What if?

Here's what we always hear. "What gives you the right to push your morality on others?" Or, "You're just a homophobic hater!" Or, "Why don't you just love instead of pointing out what you think is sin?" (with an implicit or explicit "You know, like Jesus did?"). The question that you never hear is "What if it's true?"

No one on that side is recognizing that "What gives you the right to push your morality on others?" is exactly aimed at pushing their morality on others. It seems strange to me that the hateful speech of "You're just a homophobic hater!" is never recognized by those protesting what they see as hate. No one protesting those who hold that homosexual behavior is a sin is asking whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin or not. That question is irrelevant, apparently.

I would suggest that the question is central ... and not trivial. Consider the facts. Historically, the entire history of the Church has been to hold this particular behavior as clearly biblical sin. The only point of deviation is the last 50 years. Scripturally, every biblical reference to homosexual behavior is negative, calling it sin or worse (like "abomination"). No biblical reference paints the behavior in any positive light. Worse, Paul's reference links it not to mere sin, but part of a string of assurances of exclusion from the kingdom.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Isn't it odd that no church figures are calling on Christians to embrace thievery, covetousness, or adultery? No one is standing there demanding that we love idolaters like Jesus did. There is no question on those. This one, however, is somehow different.

So, the question. What if it's true? What if the historical Church position is true? What if the biblical position is accurate? What if homosexual behavior really is a violation of God's commands? What if Paul was accurate in describing that behavior as an indication of being outside of the kingdom of God? What then? If it is true, I would think it would be obvious that no one of any character would want to embrace this behavior either in themselves or in those they love. If it is true, I would think that clear warnings would be the kindest thing to do.

I live in the desert. I can imagine a parallel process here in a hike with a friend in the desert. My friend tells me, "I don't believe in snakes." I see that he's about to step on a rattler. What should I do? In today's environment they would necessarily tell me, "What gives you the right to push your views about snakes on others? What are you ... some kind of hiking hater? Why don't you just embrace your friend's desire to walk where he wishes?" I should not consider, "But ... that could kill him."

What if it's true? If it's true that a commitment to homosexual behavior (and sexual immorality and idolatry and adultery and theft and greed ...) are all indications that you are outside the kingdom, I would be remiss -- unkind and uncaring -- in remaining quiet. I would be cruel to fail to call for repentance. I would be hateful to fail to point to the danger.

What if it's true? That's the question no one seems to want to answer. If it is true, then it isn't a matter of foisting morality; it's a matter of deep and caring concern. If it is not, then we have genuine reason to question Scripture, Church history, the abilities of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth, and, consequently, Christianity itself. We really should ask the question.

Burning Babies for Warmth

Did you see this? The headline reads, "Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals". How does that work? Well, they had a bunch of aborted babies (legally) and they were viewed as medical waste (legally) so they told the mothers that they would take "great care over foetal remains" and that they had been cremated and that was that. Of course, there is an outcry.

"This practice is totally unacceptable," said Dr Poulter.

Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop.

"This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services ..."

Well, of course, I'm baffled (once again). The article refers to these fetuses (American spelling, not British) as "aborted babies", but I thought we were all clear that they aren't babies, but simply human tissue with no humanity about them and, thus, not protected ... unless, of course, the mother wants it and then it is endowed with "person" status. This article refers to these women who aborted their babies as "mothers", but "mother" requires "a woman who has a child" and all these women had were fetal tissue, so they can't, at least by virtue of the tissue removed and burned in this case, be called "mothers". And if we're just talking fetal tissue, why shouldn't they incinerate it along with any other human tissue removed in the hospital? If the doctors, for instance, removed a gangrenous leg, would they be required to undergo some special treatment, some "great care over the dead leg remains"? Is there something different about the fetal tissue?

And, of course, I think the answer is abundantly clear. I think that inside we all know that we're not talking about "fetal tissue", but babies. We're not talking about mere tissue masses removed in a medical procedure, but actual humans executed on the mother's orders and carried out by doctors. These are babies; these are mothers. This is outrageous. And not just because the hospitals are burning them.

Ever Feel Bad for God?

Ever feel bad for God? I do. I feel bad for God when He is displayed as something less than He truly is.

Take, for instance, those who call themselves "Christians" and then engage in all kinds of obviously evil behavior. We have had to deal with this for centuries, from the Crusades to the Inquisitions to the Salem witch trials. Now it's the Westboro Baptist types or TV evangelists. Now it's false prophets telling everyone they should be healthy and wealthy or surrender any real Christianity in favor of "the social gospel". Now it's us, every time we sin. We bring dishonor to the Name of our Savior and portray to the world a false picture of God.

There are those who argue that baptism is required for salvation. Dig into this for a few minutes, and you will discover that they are speaking of a specific baptism. It must be "full immersion" and/or it must be "in the Name of Jesus" … or not. It must be by particular people, to particular people, done a particular way with particular words. And I weep for God. For centuries no one practiced "that particular way", and God failed to obtain the salvation of anyone. He tried, but just couldn't get anyone to listen. Sure, they responded to His call, confessed their sin, repented, and placed their faith in Christ, but they didn't know about "that particular way", so they ended up damned, and God failed again. I weep for Him.

There are those who argue that our task is evangelism and they like to use this kind of reasoning to urge you forward: "If you don't reach them for Christ, who will?" And I weep for God. He would like to reach people. He would like to save as many as is humanly possible. But we have severely limited Him by not reaching the people He intends us to reach. He has failed, again.

There are those that bemoan the tragedies of September 11 and the like. Atrocities of evil people as well as "acts of God" are all assigned to someone else. God didn't do it. He doesn't allow evil. He can't even be in the presence of sin. So He wanders about, trying to find someplace where He can be, and wrings His hands over all the evils, both moral and temporal, that befall His beloved world and His beloved children. If only He could do something about it, but, alas, evil reigns and He can only intervene at times to try to pull things out. I feel bad for God.

Now, try suggesting otherwise. Offer, for instance, that God is sovereign. That would mean that Man's "free will" is limited by God's sovereign will. Unacceptable. That would mean that God allowed, even ordained, the events of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, that poor woman's miscarriage, or whatever other tragedy you might imagine. Inconceivable. That would require that those who misrepresent Christianity are not Christians at all, but deceivers – wolves in Christian clothing. Not likely. And that would mean that, regardless of whether you're baptized or I go to the mission field, God is able to save every single person He intends to save. Unthinkable.

Poor God. He'd like to be sovereign, but His creation has managed to take over.

Or should I simply be feeling bad for those who suffer from such an anemic God?

Worthy is the Lamb

Obviously I don't know, but I just have a feeling that we'll be singing this in heaven at some point or another. Maybe not this tune (although I do think it is a suitable tune) but ...

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped (Rev 5:11-14)

In a Strange Land

We live in a strange world. We live in a world that argues "born that way" requires "perfectly good" unless, of course, it's something of which they disapprove. If you're "born as a homosexual", it isn't merely acceptable, it is good, but if you're born with a deformity, it is something to be corrected and if you're born with Down's Syndrome, it's something to be terminated. We live in a world that argues that science ought to rule even though the scientific method is by definition a process of inquiry, measuring, correcting and further inquiry, not certainty. And even when they argue that science ought to rule, they ignore the irrationality of "There is no God because science proves it" or, on the other hand, the science of "A baby in the womb is scientifically a human being" and "There is no scientific proof that people are 'born that way'." We live in a world where people will defend both "It is not immoral to abort a pregnancy" and "It is murder to kill a child in the womb." When we argue, "If you change the definition of marriage to include same-sex, you open the door to include polygamy, polyamory, and more", they cry, "Foul! Slippery slope argument!", even though these are actually showing up in court cases, but they argue, "You can't allow a business owner the free exercise of religion because it might allow them to forbid child health care or inoculations" even though no one has suggested such a thing and it's not a slippery slope argument.

Consider this little tidbit. The ACLU -- the American Civil Liberties Union -- has filed a brief against the civil liberties of Hobby Lobby President Steve Green and associates to require them to provide contraceptives for their employees against their religious beliefs. And the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has also filed against Hobby Lobby because granting them their First Amendment rights is tantamount to an establishment of religion. This is "good thinking" these days. Defend civil liberties by removing them and argue that defending religious freedom establishes a State religion.

It's not only "them". It's us. Just as an example, take the latest "good for our side" movie, God's Not Dead. Christians are raving about it. The Christian Film Database raves, "An overwhelmingly, powerful, thought provoking film. We wish everyone in the world would go see this film." Check your Facebook for the reviews of other Christians who have seen it and loved it. Still, even The Hollywood Reporter notices "it sometimes stacks the deck shamelessly in defense of its credo." So why is it that no one seems to notice that it's a poorly structured set of arguments played against a poorly stereotyped set of opponents? In the movie, the main character is a Christian required to engage in a "contest" with a virulent atheist professor in order to get a passing grade. So he has to prove the existence of God in three lectures and convince the class. The necessary biblical fact that humans are not convinced in favor of God based on argument, but by the Spirit, is ignored and the disappointingly weak arguments are passed off as compelling. The movie argues from the Big Bang and from theistic evolution for the existence of God rather than for any biblical version of God. This character's arguments have been often and skillfully refuted by skeptics while many much more reasonable and sound arguments are available, but Christians are delighted that the film argued for God even if it simply set up a soft pitch to a skeptical world ready to knock it out of the park.

We live in a strange world indeed. We suffer from debased minds (Rom 1:28) and deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9), but we don't seem to notice. We are commanded to love God with all our minds (Matt 22:37) and to avoid being conformed to this world by renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). So this battle for the mind continues and we don't often seem to take this into account because, well, we live in a strange world.

Why It Matters

I know, we Christians talk a lot about homosexual sin and abortion. And Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason does a good job explaining one key aspect of why we talk so much about these things instead of just the Gospel. (It's short; you can spare 3 minutes.) But I recently ran across another reason why it matters.

In reviewing information about the Hobby Lobby case I read this on the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

FFRF notes that its original founders, Anne Nicol Gaylor and Annie Laurie Gaylor, formed FFRF "partly in response to unwarranted governmental and religious intrusion into a woman’s reproductive health decisions."

Do you see that? The original founders of an organization dedicated to promoting nontheism by legal force -- to removing Christianity from the public arena -- formed the organization "in response to unwarranted governmental and religious intrusion into a woman’s reproductive health decisions." Now, I'm sure you can all read that code, right? Because there is the claim that abortion is murder, these women formed an organization to block Christianity from the public.

Now, it is true that the world naturally hates Christ and His followers (John 15:18, 24). It is true that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). But Jesus's message to sinners, along with "Follow Me", was "Go and sin no more" and if we don't get across the dangers of rebellion against the Creator along with the answer to that problem, then we're not doing our jobs right. If all they hear is moralism, we're not doing our jobs right. If we're preaching good works without the necessary repentance that drives them, we're not doing our jobs right. Perhaps we're not giving a good "reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Perhaps we need to check our motives. Is it righteous indignation or love? We aren't going to argue them into the kingdom, but we should avoid pushing them out with legalism. Sin matters because we have the answer to that problem. We need to keep both in mind.

Parachurch Organizations

I'm sure you've all heard by now of World Vision USA's announcement that they're discarding Jesus's teaching on the definition of marriage (Matt 19:4-6) and tossing out Paul's warning that those who engage in homosexual practices have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10) in favor of ... "unity". And I'm pretty sure that you've been able to find plenty of commentary from good people making valid observations on the extent of such a failure. I don't need to add my two cents worth. And the fact that they reversed their decision is good. But I still have something to consider.

The term that catches my eye is connected to World Vision's self-defense that "We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church." We have a popular term for this. It is "parachurch". World Vision (and so many others) is not a church organization. IT is a parachurch organization. Just what is that?

A parachurch organization is a Christian organization (I know of no other religious group that has these organizations) that engages in social welfare and evangelism without restricting itself to a specific religious denomination. The word comes with the prefix, "para", meaning "beside". We see it in "paradox", "paramedic", and even "parallel" and "paragraph". A "paralegal" is someone who is not a lawyer, but works alongside lawyers doing some of their work for them. And there you have the concept. A parachurch organization is not a part of a church, but aims at working alongside churches to assist them in doing some of their work. All well and good. Until you dig a little deeper.

Dig a little deeper and you find that there is no such thing as a "parachurch organization" in the New Testament. You were either in the church or out. You were either responsible to the leadership of the church or you were not. Churches, prescribed by God, were designed for a specific purpose (build saints -- Matt 28:19-20; Eph 4:11-14) with a specific structure (elders and deacons -- 1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-4) which keeps the "train on the tracks" so to speak. There are biblical controls, a biblical authority structure, and biblical checks and balances. "The work of the church" is commissioned and controlled by the biblical church. As the most obvious biblical example I can think of, look at Paul. Sent by God and the church, Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles through Asia and Europe. We all think of him as a "super Christian", but Paul was never out from under the authority of the Apostles. That's the idea. That's the problem.

It would seem to me that the very nature of the "parachurch organization" -- "not restricted to any church" -- would stand in defiance of the biblical model. Independent of church oversight, they make ready targets for Satan to invade and overthrow. Independent of church authority, they are free to call themselves "Christian" while discarding Christianity, giving the world reasons to blaspheme God. Away from the watchful eye of elders and deacons called by God to their task and monitoring each other to do it, they easily fall into a more business-type model, lose sight of their original vision, and toss out the very structures, standards, and underpinnings that caused them to exist at all.

It is true that churches -- individual gatherings of believers -- are often too small to accomplish some very large tasks. Working together is a viable approach, where their efforts are still under the authority of biblical churches. Indeed, Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), not "if you all share the same denomination." Churches working together for common tasks like evangelism and such is a good thing. I would suggest, however, that World Vision's initial defection from the truth of Scripture is good anecdotal evidence that the parachurch organization is a potentially dangerous and unbiblical thing for which Scripture has suitable substitutes. And can it be truly said that a parachurch organization is a parachurch organization if it discards the church and its teachings in order to "stand alongside" the church to accomplish her tasks? Perhaps we might want to revisit the idea of "parachurch".

What to Expect from Noah

Christians like to try to find good movies that can get out a decent message about a biblical theme. We don't find them very often and even more rarely agree that they are "a decent message about a biblical theme." Too often we evaluate before having seen them because, after all, we would like to spare our brothers and sisters a bad movie if we can.

Enter Noah, a new movie coming out shortly that is supposed to give us just such a decent message about a biblical theme. Now, obviously I haven't seen it (because it doesn't come out until the end of this week), but I thought I'd point out a helpful review from someone who has and who doesn't have a Christian axe to grind. That is, the review won't be tainted by your favorite Christian bent. This is a review from a secular source.

Todd McCarthy offers his persepctive on "Darren Aronofsky's Bible-based epic." Now, come on! Doesn't "Bible-based epic" sound good? He points out that the story of Noah is embraced by most of the world's major religions, something that strikes me as interesting in itself. But he also admits that all "will find plenty to fulminate about here." That's a little ominous.

The movie, as expected, has "numerous dramatic fabrications". Well, of course it would. I don't think you can make a biblical movie without them. But the message that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that it is full of "heavy-handed ecological doomsday messages." In fact, his "Bottom Line" review says, "Before Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore, there was Noah." And immediately the "Bible-based epic" begins to slip from any biblical basis.

The story removes God from Genesis 1:1 and replaces Him with "In the beginning there was nothing." Noah doesn't get instructions from God but from hallucinations. And this particular "God" is fallible, realizing He made a mistake in making Man and has to do a "do-over". So God will destroy the world because "It's men who broke the world."

Well, what do you expect? Noah creates a problem between Ham and his father because Ham fears he would never know a woman because in this version only one of the three sons had a wife even though the Bible clearly states "Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark" (Gen 7:13). God is deleted. The theme is not sin, but ecological judgment. It's just the kind of thing you would expect from Hollywood.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm just suggesting that you don't anticipate an opportunity to share the Gospel with friends over this one. If you're interested in entertainment, it's certainly your call whether or not this will entertain you. I'm just suggesting that you don't look for a decent message about a biblical theme here because you just won't likely find it.

Infant Baptism

Yeah, yeah, I know, not too many are reading my stuff that care about the topic of Paedobaptism. But I've seen this argument and I've seen it recently and I'm just not able to keep my mouth shut.

In the debate between whether or not we should baptize infants ("paedobaptism") or just believers ("believer's baptism"), the Infant-Baptism-types will often refer to this Scripture:

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Act 2:38-39).

"Well," they say, "there you have it. The promise is for you and your children. So children should be baptized for the forgiveness of sins."

I'm wondering just how this argument can keep going like this. It seems to me that it requires an intentional avoidance of the clear and present text.

Here, let's look at it carefully. There is certainly a promise "for you and your children". What is that promise? "Forgiveness of your sins and ... the gift of the Holy Spirit." Good! Wonderful promise! We all want that! But note that the promise is conditional. (Everyone agrees on that.) There is something you must do to receive the promise. And that "something" is not "be baptized". No. It is "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ."

So, if we stop and say, "See? Children should be baptized because the promise is for them, too", we must also say, "Children must repent" because that is another key component, is it not? Even in the passage where Peter writes, "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21) he specifies, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism without an appeal to God for a good conscience is nothing more than removal of dirt from the body. Baptism without repentance does not alone qualify for forgiveness or the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, in the final examination, we also must recognize that Peter put another key designator in his sermon in Acts 2. He said that the promise wasn't merely to those who repent or those who are baptized, but to "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." We don't get to decide who that is. We don't get to decide for our children. We don't get to decide for ourselves. It begins with God calling some to Himself and those will repent and be baptized.

It is, after all, what the text says. As such, I have to say I'm in favor of baptizing any infant who repents. Beyond that, I'm not willing to say.

A Roaring Lion

Have you ever seen the TV series, Bones? It is based on books written by an actual forensic anthropologist, Kathy Reichs (who based the main character on herself). The main character, Temperance Brennan, is nicknamed "Bones" because she (and her crew) examines bones to determine what happened to the person. Fine. The show portrays Dr. Brennan as "the smartest person in the world" by her own estimation and, most often, by those around her. Her husband (whom she met, worked with, and eventually married in the course of the show) is an FBI agent and a Catholic, something they bring out often in the series. Why? Because the smartest person in the world, of course, is a "logical atheist". She has examined all the evidence (which is, after all, what she does) and considered all the facts and has concluded that the evidence shows there is no God.

I am often reminded that television is fiction. I have to tell myself when a character does something totally stupid, "He didn't do it because it was real; he did it because the writers wrote it that way." Writers determine what will happen, not reality. Indeed, in most "reality shows", writers determine what is "real". Thus, it is those behind the show, not the characters on the show, who are pulling the strings and making the statements. And the writers of Bones have an axe to grind.

The topic comes up often -- almost weekly. As an example, in a recent episode the religious husband wanted to talk his atheist wife into taking their daughter to church. "Why would we want to expose her to lies like that?" was the gist of Brennan's objection. He was stumped. Because, of course, her sheer logical approach overwhelmed his "warm feelings" toward God. Later, he tried a rational approach. "You know," he said, "studies have shown that there are health benefits to attending church." She parried, "So, are you going to teach her about the evils of the Crusades and the Inquisitions as well?" Ooh, shot down again. Because she was so much smarter than he was. The message was clear. Any intelligent person would know that God is a myth and the history offered by "unbiased" sources on the subject prove it.

What is absolutely essential here is that the viewer does not actually engage the brain. The "smart" character, Brennan, argues often in crime investigations, "We must follow the evidence and not jump to conclusions!", but she never offers any evidence of her conclusion that there is no God. Don't think about that. The facts that 1) the Crusades are horribly misrepresented by most in public discussions, 2) a person or group of people who follow a course of action opposed to biblical Christianity cannot rightly be used as an example of Christianity, and 3) no evidence is offered in support of the anti-theist position will be a problem if you think about it too much.

Now, I'm not offering a review of a TV show. That's not my purpose here. What I'm trying to do is make you aware of a strategy. Note the approach. 1) Diminish the perceived character of the one who holds an opposing viewpoint. 2) Elevate the perceived character of the one who holds the viewpoint you're supporting. 3) Hold up to ridicule (not examination) the point of view that disagrees with yours. 4) Do not at any point actually examine the evidence, logic, facts, or reasoning. You will see this strategy with some regularity. It was, in fact, Satan's original approach in the Garden. We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Don't expect otherwise. And don't get fooled by irrational assaults.

(P.S. See if you can figure out the meaning of the title of this piece.)

Just a Matter of Time

We have in a couple of biblical passages some really sticky promises related to prayer. Take, for instance, the promise "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:14). Let's see ... the conditions: "Ask anything in My name", and the promise: "I will do it." Simple, right? And yet we ask things all the time in His name and we don't see it happening. Or take James's, "Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him" (James 5:14-15). Let's see here. Conditions? "The prayer offered in faith." Oh sure, there's the whole "call for the elders" and "anointing him with oil" and all that. But look at the promise! This "will restore the one who is sick"! Wow! So that seems pretty clear cut. Why don't we see it very often?

We know that "faith" is not the answer. You know, "the prayer answered in faith" is the catch, right? No. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. There can be no doubt that Jesus prayed in faith. But the cup did not pass from Him. It's not a faith problem. I mean, it might be (James 1:6-7), but that's not the final answer, despite the many who would try to make it so. And it is always wise to lay Scripture against Scripture, so we also read, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you" (John 15:7). Abiding in Him, then, is critical, but that just throws in another of those sticky promises, doesn't it? And there is always the very issue that Jesus named in His garden prayer: "not My will, but Yours be done" (Luke 22:42). So everything has to go through the will of God to be accomplished. I mean, it doesn't follow that we can force God into doing things against His will by asking in Jesus's name or calling elders and anointing with oil and asking in faith or abiding in Him, does it? So there's that.

But we're still stuck. Surely there are prayers we ask in Jesus's name, meeting all the criteria, that are obviously the will of God and we don't get them. I know I have. Haven't you? So what can we conclude? Well, there are a few possibilities. The skeptic would offer, "See? God is a liar and, therefore, nonexistent." We'll throw that out at the start. The next obvious response is that we're just not meeting the requirements. We lack faith or we're not abiding in Him or we're not asking according to His will ... even when we're certain of all of these things. That makes the promise of answered prayer pointless, doesn't it? That would mean, "Well, sure, I'll always give you what you ask when you meet these requirements ... but you'll never know when you do. Don't bother trying."

I would like to suggest a third possibility. I notice in none of these promises a time reference. I see, "I will do it" but I don't see when. I see it "will restore the one who is sick", but I don't see when. I see that God promises to answer prayers in many places, but I don't see when. Could it be that God fulfills His promise to answer prayers prayed under the proper conditions when He chooses to and not on our schedule? If, for instance, the prayer offered in faith results in the death of the loved one who was prayed for, are they not then restored to perfect health? I mean, "new body" is about as good as it gets, isn't it? We can pray with absolute certainty "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" because Jesus commanded us to and be absolutely sure that it will happen, even if it doesn't meet our time restrictions.

I believe the promises of answered prayer. I think we often place an unnecessary restriction on God when we not only ask for His will, but demand when He will fulfill it. I mean, after all, isn't "when" also a matter of His will? So if you are sure you've prayed in faith and prayed in His name and prayed for His will and you don't see answers yet, be assured. He will do it. It is a certainty. It's just a matter of time. And, like the hymn says, He "doeth all things well."

What Seems to be the Problem?

This is not news. The president's approval rating is low. The president is doing stupid things. Scandalous things. Things that many wonder how in the world he gets away with. There is no shortage of websites that give lists of Obama scandals. I even did it. So, what seems to be the problem?

If you think that I just missed the point, you would be mistaken. President Obama is not the problem. President Obama is the symptom. Why? Because as bad as he may be, the problem is actually elsewhere. You see, in 2012, after 4 years of President Obama, more than 50% of American voters voted to reelect him. These didn't have the excuse of "We didn't know what he would do." He was doing it. Thus, the popular vote was in favor of the president's policies. What seems to be the problem? Not the president; the people.

We are a republic. A republic is a political system where the people elect representatives. Get that? Representatives. People that ... represent us. We vote into office people we believe will best represent our concerns. That's the way it works. So while we may complain about the president we have, he is not the problem. He is simply a representation of the people who elected him. When a majority of people share his views, the problem is clearly not him. We have met the enemy and he is us.

America is in trouble. We're in economic trouble and moral trouble. We're fighting in places we're not wanted. We're not wanted in most places. We have a shortage of energy, a shortage of justice, a shortage of compassion, a shortage of common sense. "The right man" or "better legislators" or even "a good judiciary" is not going to solve this problem. America needs Christ. Let's be careful about where we lay the blame and be sure to go about our assigned task of making disciples.

The Wrong Love

Here are two well-known pieces of Scripture.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (Gen 3:6).

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life -- is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:15-17).

The first comes from the end of Satan's tempting of Eve in the garden. He had questioned Eve, questioned God, and then contradicted God. "You will not surely die." Instead, he assured her that God was just being mean and if she would only do the only thing God had told her not to do, she'd be much better off. Genesis 3:6 is her response.

Far down the track of time, then, John writes his warning. Don't love the world or the things in the world. Don't do it. Why? Well, first, if you love the world, you don't love the Father. Plain and simple. You can't serve two masters. But John doesn't leave it at that. He explains what "the world" means in this context. The world is a function of human desires. They are the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life -- the desires that focus on "self". Don't love that. If you do, you don't love God. Don't tell God you love Him and not give Him your love.

There is, in these two passages, a parallel. Eve saw that the tree was good for food -- "lust of the flesh" -- and it was a delight to the eyes -- "lust of the eyes" -- and was to be desired to make one wise -- "pride of life". In one swift, single sentence Eve fulfilled every function of the world that John warns against. And I'm pretty sure, given these common and easily encountered concepts, that we can do them ourselves, even with some frequency.

We probably don't need to expand on these three, but I will anyway. "Desires of the flesh" is not merely a reference to sexual immorality; it is a reference to all bodily desires. That would include all the "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). Check out that list¹. We know what "desires of the eyes" is. Our society lives there. It's part of the "body image" problem for women in particular and for men as well. It's the lure of pornography. Adultery occurs first as a desire of the eyes (Matt 5:28). It is "keeping up with the Joneses". It is built on covetousness (Exo 20:17; Luke 12:15; Col 3:5). It is the "never enough" syndrome. And "the pride of life" is easy as well. We all long for applause, for recognition, for attention. We all tend to think more highly of ourselves than we ought (Rom 12:3) even when we think we're thinking too lowly of ourselves. It is ambition in this world for temporal things and power and position and glory. These are not of the Father.

John tells a key problem with engaging in the desires of the world over the love of the Father. (You'd think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? But I think John's reminder is important.) These things -- the desires of the world, the things we are not to love -- are temporary. They are passing away. They are short-lived. What we are exchanging when we feed our sensual desires or our visual appetites or our pride is a short-term pleasure for an eternal one. Why would we do that? How does that make any sense?

It doesn't.

We still do it.

Don't.
________
¹ Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).

Works or Not?

In comments under The Sensual Prophet I told a reader, "'Be godly' is the effect of Election, not the condition." He seemed to think there was a contradiction there.

And then I read this in my Bible readings.

And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. Whoever says "I know Him" but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:3-6).

First, note the explicit teaching. Those who know Christ will obey Christ. Those who claim to know Him but make no effort to emulate Him are liars who do not have the truth and do not know Christ. Yes, yes, I know, sounds judgmental, but I'm just telling you what John said here. So John was saying what I said. Those who belong to Christ ("the Elect") end up being godly; they are not godly in order to belong to Christ. In John's terms, "know Him" precedes "keep His commandments".

Second, notice the problem. Well, apparent problem. Now, we know that we don't earn salvation. We know that we are saved by faith apart from works lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9). We're all really clear on this. There can be no doubt, and any time someone pops his head up and says, "You need to work to be saved", we can easily throw this and other passages at him and shut him up. No room for boasting. Works are not involved. And yet, John says here that works are involved. Now wait! Don't we have a contradiction?

It's not just John. James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Thanks, James. You can sit down now. Not helping. But rest easy. Even Paul follows up his famous "saved through faith not by works" statement with "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Works that God prepared beforehand. Interesting. So we are not saved by works, but we are not saved apart from works.

This seems like a contradiction, but it isn't. This is because the New Testament regards the works of the believer as a result of salvation, not a cause. Works are, in fact, an unavoidable outcome of salvation. So we work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who is at work in us giving us the will and ability to do so (Phil 2:12-13). We have works because we have faith (James 2:22).

We walk a thin line here. We hold that we are saved sola fide -- by faith alone. That is, we are saved apart from works. God doesn't choose us or save us because we merit anything based on our present or foreseen works. We are saved based on the merit of Christ. We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. All believers have God's seed abiding in them (1 John 3:9) and, with that, cannot make a practice of sin. We are "born again" to new life, new creatures whose new nature operates with the Spirit to incline us to obedience rather than revolt. We will continue to lack perfection until we end this life, but we won't like it. And that is how we are saved apart from works but not apart from works. Works don't save, but they do matter. And godliness is indeed something to pursue.

About the Gifts

There has been much debate lately on the topic of spiritual gifts. (Seriously, just Google "strange fire debate" and you'll get an ear full.) One side says the miraculous or "sign gifts" have ceased and the other says, "Uh, uh!" We're all pretty sure that we know what "speaking in tongues" means ... and we're all pretty sure that very few others are sure. Everyone is interested in that whole "healing" thing because, well, it's really cool ... and most of us have never seen it. Lots and lots of disagreement on the topic. So, what do we know? As it turns out, the things we know might end up casting some light on the things of which we aren't sure.

We know that there is more than one gift. That's easy. We have three lists in the Bible (Rom 12:1-9; 1 Cor 12:8-10; Eph 4:11) and they all differ. (Oddly, despite all the lists, no matter where I turn I can certainly find someone who will tell me "I have the gift of gab" and no such gift shows up on any list.) So there are lots of spiritual gifts. (See what I did there? I stopped short of discussing individual ones because that is where we start disagreeing, and I'm just looking for what we know.)

We know that these gifts are given by the Spirit. How? "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7). Pretty clear. And after the 1 Cor 12 list we read, "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11). Pretty obvious, then. But notice a couple other related facts. First, they are given by the Spirit "to each." "I don't know," some have told me, "I don't think I have a gift." No, that's not possible. The Spirit gives to each. And the other end of the sentence is equally important: "for the common good." Now, that's a little unusual, isn't it? I mean, we often think of tongues, for instance, as a "prayer language", some sort of private blessing that just sweetens my walk with Jesus. But this is quite clear. The gifts given by the Spirit are not for private use; they are for the common good. Finally, notice who decides what gift you or I will get. It says, "as He wills." Not as I will. Not your request. Paul encourages us to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts" (1 Cor 14:1), but never forget that spiritual gifts are given by the Spirit's will. (I was once told by one fellow that he could get me the gift of tongues. Kind of puts a hold on that idea, doesn't it?)

One more thing we know. We are commanded to put spiritual gifts to work. "As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace" (1 Peter 4:10). Now, that's clearly in line with Paul's "for the common good", but we seem to almost entirely miss this command. You have a gift; use it.

There is a lot of debate beyond this. What remains? What doesn't? What is real? What isn't? Much discussion and not a whole lot of resolution, even among friends. But there is one more thing of which we can be assured. the whole point is "that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 4:11). Perhaps if we start there and work our way through the explicit, the rest will come a little easier. There are lots of gifts. Everyone has at least one. Gifts are given by the Spirit according to His will. You are commanded to exercise your gift(s) for the benefit of everyone. Now, before we seek to solve the rest of the questions, let's get to work on that, okay?

Others

Have you ever noticed how little "other" plays into our thinking over "self"? It seems as if all of life is aimed at "self" rather than anyone else.

Take sex, for instance. Today we've pretty much dismissed the notion that there is anything wrong with, say, masturbation because no one but "self" is involved and it simply provides personal pleasure. Beyond explicitly personal pleasure, we tend to think of all of sex in terms of personal pleasure. Maybe it's "I'm not in the mood" (self) or maybe it's "You're not satisfying my needs" (self). Even the "enlightened" ones might say, "I get the most pleasure out of sex when you are most satisfied" (which, if you note, begins with "I get the most pleasure" -- self). If you try to suggest anything else here, you're crazy. "Maybe wives should give themselves to their husbands regardless of their personal moods." "Sexist!" "Maybe you ought to consider your wife's feelings and indulge her preferences rather than your own." "Lunatic!" Always, "I should be able to get satisfaction in the bedroom!" Self.

Take marriage, for instance. We meet, pursue, marry, and relate to our spouses primarily with self in mind. "Will she/he make me happy?" "Does he/she have the attributes I most appreciate?" "Is my husband/wife meeting my needs/desires/wishes?" We want to know if they are fulfilling us, meeting our expectations, satisfying us, with almost no thought to the reverse. "Of course I'm a good husband/wife. That's not the question here." Self.

Take work, as an example. What everyone wants is a job that makes them feel satisfied, a job they enjoy, a job that recognizes their talents and skills, a job that is fulfilling. Can you possibly miss the utter "self" in all of that? Does anyone think, "Does my vocation provide for others, give to others, fulfill others, meet others' needs?" Self.

Even church is out there. What the vast majority are looking for is satisfation. "I go to the church I go to because it makes me feel ____" and we'll tell how it makes us feel good or "because they bless me" or even "because they're in line with my views." Has anyone said, "I go to that church because it provides so many opportunities to serve others"? That is not "self" thinking. We typically approach church for what it can give me rather than what I can provide. Self.

In fact, I'm not at all sure there isn't an aspect of life in which this doesn't occur. Even among Christians. Oddly enough, it is precisely the opposite focus of the Bible.

On the question of sexual relations, biblically, sex is reserved for marriage and marriage alone. In that context, Paul says, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another..." (1 Cor 7:3-5). Not self. Biblically, sex is for reasons other than self-gratification. Is masturbation wrong? I'd suggest that if it feeds your self-centered desires for self-serving pleasure, it can't be good or wise, can it?

On the question of marriage, God made woman as a "helpmeet" (Gen 2:18), a suitable helper. Husbands, then, were not commanded to satisfy their self-interests, but to love their wives, give themselves to her, and live with her in an understanding way. Wow! Nothing in any of that about "self". And wives were commanded to submit, to respect, to serve. Again, I'm not seeing "self-fulfillment", "self-satisfaction", or any of the other "self" concepts so popular today.

Church, biblically, isn't about "being fed" or "meeting felt needs". It's about "As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another" (1 Peter 4:10) and "building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12) and "make disciples of all nations" (Matt 28:19). Again, nothing in there about "self".

In general we see quite clearly Paul's command, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2:3-4). Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Make that fit in a "self" context if you can¹.

The sin nature is a self-centered nature. Christians understand that we are supposed to consider ourselves dead to sin (Rom 6:11), but we miss the underlying principle that our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9) and we end up arguing in defense of things premised on self without thinking. Scripture calls us to a different focus. You'll find it in Jesus's two "Great Commandments".

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:37-39).

Move on. Leave your self-interests, self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction, self-pleasure up to a divine Father who can most fully satisfy over any petty things you can do for yourself. Instead, try obedience -- an "other" center. It changes perspective, heart, mind, and your relationships both with God and with others. It's a good thing. God said so.
________
¹ I know someone is going to try to say, "'As yourself'. See? Self. You need to first love yourself." Note that Scripture assumes self-love without effort (Eph 5:29). That is, already possessing self-love, you are to move on to giving that kind of love to others.

The Sensual Prophet

You have to wonder sometimes if people claiming to be Christians bother to read their Bibles. I mean, sure, I don't expect someone who is not a believer to give attention to God's Word, but you'd think people who call themselves by the name of Christ would want to know what God says ... and follow it. Apparently a lot don't.

I can find no other explanation. I read, for instance, of the warning in 2 Peter against "false prophets" who Peter assures us will arise among us with "destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1). "Many," he says, "will follow their ..." What? Will follow their what? Their heresies? Their lead? Their misdirection? No, the text says "... their sensuality" (2 Peter 2:2). Interesting. The premise that feeds their heresies is their sensuality -- their commitment to pleasing the senses.

Peter includes greed in this sensuality (2 Peter 2:3) and promises God's just retribution, but I'm fascinated by Peter's perspective on the driving force of the false prophet (and those who follow). He says they "indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority" (2 Peter 2:10). Isn't that truly a description of so many so-called brothers today? "I'm born this way; I should be allowed to indulge my passions and you ought to celebrate it with me." "You old Christians are too narrow-minded. You need to be more up-to-date, engaging people where they live, meeting 'felt needs', helping them to feel better rather than all that 'doctrine' or 'truth' talk." "I worship God where it feels best, not with some outdated authoritarian religious structure" (you know ... the one we call the Church that was ordained by God).

"These," Peter goes on to say are "like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant" (2 Peter 2:12). Isn't that exactly what so many are doing today? Isn't this, in fact, the rally cry? "They're born that way! How can you say it's wrong?" "Creatures of instinct." And more. "They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime" (2 Peter 2:13). "They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray" (2 Peter 2:14-15). "Insatiable for sin". "Entice unsteady souls". How many can we see like this in our world every day? Peter compares them to Balaam who "loved gain from wrongdoing" (2 Peter 2:15). That is precisely the mindset. "If it feels good, do it." "Speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh" (2 Peter 2:18). And, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved" (2 Peter 2:19). If that doesn't give you a chill both of recognition of so many voices around and of the dangers of such an approach, you might not be paying attention.

Peter promised these would appear. He describes them primarily as driven by sensual passions, living primarily for personal pleasure and personal gain, and encouraging everyone they can to follow suit. You'll find these both in the left-leaning places where they assure us that people "born that way" ought to indulge their passions and farther to the right where popular voices assure us that God wants you to be happy, wealthy, and healthy -- the same voices in different clothing. "These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm" (2 Peter 2:17). They look like they'll slake your thirst -- they'll satisfy -- but they're empty. Rest assured, "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). So what you need to do is to make sure you're in the first category and not the second.

A Matter of Values

An old joke talks about the simple fellow that goes to church and, when he comes home, his wife asks him what the sermon was about. "He talked about sin," he answered. "What about it?" she asks. "He's agin' it," he replies. We all know what the Bible says about hate. "You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart" (Lev 19:17). "Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions" (Prov 10:12). "The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now" (1 John 2:9). Yeah, we get it. God talks about hate; He's agin' it.

And then we read, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). Wait ... wait ... didn't we just determine that God is against hate? So why is Jesus saying this?

Perhaps we can find some enlightenment elsewhere. First, the Bible doesn't only say that God is against hate. It also says that He favors it at times. In Isa 1:14 we read that God hates "your new moon festivals" (etc.). The psalmist hates those who regard vain idols (Psa 31:6), the work of those who fall away (Psa 101:3), and every false way (Psa 119:104) (to name a few). God hates devising evil against your neighbor and perjury (Zech 8:17), divorce (Mal 2:16), and false worship (Amos 5:21). God hates. So apparently there is the proper place in God's economy for hatred.

And then we read another possible input on the subject: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth" (Matt 6:24). See the parallel? There is something a little different going on here than in our modern use of the term. This isn't a term of intense dislike; this is a valuation. It is, in fact, a comparative valuation. In Genesis 29 we read that Jacob "loved also Rachel more than Leah" (Gen 29:30). The Bible calls this "hate" (Gen 29:31). So, you see, this is a comparison of value.

Plugging that concept back into Jesus's words we find, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not value his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life less than he values Me, he cannot be My disciple." We are to value wealth less than God. Jacob placed more value on Rachel than Leah. The Bible calls it hate. Now it starts to make sense.

The question becomes a question of values. The question becomes a question of your values. What do you value more -- God or____? You'll have to fill that in yourself. Your time to yourself. Your spouse. Your personal pleasure. Your family. Your comfort. When you worship today, it is a question of values. The higher you value God, the higher the worship. Simple as that. What do you value most?

The Pursuit of Truth

I doubt if many of you have met Giordano Bruno. You may have heard of him. Bruno is listed as "a martyr of science". This poor man, a Dominican friar, was put to death by the Roman Inquisition in 1600 (which is why I'm pretty sure you haven't met him) for believing in science over religion. Modern commentators see him as a brave martyr for free thought and scientific ideas. Sigh! What a hero!

Of course, what is important in this is that you never actually consider the facts of the case over the interpretation.

As it turns out, Giordano Bruno was not put on trial for his heliocentrism. Instead, the Roman Catholic Church charged him with pantheism (which is strangely not a matter of "free thought" or "modern scientific ideas"), his denial of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and other sundry religious views in violation of Catholic doctrine. Odd. Doesn't look like science had anything to do with it. Like the Flat Earth Myth and the whole Galileo thing, anti-Christians have concocted a false dilemma and demanded satisfaction for something that isn't true. Bruno wasn't executed on a "religion vs science" contest. He was put to death for his religious assault on the Church. So while all the anti-theists are pointing and complaining about Christianity and praising heroes like Cosmos' Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they're missing completely the fact that it's a lie.

So why do opponents of Christianity make up stories about Galileo, Bruno, or the like that aim at ridiculing and insulting God and His Church? Oh, that's easy. "Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22), "for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). It is, therefore, what would be expected. I suppose that's one reason we are told to "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).

Normal?

"Jessa Duggar creates quite a stir with her latest comments," the headline reads. You know Jessa, right? Okay, maybe not. She is one of nine girls and ten boys in the Jim and Michelle Duggar family. These wack jobs think that the Bible provides guidance and insight into marriage and family living and live that way. So of course if a young Christian woman opens her mouth in agreement with Christian values (like keeping chaste until marriage), then it raises a stir.

Of course, that is not what raised a stir in this case. Jessa said that she is the only one of the four twenty-something sisters who is courting (not dating). She assured listeners that they "have a natural physical desire toward men" and thanked God for making them "normal". Oh, yeah. Now you can see it coming. "Normal." As in "not having physical desire toward the opposite sex and having it for the same sex is not normal." Oh, yeah, now that will cause a stir. Even when she said, "We're not telling them that's how they have to live. I think that every family has their principles, their values, the things that they live by ... and there will be some things that we don't agree with." Nope ... not good enough. Take back your "normal" or face the consequences.

Now, maybe you can help me out here. Since "normal" means "conforming to the common type" or "average" and self-identified homosexuals constitute less than 5% of the population, it is unavoidable that statistically a group constituting that small of a percentage of the whole would fall outside the classification of "normal". It's just math. Indeed, doesn't the younger generation love to ask blithely, "Why be normal?" Don't they embrace "not normal" and disdain "one of the crowd"? And, look, it wasn't the heterosexual community that decided to call themselves "straight" and the homosexuals "queer". What is this "stir" all about?

There is, in medicine, a use for the term "normal" -- "free from infection; occurring naturally" -- but I'm pretty sure that Jessa Duggar wasn't using her vast medical background (you know ... the one she doesn't have) when she used the term. Since statistically she is right and since she even said they should live as they please, I can only come to one conclusion. Those who are not in this statistical classification of "normal" and "heterosexual" understand that it's not normal -- that it is indeed queer -- and don't like to be reminded of it. That's all I can conclude. But maybe it's just because I'm normal.