaves of Christ. Further, Paul assured us that we are either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness, and that, obviously, we should prefer the latter. Now, assuming that slavery is the evil that we think it to be, in what possible sense would Paul be pleased to be a bond-servant of Christ? How could that be a good thing? So it must be that our version of slavery is not the same thing as their earlier version.

Does the Bible approve of slavery? The Bible does not forbid it. But is that approval? I don't think so. Paul says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) " (1 Cor 7:21). Apparently "free" is better than "slave".

In spite of all this, we end up with a bottom line question. Slavery isn't good. No matter what we say -- "It was different" "It's not the same as today's slavery" "There were regulations and protections" all that stuff -- what we cannot say is that slavery is good. It begs the question. Why didn't God simply outlaw it? Why didn't He say, "No slaves!" The question, of course, requires a delving into the mind of God to which we aren't privy. However, I think there is a possible parallel that might shed some light. In the book of Deuteronomy God gives instructions on divorce. He doesn't command divorce. He regulates it. In fact, He doesn't regulate divorce, but remarriage. Later we read, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). So, wait, God, if You hate divorce, then why didn't You outlaw it rather than simply regulate it? We get the answer to that from the lips of none other than Jesus Himself. "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Please note, then, that it may be that God does not approve of slavery (as He does not approve of divorce) but did not outlaw it (as He did not outlaw divorce) because of human hard-heartedness. As such, given what we know to be true about the parallel of divorce, it is not safe to say that the Bible approves of slavery just because it is not forbidden. Nothing in the Bible approves of slavery; it regulates it. It assumes it and gives rules for it. That is not "approval" like regulating divorce is not "approval".

One final point I wish to make. There are those who would like to say that the references to slavery were wrong and that the Bible is in error for it. I'm not speaking here about unbelievers. (From their perspective, the Bible is wrong about most everything.) I'm talking here about so-called believers. I need to point out Paul's statement on the topic.

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain (1 Tim 6:1-5).

You can say what you wish about the biblical perspectives on slavery. Just keep in mind that Paul said that slaves were to honor their masters, and that those who held otherwise were teaching doctrines contrary to "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ." That, by definition, is not "Christian".

Does the Bible teach ...?

Maybe I'll do a series here. Maybe an irregular series. I've heard too many of these accusations that the Bible teaches what you and I know to be wrong. Sometimes this stuff can be ignored as too stupid to visit, and sometimes it needs a response. So, does the Bible teach that a rapist is required to marry his victim?

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deut 22:28-29 ESV)

And, of course, there it is in black and white. Or ... is it?

In the text at hand, there is a word used that may suggest, but does not require "rape". The text uses taphas -- to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably. It can merely mean "to overlay" (to lay on) or even "to use unwarrantably" or "to handle". Several commentators seize on "to manipulate" and suggest that the man simply seduces her. Compare this with verse 25:

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. (Deut 22:25 ESV)

Both texts are translated in the ESV as "seize", but this is not the same word. The reference in verse 25 uses chazaq -- to fasten upon; hence to seize, to bind, restrain, conquer. It is a harsher word, indicating seizing by force. Thus, it would appear that what happens in verse 25 is not the same as what happens in verse 28. These are not the same words. They do not carry the same force. Further, if the author intended for them to be the same, he likely would have used the same word. Apparently, then, the intent is different.

Beyond the terminology, however, is the other text. Here is it in full.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her (Deut 22:25-27).

Why is the rapist (for in this case he is clearly that) executed but not the woman? In a previous scenario (adultery) both were executed. Why not in this case? In this case the man attacked and the woman resisted. That's what the text says. Thus, it is reasonable to surmise that in the case of Deut 22:28-29 the woman did not resist, the man did not attack, and this is not the same thing as either adultery or rape. Neither the text nor the context support the accusation that this text requires that a rapist marry his victim.

There is one more reason to think that this is not talking about a rapist marrying his victim. Deuteronomy is intended to be a repeat. The word means "second law" and you'll find that it echoes many sections of the Law from earlier accounts. Thus, this part, Deut 22:28-29, is an echo of an earlier account. As such, they should match. Do they?

If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins (Exo 22:16-17).

First, note that this doesn't even hint at rape. In this case, it is seduction. This is why John Gill says of the Deuteronomy passage that she is "yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deut 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent." Notice also that in the Exodus account the permission to do such a thing (marry) is in the hands of the father. He can deny it. The point, then, is protection of the daughter either by payment or by marriage without divorce.

One other minor point. Some of the older (medieval) commentators do call this rape. "There, see? They disagree with you!" Maybe. But keep in mind that the older, medieval use of the term "rape" made an unbreakable connection between "rape" and "seduction". That is, "rape" in medieval terms was defined as any unlawful sex. Thus, for a medieval commentator to refer to this passage in terms of "rape" is simply to affirm that such sex is unlawful. And one other minor point. There are no records anywhere in Jewish history of any woman who was raped and married her rapist. There are stories of women who were raped but did not marry their rapists, but none that would corroborate that this was the law.

Summarizing, then, text, context, parallel passages, and commentaries all say that this reference is not to rape as we understand it today. It would seem, then, that those who say it is either prove that God is immoral in His commands or that God is not reliable. Oh, wait, that's the same thing, isn't it? So why would someone who claims to trust God make such a claim? That's a question for someone else to answer.

Biblical Worship

If I use the word, "worship" in a phrase like "worship service", you'll likely have some images in your head. There are friendly faces, warm songs, probably a plate being passed. The pastor will give a good sermon and, hopefully, you will be "warmed and fed". You'll feel comforted and bolstered and ready to face the week. That's what likely comes to mind.

One might be tempted, while looking into worship, to look at what it looks like in the Bible. That is, what does God think it looks like? Look, for instance, at the glorious worship service in Isaiah 6. There are "songs" -- the magnificent "Holy, Holy, Holy" of the seraphim. But there's no "congregation" except Isaiah himself, and he's not exactly "heart-warmed". Or how about the sequel in Revelation 4 and 5. Now here we have a congregation. There are creatures and angelic beings and elders; quite a crowd. And it is indeed uplifting. But, you know, it's not what we imagine in our worship services.

The first thing you will notice in every biblical worship service is that the focus, the primary focus, practically the only focus is God. His glory, His character, His holiness, His majesty, it's all about Him. There doesn't seem to be any need for "relevance", entertainment, comfortable seating, even a plate to pass.

Maybe, just maybe, there's something there that we might want to learn. While we're trying to attract the unchurched and compete with the world's entertainment and provide for seekers, maybe what we really ought to be aiming at in our worship service is ... God. Well, at least, you and I can do that, right? Because if there is anything we can surely agree on, it's that He is worthy of praise.

The Mistakes of History

I start this by saying I'm a "Protestant". By that I mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic structure of authority. In their structure, the way you determine what we are to believe and how we are to live is threefold: The Church, the Bible, and Tradition. By "the Church", of course, they mean mostly "papal authority" as well as whatever else the Roman Catholic Church declares to be true. (That is, it's not the individuals of the Church, nor individual reading of Scripture, nor personal tradition. Nor is it culture, society, or "the norm".) I am not one who is in that structure.

Having said that, I do have a deep respect for Church history. When Jesus promised His disciples to send the Holy Spirit, He told them, "He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). I take that very seriously. I believe, then, that the canon was closed by the end of the Apostles' lives (including Paul). It was recognized by the mid 4th century, but it was closed when God's direct Apostles (messengers) finished writing it. "All truth." The part that followed -- some 2000 years now -- has been explanation, clarification, and correction. Given the fact that the Spirit would lead Christ's disciples into all truth, and given the fact that Jesus said, "I will build My church", I believe, then, that orthodox Christianity -- that Christianity which is based on God's true doctrines -- has existed from that time. Thus, if I have orthodox beliefs, I should be able to trace them back to the beginning, or I would be concerned. Therefore, I have a deep respect for Church history because in it I can compare what I believe with what has been believed for the history of the Church and see if I've strayed or if I'm on track.

It is, then, with some amazement that I see so many voices being lifted today declaring something new. Oh, it's not just today, to be sure. The current popular eschatological view of the "pre-Trib Rapture" -- the whole "Dispensational Premillenialism -- didn't make its appearance until the mid 1800's. But it seems like we have a new "crop", so to speak, coming up these days. We're quite sure, for instance, that even though the Church has always held a patriarchal view of authority and family that they were always mistaken and, thanks to modern views, we've finally figured out that such a perspective was wrong. We know today that, even though marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman that today it is simply "a union" which could include any gender (although, apparently, they're not willing to embrace multiple partners or, for that matter, multiple genders, a really new thing). Homosexual behavior has always been seen as a violation of God's law, but today our fine Bible scholars have figured out that it never meant to say such a thing and all those centuries of Bible readers were wrong, wrong, wrong.

It only gets more amazing when you look at matters like the ones I've listed as compared with the matters in which the Church has encountered disagreements. They've fought (sometimes literally) about quite a lot of things. How are we saved? Who is Jesus? What books are in the Bible? What is the nature of the Atonement? What is the proper method of baptism? What is the proper version of the Bible? What do we name our churches? (Seriously, they've actually disagreed on that, too.) Lots and lots of disagreements. So when you find agreement on a topic -- unbroken agreement -- one would think that such a thing should be settled. So, while there have been a variety of eschatological theories and there have been large battles on the divinity of Christ, the Church has always held that wives are to submit to their husbands (to rank themselves under their husbands' authority), that the Bible is patriarchal in its approach to the Church and to family, that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. These have been set without question for 2000 years and beyond. Yet these are the new "mistakes of Church history".

It is absolutely baffling to me how anyone decides that "We've figured it out and they've been wrong all this time!" I've never actually heard anyone say that, but there is no other possible conclusion when they hold up as true that which contradicts the Church convictions of the millennia. No, the Church doesn't get to determine what is true or not. On the other hand, if Jesus is to be trusted and if the Holy Spirit is to be reliable, then it would seem to me that new things would be inconceivable, that new doctrines and interpretations would make no sense at all. The alternative, to me, is to say that Jesus was mistaken and that the Holy Spirit was incapable and that would make it, well, not Christian, wouldn't it?

The Bible Front

In a post last week I talked about the reason for particular items being on the "Christian agenda". Why are we so vocal these days about abortion and homosexual behavior, for instance, when there is such greed and sexual sin and adultery around? I said it was because that's where the fight is taking place. The analogy I used was a breach in the wall. I need to point out another such breach that doesn't currently appear to be getting the battle it deserves.

In a recent Barna Group Poll they reported changes in Christendom since 1991. A repeated theme among the changes was summed up here:

The largest change in beliefs was the ten-point decline in those who firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Only 43% of self-identified Christians now have such a strong belief in the Bible.

That's where we are today. Less than half of those who consider themselves "Christians" do not believe that they have a reliable source book, an accurately documented set of principles by which to live the Christian life. Is there any wonder, then, that those who classify themselves as "Christians" have such diversity of beliefs? Is there any wonder that we can hardly present a common voice in matters like abortion and homosexual behavior or marriage or even the old standby, sex outside of marriage. We have removed our basis for taking a position.

The funny thing (perhaps "funny" is the wrong word) is that this is a relatively new thing. Oh, sure, it is also as old as the earliest sin. Satan began with "Did God say ...?" But for centuries of Christendom, amidst wild and even violent disagreements, there was no question about the veracity of Scripture; just the meaning. The fight only began in the last two hundred years or so with "higher criticism". We've gone from the liberal attacks in the 19th century to the mainstream disavowal of the inerrancy of Scripture. We're reaping the rewards now.

The Reformation based its entire approach on sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible was the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Having torn loose from the moorings of the Roman Catholic Church with its authority-base of Church, Scripture, and Tradition, we're now left with ... nothing. Tradition? Discarded. The Church? Nice to have around, perhaps, but certainly not authoritative. And now Scripture cannot be trusted. We've moved from an inerrant Bible to a Bible that contains the Word of God to a Bible that can't be trusted at all.

Scripture says, "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isa 55:10-11). Scripture says, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Scripture says, " All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Scripture, then, holds a high view of Scripture. When we surrender that high view and succumb to the Enemy's "Did God say ...?", we end up with nowhere to stand. This is a battlefront worthy of our attention.