Not Enough

You don't have to be particularly brilliant to recognize that there are troubles in our world. There are Muslim extremists (who, apparently, Muslim moderates and our president don't seem to acknowledge) and terrorists of various stripes. There are economic woes and educational worries. There are political messes and religious confusions. There is crime in the streets from both criminals and those who are supposed to deter them. There is moral decay either recognized by or coming from the church. Either President Bush and the conservatives or President Obama and the liberals are the cause of gross errors that are tearing this country down. Every good thing we have, it seems, is tainted with a problem. The Internet is good, but carries a boatload of threats for invasion of privacy and identity theft. It's nice to have credit cards for emergencies, but these are sinking people in debt and false charges. As one author put it, "Everything has a worm in it."

What is the solution? What I find almost amusing is that anyone would try to offer a single answer to that question. As if, given the magnitude of the problem, "All we need is this to fix it." Not gonna happen.

What solutions are we offered? Well, there is the political solution. Vote for the right guy (or girl, depending on your bent) and all our problems are solved. Okay, maybe not one person. The right party? Yes, we know, the party (whichever one you care to mention) is fractured. So the "right thinkers". But in America, Congress can barely function even with a majority of "right thinkers" (assuming, for the sake of discussion, our most recent election achieved such an anomaly). And the president, whoever he/she may be, can only accomplish so much given the checks and balances of the Executive and Legislative branches. No, I'm afraid even the right president won't get it done.

There is the economic solution. For some that means disassembling the nation's Free Enterprise system to steal from the rich and give to the poor, chopping down the "1%" as if that's the problem. You know, if you just strip off all the wealth in this land and give it to that poor mother of 4 trying to earn a living at McDonalds, everything would be fine. For others it's shoring up Capitalism and defending the very rich, as if that fixes something. For some it was "Occupy Wall Street" without, as it turned out, much in the way of plans or demands, but just being really, really angry about, you know, everything. I don't think we're finding solutions in economics.

There are even those who suggest a solution in giving national rule to the Church. As if that makes sense. Which "Church"? The Catholic Church? The "Liberal Christians"? Oh, I know, how about the Joel Osteens of the world? Surely they can get our "best country now". As sure as I am that the Bible is right and God's principles are correct, I don't actually see a solution to today's problems in giving control to the Church.

There are a growing number of people who are quite sure the answer is in education. A lot of homeschool advocates might suggest that teaching your own kids, getting them out of the public (or private) school system is the answer. Teach them the proper worldview and you've got the solution in your own home. Really? How many kids, trained diligently by loving parents, have discarded their avidly-held Christian worldview when they left home? How many can I count who were acting as careful Christians in their youth only to end up militant atheists in their later years?

Now, mind you, I favor voting for the right people. I am in favor of economic sanity. I even prefer biblical rules as the law of the land over making them up as we go. And I'm certainly in favor of parents bringing up their children in the way they should go. Not a question. But I wish to go on record as saying, "These are not the answer."

All of these solutions address problems, but they address them like a bandaid addresses an infected wound. It covers it, perhaps, maybe even aids in some ways, but doesn't solve the problem. The problem in our world today is the problem the world has always faced: "the creation was subjected to futility" (Rom 8:20). The problem is "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) Until your solution fixes that problem your solution is only a bandaid on a flesh-eating virus. The solution is Christ and Christ alone. We can offer and preach and encourage toward Christ, but none of our political or economic or educational solutions are enough to solve the problem of sin. I would urge you not to forget it and lose sight that we are sent as ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), not lobbyists for a better way. By all means encourage improvements, but understand they aren't solutions. That rests in God's hands alone.

Psalm 69

I've been spending a lot of time in the Psalms lately. I came across this one. Let's look at Psalm 69.

Have you ever felt this way?

Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me. I am weary with my crying out; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God (Psa. 69:1-3).

I think all of us have experienced the sense of being up to our necks in trouble. I also think all of us have experienced the feeling that God isn't listening. This is David's feeling at the time. Read the Psalm; it's interesting.

One of the things that makes it interesting is that David spews venom at his adversaries. It's not likely the kind of prayer you'll find coming from the pulpit during the Sunday prayer time.

Let their own table before them become a snare; and when they are at peace, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually. Pour out Your indignation upon them, and let Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be a desolation; let no one dwell in their tents (Psa. 69:22-25).

Aw, David, where's the love? Where's the compassion? I mean, do you really want to ask God to make it so not one of them lives? Well, David felt that way and he told God about it. It's called an "imprecatory prayer" and you'll almost never find it in "good Christian" circles. It is a cry for God's justice. The problem, of course, is that most of us wouldn't be able to stand in the face of God's justice. That's not why we don't hear it anymore. We don't hear it because it's not nice, and Christians, like God, are supposed to be nice. I, of course, don't believe that, but most people do. I find it fascinating that God decided that this should be kept as inspired Scripture. So while it needs to be used with caution, I would caution others not to rule it out entirely.

David expresses a fascinating concern in the midst of this psalm:

Let not those who hope in You be put to shame through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; let not those who seek You be brought to dishonor through me, O God of Israel (Psa. 69:6).

There are many times (more and more, it seems) that I wish people would think of this before they speak on behalf of God or His people. "Don't let me bring dishonor on those who trust in You, O God." We do it so often. We speak without thinking. We act without thinking. We cut people off on the road and leave them with a Jesus sticker to see as the last reminder of who we are. When we suffer, we suffer too often as if God has failed or cannot be trusted. I don't know about you, but I need to concern myself far more often than I do with this: "Let not those who seek You be brought to dishonor through me, O God."

One of the most interesting parts of this psalm, like so many others like it, is the end. There is moaning and groaning about his condition. There is venom toward his enemies. There is repentance for sin. But no matter what David goes through, here is where he always seems to wind up:

I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the LORD more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs. When the humble see it they will be glad; you who seek God, let your hearts revive. For the LORD hears the needy and does not despise His own people who are prisoners. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and everything that moves in them (Psa. 69:30-34).

No matter what you're feeling, you can express it to God. No matter what you're enduring, you can talk to God about it. No matter what you're suffering, you can bring it to Him. One thing, in the midst of the feelings and sufferings, to remember is this: God will always do what's best. He will always do what's right. He will always be glorified, which cannot be anything but the right and the best. Express yourself to God by all means, but always remember to praise Him. It's a good place to end up.

Just Wonderin'

Anyone who has ever commented on my blog knows that I "screen calls". I moderate who gets to comment and who doesn't. I'd say more than 95% get through. Agree or disagree; I'm not too picky. I delete some because they are advertisements rather than comments. I delete some because they are abusive rather than friendly. I only block one person entirely. But I do moderate comments. If it was an advertisement, I don't say anything, but if it was abusive I'll send them a private email saying, "I'm sorry. I can't post your comment. I can't allow that on my blog. If you'd like to do it without the abuse, you're welcome to comment." With the exception of the ads, I let people know why they aren't making it to "print" so to speak. What's interesting to me is the numbers of these people that keep coming back. Some will continue their invectives (and remain blocked). Others will continue to disagree agreeably. But I've laid out my argument(s) and I've given my reasons and I've offered my Scriptural backing and invariably they'll come back and tell me I'm wrong.

What do you suppose that is all about? I've explained, for instance, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential element of Christianity, a non-negotiable item. I've offered vast quantities of Scripture on the subject. And still I get people trotting through explaining to me repeatedly that no such doctrine exists and I'm foolish for believing it. I can't imagine the aim. "If it doesn't exist, Christianity is finished and the Bible is a lie," I say, and they assure me it doesn't exist. Is that helping me in some way? I go to great lengths to discuss the Sovereignty of God including the importance of the doctrine to me. Still I get people who are eager to assure me that God is not Sovereign. To me, "The Sovereignty of God is the answer to all the most difficult questions of human suffering." They would like me to give up a satisfying answer to human suffering. Is this supposed to be beneficial to me in some way? I've been more than straightforward on my view of marriage, what it is, and especially what it's not (see "same-sex marriage"). I still have people who are pleased to come by and tell me I need to alter my view. I need to eliminate any biblical understanding, any concrete definition, any core purpose, any genuine use for marriage and just ... get along. How is this to my benefit?

I'm wondering what they're thinking. Do they think that if they harass me enough with lies about what I believe and disclaimers about the veracity of Scripture and the absolute certainty that certitude is wrong that I'll wake up--Bing! Light bulb comes on!--and say, "Oh, my yes! I've always been wrong. All of Church history has been wrong. The Bible is wrong. Orthodoxy is wrong. Christianity is wrong. And you're right, my friend. Thanks for clearing away all of that. As well as my hope. And any reason to trust ... God or anyone else." Is that their aim? I would think not, but I can't figure out what it would be. "You need to be more tolerant" makes no sense to me when they work so hard to be intolerant of the beliefs I hold with which they disagree. "You need to stop being a hater" doesn't even work in my head when I can't see that I'm hating.

It's not like it's retaliation. I don't go to their websites or blogs and argue repeatedly that they're wrong and need to straighten up and fly right. If I did, I'd do it with Scripture and logic, but I don't think they want to hear either, at least not from me, so I don't do it. So it's not like they're "returning the favor." I don't favor them with my company.

Why is it, then? I understand the ones who disagree agreeably and we have a pleasant disagreement. There's dialog there. But why is it that antagonists who I've had to keep from commenting due to their abusiveness make it a practice to return (often repeatedly) to argue against things which, if they're right, would make my life miserable? Is there some reasonable reason for this? I'm just wondering.

Submit

I need to preface this by saying that I didn't plan this. I'm reading Ephesians. It just came up. I'm sorry.

It's an evil word. "Submit." No one in American culture wants to hear it. We submit to no one. You know, "Don't tread on me." So ingrained is this independent spirit that when the Bible calls up the word, Christians choke on it.

²¹... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. ²² Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, ²⁶ that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body. ³¹ "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." ³² This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. ³³ However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:21-33).

You probably skimmed that paragraph. You know what it says. Historically, the standard understanding of the passage has been simple. Wives submit to husbands; husbands love wives. No problem; no question. Today, it's "No way." Today they assure me, "It's a product of a patriarchal society and no longer the culture today." I'm not talking skeptics here; I'm talking Christians. I'm talking about Bible-believing Christians. "Yes, I believe the Bible and want to follow everything it says" followed by "but not this one." The standard reason? "It says 'submit to one another.'" So they prefer "mutual submission" by which they mean a 50-50 marriage where both husband and wife submit to each other and each has equal authority and responsibility. Now, finding that in Scripture might be difficult, but that's the position.

Consider, for a moment, the practical possibilities of this position. Does it make sense? The military has a chain of command because they do not want each soldier evaluating the situation and determining what course of action to take. They need a coordinator, a person in charge who will determine that this is the best course of action and you will carry it out without question. Of course, marriage is not the military, but in what world does a two-headed beast make an efficient decision system? "Well," they tell me, "she's better at keeping the books so she does that and I'm better at fixing things around the house so I do that and we work that way." Fine. Until she wants to tell you how to fix the house or you have ideas that differ from hers on keeping the books. If we're talking about two coequal heads, who decides when the two disagree? If we're talking about two genuinely coequal heads, that situation arrives by definition at an impasse. You see, that version of "mutual submission" doesn't make sense. But I'm just talking practicality here. What is really important is what does God's Word say?

Paul doesn't simply say, "Wives submit to your husbands." He explains. He nuances. He fills out the notion. He says they should submit "as to the Lord." He draws a simple parallel. "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Who in their right mind would suggest that this is a "mutual submission" of the kind so often touted? In what sense does the Christ who said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18) submit in some mutual fashion to the church? In the same way that the church submits to Christ, wives, submit to your husbands. That way. And, please note. It says "in everything." Which would exclude ... nothing. Even in keeping the books. Or whatever other fashion you wish to think of it.

Given the unequivocal textual parallel, "as the church submits to Christ", if you're one of those who still stand on some "mutual submission" where husband and wife are coequals in authority, I have to be concerned that you and I are not viewing the same Christ. The Christ I know is not under that sort of "mutual submission" to the church. If He is, it's not the Christ I know.

"But," you tell me, "it says that we should be 'submitting to one another.' What about that?" And I would concur with you. There is a sense of mutual submission clearly presented here. Paul goes on to tell husbands--command husbands--to love their wives. Oh, not simply love them (have warm feelings for them, be nice guys, look out for their comfort ... today's pulpy love), but to love them "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This is no small love, guys. This is sacrificial, even suicidal love. It doesn't matter if she loves you back. It doesn't matter if she is a good or bad wife. It doesn't matter how she treats you. Christ gave Himself up for a Bride that denied she even knew Him. When the chips were down, they were out of there. And He loved her enough to die for her. Do you know what that is? That's submission. Oh, not submission of authority. It's submission of self. Much harder. Much bigger. Much more important than mere authority.

I think it is abundantly clear from both a practical view and from the text that it is not possible to align "we both submit to each other's authority" as the meaning behind this text. I think it cannot be avoided that wives are commanded to submit in everything to the authority of their husbands. And it is equally clear that husbands are required to submit their pride, their selfishness, their self-interest, their own well-being in order to love their wives. And then we circle around to the first thought--"submit". It's not a pleasant thought, at least not to sinful humans. It's not something we like. I doubt the first response is to embrace this notion with joy. But neither is it something we can avoid. If we love Christ (who, by the way, is the point of both of these forms of submission), submitting is something that every Christian wife and every Christian husband must do. And, since it is commanded, I would have to guess it would be a good thing. So, what are you going to do?

Gifted

There is a disagreement in the body of Christ. Hard to believe, isn't it? But, seriously, there are some who say, "The Bible is quite clear that we provide our own faith in Christ" while others say, "The Bible is quite clear that faith is a gift from God." So, which is it?

One of the ever-popular texts that the "faith is a gift" crowd go to is in Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

Did you see it? "...that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ..." What not of yourselves? What is the gift of God? "Well," the faith-as-a-gift crowd like to assure us, it is clearly faith. It could be "grace" or it could be "saved" or it could be "faith", but since "faith" is the last thing listed, clearly this is a sure statement that faith is not of yourselves, but is a gift of God. Next!

Now, in the interest of being up front and open, I need to tell you that I am one of the "faith is a gift" crowd. Having said that, I need to tell you that this argument makes no sense to me. First, the original language isn't clear. The Greek for "that" is neuter but the word for "faith" is feminine. This violates general Greek grammar rules. I mean, it might be so, but the Greek doesn't call for it. Factor in the "it" ("it is the gift of God"), and it turns out that Greek will allow "it" to refer to faith ... or grace ... or saved. Great! No help at all. Personally, I think it refers to all of it: "saved by grace through faith." I mean, we know "saved" is a gift and we know as well by definition that "grace" is a gift. But I don't think that it's a reference to any of the individual terms. I think it refers to the process. That we are saved by grace through faith is a gift. Not the components, the process. So while I wouldn't agree with the "we supply faith" crowd here, neither would I side with the "faith is a gift" folk.

Where would I go to conclude that faith is a gift? Oh, lots of places. We know, for instance, that "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Rom 12:3) I don't think that means "each and every person", but "each of you to whom I'm writing." Regardless, it is allotted. Jesus said quite clearly speaking of belief, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) No grant, no faith. Paul told the Philippians, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Phil 1:29) Belief (and suffering) are granted. (Note, by the way, that repentance is also granted, not mustered. See 2 Tim 2:25.)

"Is that all you got, Stan?" No, not really. Peter writes to "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). In his sermon in Acts 3 Peter said we were saved by faith, "the faith which comes through Him." (Acts 3:16). Hey, I bet this one is one you haven't seen before, even when you were looking at it. Paul said of Abraham, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:3) Did you see it? It says "It was counted to him as righteousness." What was counted (reckoned, imputed, credited) as righteousness? His belief. Belief was credited to him. He didn't supply it; it was imputed. And having it imputed, it was counted as righteousness.

Those are just some of the explicit texts. I'm stuck with them. Rationally, of course, I'm stuck further. If I provide faith, the final component of this "by grace through faith" mix that saves me, how is that not valuable, merited, something to boast about? Others don't provide it. I did. Isn't that something special about me? But, look these kinds of things are speculations. Since I see repeated texts that specify that faith is a gift from God, I have to conclude that faith is a gift from God. I don't necessarily go to the classic "saved by grace through faith" position in Ephesians. I suppose if you want to you can. You won't be alone. But I still have to conclude that anyone who comes to Christ in faith was given that faith with which to come.

And You Thought I Was Being Over-dramatic

This out of California.

...the California Supreme Court voted last week to prohibit state judges from belonging to nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination.

"Yeah, so?" you ask. The story is focuses on Julia Kelety, a Superior Court judge. She has begun disconnecting from her commitments to the Boy Scouts of America because it bans homosexual adults from leadership roles and, thus, is classified as one of the "nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination." Originally California included an exemption for judges taking part in nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts), but the court decided this exception was "anomalous and inconsistent" with the court's decisions to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and strike down Prop 8. Despite hundreds of protests ("The proposal creates an unconstitutional test for public office," one wrote), the California Supreme Court opted to delete that exception to their rule.

Okay, the summary, then. If you want to serve as a judge in California, you are not allowed to be associated with any group that California deems "discriminatory". Currently the sole exception to that ban is religious groups. However, the rationale for this position is "The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and the California Supreme Court struck down Prop 8." Thus, it would be foolish to expect anything but the deletion of that last exception as "anomalous and inconsistent." And, having gone thus far with what I can't see can be avoided to the next step, how long until "Are you now or have you ever been associated with Christianity?" becomes a question you'll have to face to get or keep a job? If being connected to the Boy Scouts of America makes you unreliable, how would being connected to a church or a Christian organization make you less unreliable? Why would a connection to any organization deemed by the State as "discriminatory" not get you banned? How long until your livelihood depends on the generosity of the gay-rights groups?

Pastor Louie Giglio was kept from the President's inauguration for his position on homosexual sin. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, lost his job because of his position on homosexual sin. Kelvin Cochran, Fire Chief of Atlanta, was fired for his position on homosexual sin. Jesus said the world would hate us as it hated Him, and Paul assured us, "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." (Phil 1:29) Am I really reaching here? Or is it the logical next step?

Exposed

A short while ago I wrote a piece entitled They Did It Again about the failure of the world to properly identify the Christian perspective. They'll call it "anti-gay" or "homophobic" or "discriminatory" or "intolerant", and none of that appears to be correct. In the (livelier than usual) comments a new commenter, Richard, said (among other things), "Fact is that we as Christians are called upon to silence heresy and blasphemers within the church and to pay no heed to those outside of it." This, of course, didn't go down well for those accused of heresy or blasphemy and was denied vigorously. So I was simply doing my normal reading and came across this.

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place... (Eph 5:4)

Oh, wait, no, that wasn't it. Oh, here it is.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
(Eph 5:6-12)

The passage starts with Paul's concern about "empty words" that deceive. It's almost jarring that he doesn't merely warn against being deceived, but warns, "because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." These deceptive words don't simply mislead. They produce wrath. That's not minor. So he warns further, "Do not become partners with them." Well, that kind of grates against the popularity of ecumenical folks who want to partner with those who operate on "empty words" that deceive, doesn't it? "Can't we all just get along?" "No," Paul says, "we can't."

Then Paul gives practical marching orders. "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness." Frankly, that's the same suggestion I hear from the advocates of redefining "marriage". "Well, if it bothers you, just don't do it." It appears on its face to say, "Leave them alone and you just be good." But I didn't complete the sentence. "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Oh, now that's not what those operating in, condoning, or encouraging such works would suggest. As it turns out, it appears to be a command to do precisely what Richard's detractor denied. It appears to be a command to expose sin and error where it occurs.

But, then, that would presuppose that the Bible is true and right and those who love God and wish to follow Christ would wish to abide by what the Bible says, wouldn't it?

So, you decide. The voices of the world will tell you, "Let's just live and let live. We'll try to undercut your truth and existence at every opportunity we can and you just be quiet and let us be. How's that?" God's Word warns that listening to deceptive lies produces wrath. The voice of Scripture says, "Let no one deceive you" and "expose them." You pick which side is right.

Thorn in the Flesh

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:7-10)

This is a fairly well-known passage--Paul's "thorn in the flesh". Scholars have suggested multiple possibilities about just what it was. Maybe it was bad eyes (since he needs someone to write his letters for him) or a speech problem (because he mentions his speech isn't so elegant in person). Maybe it's gout or headaches or something like that. He calls it "a messenger of Satan", so maybe it was a person of evil who hounded him. (Does "messenger of Satan" rule out physical maladies? Is there any biblical precedence for disease or disability to be a messenger of Satan?) Frankly, no one knows.

Personally I'm glad he wasn't clear. Because I don't really associate physical difficulties with "messenger of Satan". No, for me the "thorn in the flesh" I fight most is sin. Do you have recurring temptations? Are there one or two things in your life that keep surfacing that you may be able to beat after awhile only to have them return? If you tell me, "No", I'd have to call you a liar because we all have such things. John spoke of three: "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life." (1 John 2:16) James saw the tongue as a real problem (James 3:2-13). If you have those items under control, let me know. I've not met the perfect Christian yet.

I've struggled in the past with this. Why doesn't God help me with my besetting sins? I've brought the things I battle to the feet of Christ and begged for help. "Take them away," I've cried. "Remove them from me." Because, try as I might, they keep coming back, like messengers of Satan, like a thorn in the flesh. Yeah, like that. And when I see that connection, I also have my answer.

Paul said God refused to take it away. He refused. And He explained. "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." That's the answer. Paul concluded, "When I am weak, then I am strong." That's the secret.

I would really like it if my temptations were removed, my trials handled, my sins eliminated. God has a better idea. He wants to keep me dependent on exactly the One on whom I need to be dependent. He wants to constantly remind me I'm not autonomous, not sufficient, not capable on my own. He doesn't want me depending on my own power. He wants me depending on the power of Christ dwelling in me. And if I had no thorn, that wouldn't be likely.

Thank you, Jesus, for the thorns.

Grace

And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you ..." (2 Cor 12:9)

Paul wrote this, a quote from Christ to Paul, in regards to a thorn in the flesh from which he was suffering. I think, however, that the text speaks volumes beyond that context.

We Christians get that we are saved by grace, and that's a good thing. I think, however, that we miss the magnitude of that grace in every other facet of life. Grace for salvation is good. But do we see the grace for everyday living?

Start with "All have sinned." (Rom 3:23) Start with "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) If these are true, what can you expect from God? Not merely nothing--judgment. And yet, when Adam and Eve fell, God did not begin with judgment. They didn't die on the spot. Grace. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Israel found grace in the wilderness (Jer 31:2) and in the midst of their judgment for their sin (Ezra 9:8). You and I find grace daily. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the people you love, the job you have, the health you enjoy, every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father (James 1:17). His grace is enormous. And we have received grace upon grace (John 1:16).

God's grace in salvation is magnificent, marvelous, amazing. But beyond that His daily grace is ... what was it He told Paul? ... "sufficient for you." Let's not be like the normal human who don't honor God or thank Him (Rom 1:21). He deserves unending gratitude for His amazing grace toward us. Rather than take it for granted or, worse, demand it, look for it with joy and receive it with thanksgiving because God's grace is unmerited and bigger than you can imagine.

Best of All Possible Worlds

The Problem of Evil is the complaint about God that if evil exists, He doesn't. You know. If God is all good and all powerful, why doesn't He eliminate evil? Must not be there. Another way this question is put to the believer is this. "Do you think this is the best of all possible worlds?"

It's a tricky question. We all dream of utopia. Stories are written about it. In large and small ways we figure out how things would be better. "If only" is the phrase. And then there's heaven. Surely that is the best of all possible worlds and this is not heaven. So we must conclude that this is not the best possible world. And we knuckle under to the skeptic.

I have to tell you I must disagree. I know. I'm not in the majority. Even among Christians. But I believe that this, indeed, is the best of all possible worlds. How can that be? Well, I believe in a Sovereign God, a God who is absolutely over all things. Logically, since He is also good, I have to assume that this world as it exists is, in His opinion, what He wants it to be. And since His is the only right opinion, I have to conclude that He thinks this is the best of all possible worlds because it's the world He made and allows to continue. He is under no obligation to do so. He must think this is the plan.

I believe that God has just such a plan. He says in Romans 9, for instance, that He is willing to demonstrate His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. That means that God sees a demonstration of His power and wrath as better than not doing so. Solomon wrote, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov 16:4). That requires that God has a purpose for the wicked and it is better than not allowing the wicked. And so it goes.

I'm not saying I don't dream of a better world. I'm not saying that heaven won't be better than this. And I'm certainly not saying that I understand it all. But, considering the stipulation "possible" in "all possible worlds" and considering that God is both Sovereign and Good, I can only conclude that this world, currently, is the best of all possible worlds even if another, better one will follow. But, hey, that's just me. Others are perfectly capable of considering a less-than-Sovereign, not-quite-capable God. I'd hope it wouldn't be Christians who do it.

Judge Not

It has become the best known Bible verse anywhere. "Judge not." Never mind that it's not quite a verse; it's just a piece of one. Never mind that the text does not allow the intent that most people seem to have for it. It's not about not judging, but about not judging others before you judge yourself. Never mind that they've got it all wrong. It's still perhaps the best known and the most loved, even among unbelievers because, after all, you can use it to shut up people who have opinions about sin.

Have you ever thought about what's going on there? When someone says, "Don't judge me!", what are they saying? Well, we can eliminate some possibilities right off the bat. They're not saying, "Thanks so much for the helpful input." They're also not saying, "I agree with you that it's wrong." That's not an admission on the table. They're also not saying, "You're wrong." Oh, they might be suggesting you're wrong for saying anything, but they're not saying that you're wrong about your suggestion that such and such is wrong or right to do. Because, you see, if that was in view, they'd say it. And hopefully tell you why. They don't.

What are they saying, then, when they tell you, "Don't judge me!"? They're saying, "It may be wrong, but I'll do it anyway." Otherwise it would be, "Thanks! I'm wrong and I'll fix it." Or "I'm right and here's why." No, they use "Judge not" as an excuse to continue doing what I suspect they already know is wrong. And I'm quite certain that's not what Jesus meant when He said it.

Walk

Paul writes to the church at Ephesus with some of the most glorious truths. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places," (Eph 1:3) he begins and then launches into a listing of the spiritual blessings with which we are blessed (Eph 1:3-14). He repeatedly reminds us that we are blessed with these blessings for the purpose of glorifying God (Eph 1:6, 12, 14). He prays they would see the glory of Christ (Eph 1:16-23) and contrasts that with the natural human condition (Eph 2:1-3) which only serves to magnify God's love and mercy in saving us (Eph 2:4-10). He explains to the Gentile believers that they were without hope but are now part of the covenant (Eph 2:11-22). He prays that they would "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:19) and almost loses the ability to express God's capability to do more than we ask or think (Eph 3:20-21). And then he says,

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called. (Eph 4:1)

"Walk in a manner worthy of the calling." You see, there is a correlation between right thinking and right living. There is a correlation between "cold hard facts" and "how we live". Paul says, "Look at the manner in which you were called (see the previous 3 chapters) and then walk accordingly."

How does Paul suggest, in light of our calling, that we walk? Well, he first offers a quick summary--"with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph 4:2-3) But, after explaining the function of the Spirit, the unity of the Body of Christ, and the function of the Church (Eph 4:4-16) (The function of the Church, basically, is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up the body of Christ ..." (Eph 4:12).), Paul goes into more detail. He does it by means of contrast. "This is what those who are not saved are; you should be different." So he begins,

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ! (Eph 4:17-20)

What follows after that is the contrast (Eph 4:22-32). "Don't be that; be this." But look at that characterization of the unbeliever. What are the key components to avoid?

1. Walking in the futility of their minds

Note, first and foremost, that the remedy to this is not "be mindless". It is not "stop thinking". Some suggest we should simply follow the leading of the Spirit. Paul says, "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds." (Eph 4:23). (See? That's the contrast to "futility of their minds".) It isn't that we shouldn't use our minds. It is that we need to recognize that Natural Man suffers from brain damage due to sin (Rom 1:21-23, 28). So do you. (All of us come originally from the breed known as "Natural Man".) It is not a command to not use your mind, but to not use it in futility.

Have you ever wondered why they can't see that homosexual behavior is a sin when it's so clear in Scripture? Futility of mind. Have you ever wondered how it is that sexual immorality has become so prevalent in all aspects of our society? Futility of mind. "Why can't they see that abortion is killing a baby?" Futility of mind. Have you ever come across a command--say, "Love your neighbor" or "Make disciples, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you"--that you do not seek to obey? That's futility of mind. We all have it. We all suffer from it. We have the Truth in written form and in Christ within, so avoid futile thinking and renew your mind.

2. Darkened in understanding

With ineffective thinking comes darkened understanding. Paul says, "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14). Thus, "avoid that."

3. Alienated from the life of God (due to ignorance and hardness of heart)

Natural Man lacks spiritual life which can only be supplied by God. His ignorance and hard-heartedness makes it certain. Are you expecting something more from them? More importantly, are you addressing the certain remnants of ignorance and hard-heartedness in your life?

4. Callous

"Callous" means "past feeling", and you might be tempted to question this claim given the prevalence of operating all of life on the basis of feelings. Remember, though, that the point is right thinking, functioning understanding, a connection with God. The unbeliever doesn't care about these things. Do you?

5. Given to sensuality

Not caring about proper thinking or a right relationship with God, what do they care about? Sensuality. Satiating the senses. Paul warns a few verses later that the old man "is corrupt through deceitful desires" (Eph 4:22). Our desires deceive. And we indulge them. Oh, how true it is! Think just for a moment about a clear example. What, to the Muslim mind, is "heaven"? 72 virgins. Really? "Heaven" is defined as sensual satisfaction? Why not, when the bulk of our society lives with the same mindset? Do you? That's the real question. Are you all about appeasing the senses? Are you aware that it's a lie?

6. Greedy to practice impurity

We live in a culture seemingly structured around illustrating this truth. They aren't simply given to sensuality. They aren't simply practicing impurity. They are greedy for it. They work it. They dig for it. They invent it. There are evils occurring today that wouldn't have occurred to earlier times in our society. But we're working hard at it because we are greedy to practice all manner of moral impurity. And again I ask, "Are you?"

Paul gives some helpful positives, a nice list of things to aim for rather than this list that we should avoid. Go there (Eph 4:22-32). Do it. If you are a member of the Body of Christ, pursue those things. Be sure to recognize 1) that Natural Man is faulty and 2) such were you. We need to both move toward and move away from. And don't expect them to be better than God says they are.

What Newsweek Got Right

I'm sure you've seen the kerfuffle over Newsweek's Christmas article, The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin by Kurt Eichenwald. Lots and lots of good responses explaining not only his faulty information, but his poor reasoning. I linked to some and even (if you know where to look) offered a very brief rebuttal myself. But, that's not this. This is about what he got right.

Cafeteria Christians

Right out of the blocks Kurt accuses people of being "cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch." It happens. He's right. I think he overplayed his hand with assuming it is "fundamentalists" who form the core of this group, but I do agree that there are Christians, at least in name, who make it their business to complain about homosexuals while indulging in their own sexual immorality or rally against abortion while killing with hate (Matt 5:21-22). Let's not do that. Find out what God says and follow it. All of it. Even if it violates your personal preferences, your feelings, or your current beliefs.

Know Your Bible

Kurt suggests that no one can read the Bible. "No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you." That's because, in his view, no such thing exists and what we have today is a poor and unreliable copy. Oddly enough, then, he says later, "If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it." And I have to say, "Amen!" If you want to avoid being that cafeteria Christian, you have to know what it says. If you're supposed to be "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:20), you have to know all that is commanded. Look, just from a human, practical viewpoint, if God took the time to express His thoughts to us, it seems like we would desperately wish to read, consume, examine, and understand what He intended to say. Picking up pithy lines from pleasant preachers is not studying God's Word. Good teachers are good--necessary, even--but they are no substitute for knowing God's Word. Eichenwald says we should know our Bibles, and I agree.

Right Belief, Wrong Response

The article in Newsweek made multiple references to bad actions from supposed Christians. Now, to be fair, some of it was misleading and even false, but it is still true that lots of stuff is done in the name of Christ that violates the Word. One of his examples was Christian parents who banish their homosexual child. We know that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) So, if you're going to banish your homosexual son, you'll also need to kick out his sister who is fornicating with her boyfriend and their younger brother who is stealing from kids at school. Right belief--homosexual behavior is a sin--but wrong response--"Kick them out." We do that kind of thing. Christendom experienced wars over doctrine. Some of that doctrine was true; killing over it was the wrong response. Eichenwald was right. It happens. It shouldn't.

Judge Not

Kurt ends with "Jesus said, Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own." As a matter of fact that is exactly what Jesus was condemning in the famous "Judge not" passage (Matt 7:1-5). Not "Don't pass judgment" because He says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5), so taking the speck out of your brother's eye (judging) is a good thing as long as it's preceded with recognition and treatment of your own faults. Of course, Kurt redefines a "hypocrite" to mean "people obsessed with the sins of others", but there is a human tendency to be genuine hypocrites, pointing out sin in someone else while suffering from it ourselves. I remember a well-known Pentecostal preacher who routinely railed against sexual immorality and was arrested for spending time with prostitutes. That's a hypocrite. "You've got a problem with this and need to fix it; I don't." I cannot imagine how many Christians condemn the sexual immorality of homosexual behavior while not dealing well with their own brand of sexual immorality. That's a hypocrite. And Jesus did not have warm words for hypocrites.

Truthfully, most of the article was bunk. False facts, faulty thinking, convoluted logic, lies. But even a stopped watch gets the time right twice a day. And these are some of his points with which I agreed. We cannot afford to pick and choose what we will follow in God's Word. In order to avoid that, we need to know God's Word. Having acquired the truth, we need to be careful to respond correctly. And we really cannot afford to simply be tossing the truth over the wall at "them" before applying it to ourselves. And when you think of it, all of that ties together nicely. Know the Word, follow it all, respond to it correctly, and apply it to yourself. In that, Newsweek got it right. Do you suppose they meant to say that?

Pick and Choose

It is a common accusation. "All you Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible you'll agree with." Or something similar. Sometimes it's more pointed. "You conservative Christians cherry pick what you'll follow." Other times it's more general. "Everyone does it." But it's out there and it's a given. Or is it? As I always like to ask--on either side of a claim--is it true?

I find these days that it gets harder and harder to respond to accusations, whether someone agrees with me or disagrees with me, because it is harder and harder to tell what they mean. What is meant by "pick and choose"? What does that indicate? The dictionary says it means "to choose very carefully from a number of possibilities; to be selective." But that doesn't really help in the case of the accusation. What possibilities and what selection? The first notion I think of is, "You pick out passages in the Bible to agree with and you pick out passages of the Bible to ignore." That is, "There are many possible rules and beliefs, but you only select the ones you like." That's the one we think of, but that may not be it. It may be, "You don't approach the Bible as 'linear', so to speak. You take some of it at face value and some as poetry and some as proverb and some as parable and so on." That would surely be a possible definition for "pick and choose". "You carefully examine a text to determine what kind of text, context, historical surroundings, audience, and all are in view and then read it in that sense." I'm pretty sure, though, that this is not in view in the accusation.

I can't speak for everyone ("Everyone does it."), but I can speak for the vast majority of people I've known. I know of no serious Christian who consciously picks rules or beliefs they like and discards rules or beliefs they dislike to determine their Christianity. I'm sure it happens, but I wouldn't classify those who do it as serious Christians. What I do and what those who I know do is to read the Bible with the notion that it is the Word of God. It is God-breathed, correct at every point, coherent, and true. As such, I expect and look for a continuity of thought and principle, of law and doctrine, of, well, of Christianity. If something appears to contradict something else, I don't marginalize it or set it aside. I try to see where I've missed it and where it makes sense. I correct my thinking, not God's.

If I find an optional theory about a particular text that suggests God was wrong, I discard it. If that's "pick and choose", I'm guilty. If I find two passages that appear to contradict, I come to a conclusion that would align them. If that's "pick and choose", I do it. I try to maintain a coherent worldview and, thus, a coherent biblical understanding, setting aside irrational positions. If that's "pick and choose", I admit it. I read an historical narrative as historical narrative and prophecy as prophecy and poetry as poetry and parable and proverb as parable and proverb and hyperbole as hyperbole. If that's "pick and choose", I pick and choose. But if the accusation is "You pick out passages in the Bible to agree with and you pick out passages of the Bible to ignore," I'm going to have to call you on it. I know of no place where I discard anything. Do I still make sacrifices in the Temple? No, Jesus fulfilled that. Is that "discarding Scripture"? No. His sacrifice is ever before the Father, better than any human version with lamb or bull could ever be. I embrace it. If I don't follow commands given to Abraham (like "sacrifice your son") because they aren't commands given to everyone, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. The command was not to me. If I don't follow instructions given to national Israel such as the death penalty for adulterers or for wayward children, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. The command was not to me. If I make a coherent message from the Bible which would include history and science and doctrine and commands and even time, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. It is simply reading God's Word for God's purposes to come to God's conclusions. If I agree with God's moral code but don't follow ceremonial cleansing rules, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. Commands given to a people warned to "be ye separate" from the world around them that were not given to non-Jews for that purpose don't apply to ... non-Jews (Acts 10:1-16; Acts 15:1-21). That's not "pick and choose". It is coherence.

But, as I said, given the difficulty of understanding the intent of words and phrases these days, I can't say. Maybe all those things I described are "pick and choose" by the definition chosen by the accuser. Maybe the only way to avoid such an accusation is to take a flat view, observe everything in it, and arrive at an incoherent, inconsistent, irrational view. Maybe that is the only acceptable approach. But that would reflect badly on God, wouldn't it? And that would just make me one of them, wouldn't it?

Just a Thought

I'm sure you've all heard about Alex Malarkey, the young boy from and coauthor of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven who has fessed up and told everyone that it was just made up. Tyndale has pulled it. Apparently they never read the stuff that Paul wrote about the man who "was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." (2 Cor 12:4). That should have been a clue.

But, seriously, my first clue would have been, "It's written by who? A couple of people named Malarkey?? That sounds like a lot of malarkey to me." My second clue would have been the constant efforts of Beth Malarkey, Alex's mom, to distance herself from the book and beg for the truth instead.

No, actually, I think my first clue would have been that the Bible says it can't happen (go and come back and tell about it). But Christians shouldn't be so narrow-minded that they let the Bible define reality, right?

The Cosby Controversy

Reports seem to vary widely. In one day I heard "more than 12", "up to 20", and "as many as 30" women have come forward accusing Bill Cosby of sexual harassment or sexual assault. At his shows there are protesters and advocates. Studios and advertisers pull out while friends and family stand firm. Just recently Cosby's lawyer came out with the claim of having proof that Cosby wasn't even at the Playboy mansion when Chloe Goins asserts he drugged her. It seems like the Energizer bunny of allegations.

There are a few things that disturb me about this whole thing.

I am disturbed that there are so many accusations. Sure, the media can't figure out how many, it seems, but the fact that there are from a dozen through 30 possible accusations looks, well, damning. If they're lying, it is a conspiracy of some sort. That looks bad for Mr. Cosby.

I am disturbed because no charges have been brought. I mean, seriously, if 30 claim he sexually assaulted them in some way or another (and we'd have to guess there were more who haven't come forward), why has not one single one filed charges? Back then or now? That tends to make Mr. Cosby's denial more credible.

What disturbs me most, however, is neither whether he is guilty as the first point would suggest or not as the second would seem to say. No, it's that so many loud, angry voices are willing to flush the American justice system down the toilet. In our country, you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Unless, apparently, you're Bill Cosby. Possibly any man accused of rape. Or discrimination. Or if you're a Christian accused of "homophobia". Or ... well, if you look at it for very long it appears as if a large and growing number of Americans are opposed to the American version and would like to institute something different. Trial by media, for instance. That's convenient because then we don't have to worry about pesky difficulties like facts, evidence, reason, or justice.

You see, that one is the most disturbing to me because it has the deepest ramifications.

Far More Abundantly Beyond

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:20-21)

This is a stunning piece. But it's easy to miss just how stunning it is. Take a look.

First, there is the claim that He can do more than we ask or think. Anyone who knows the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Sovereign God will get that He can exceed what we can imagine, but that's not what Paul said. Well, sort of. What he said was that God is able to do "far more abundantly beyond all" that we ask or think. So, what could you possibly ask? He can do that. What could you imagine? Yeah, He can do that, too. But He can so far exceed it that Paul doesn't know how to express it. It's huge. "Far more abundantly beyond all."

But wait! That's just the beginning. Paul says that He can vastly exceed your imagination and then makes a truly amazing claim. It is "according to the power that works within us." We understand that He has power exceeding our comprehension. Did you know that power is at work in you? Do you ever feel too weak to accomplish what you need to accomplish? You have that excessive power in you. Do you ever feel like you can never be what God wants you to be? You have that excessive power in you. Do you feel at times that He asks too much of you? You have that excessive power--His power that exceeds your comprehension--in you.

What's it all about? What's the end game? Why put that power in you and me? For His glory. For His glory in the church and in Christ and in all time.

Stunning, truly stunning.

Serious Question

I normally reserve Saturday posts for something a little less significant. You know, some humor, something less important, Saturday morning lite, that sort of thing. Not as many readers and likely those that are reading aren't as interested in thinking as hard on a Saturday. Well, this one isn't humorous and isn't as light. It's a serious question. I'm doing it on Saturday because 1) I'm not sure that I can get real answers (not for lack of trying, but because I'm not sure any of us have real answers) and 2) I'm not sure that getting real answers to this question will change anything. So, I ask a serious question and I'd like to see if anyone can suggest reasons and that's about it.

I was watching TV for a moment the other day and saw a commercial about a group trying to help veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who return with PTSD and commit suicide. Very sad. In 2013 CNN reported that more than 22 veterans a day were committing suicide. This year the Huffington Post wrote that the rate wasn't likely accurate; it was much higher. Congress is seeking to pass a bill to lower suicide rates among veterans because it's considered an epidemic. Suicides among veterans, they say, are triple the rate of suicides among the civilian population. According to Business Insider, 1892 U.S. veterans took their own lives in 2014 alone. In 2012 more veterans took their own lives than soldiers who were lost in actual combat.

This is tragic, and it made me wonder. What about other veterans? Turns out that Vietnam vets had similar problems. Of course, they have been around longer, giving them more time to accumulate numbers, but their age group is among the highest in suicide rates. Before that? Not so much. Neither World War II nor the Korean Conflict produced anything like this phenomenon among returning veterans. Suicides in both were around a 10-11 per 100,000 rate. Much, much lower than modern soldiers. So there's my question. Why? Why are veterans of recent conflicts more susceptible to suicide than those of earlier wars? What has changed?

I've tried to come up with my own answers. Guesses, really. Is it in the veterans themselves? I think there are differences between the soldier of 1940 and the soldier of 2014 that are significant. The earlier generation was of a different mindset, a different culture, a different society. They came out of a Great Depression era where the country was trying to pull itself out of its collapse and they went to a "We've been attacked" place after Pearl Harbor where they pulled themselves together to defend their friends and families. They were used to having less and sacrificing more. Modern troops are a different breed. We've encouraged self-esteem and a higher sense of self-interest in the modern kids. They have much more and sacrifice (typically) much less. They have a stronger sense of personal entitlement. Even among the American poor they have computers and smartphones and televisions, more than previous generations had. And we've encouraged a "do what feels good" mentality, a "me" generation. You can see it in the proliferation of commercials offering lawsuits for every possible thing that might go wrong. "Don't let a DUI ruin your life," one law firm's ad says without suggesting that "Don't drink and drive" would be a good alternative. This society tends to be less responsible, less "adult". In 2003 CBS did a piece that suggested that "most think adulthood begins at age 26." More are living at home after 18. Fewer are married before 30. It's a different generation than the 40's and 50's.

Maybe it is in the ease of life we enjoy. The first half of the 20th century in America saw some tough times. People who endure tough times in an ongoing way will likely find it easier to manage in other tough times. People who have endured trauma learn to endure trauma. But our current climate is pretty much at ease. Not a whole lot of need for traumatic coping skills. Maybe that's where it lies.

I've heard that the primary reason is what they term "survivor guilt". You know, "Why did I make it when so many around me didn't?" It's a popular answer, but I wonder. I mean, earlier vets had the same problem, but it didn't up their suicide rates. Could it be that they saw a greater purpose in their efforts which gave some sense of meaning to the losses while today's troops have had their sense of purpose, both in war and in life, wrenched from beneath them?

Maybe it's society. In the 1940's we sent our boys to fight off the Germans and the Japanese, the Axis of Evil. They were heroes, defending our shores and fighting oppression. They saved us and they saved the world. Welcome back, boys! We are so proud of you! In the 1950's they went again to stave off oppression. They fought against the evil of Communism that threatened South Korea and, by extension, all of us. Both of these fought heroic wars for high purposes and were well-received by their people. Vietnam was a different story. They returned as "baby killers" fighting to defend a people their society couldn't care less about without the support they needed. And it has been thus since. We had a sense of the Pearl Harbor mentality after 9/11, but it didn't last very long. It wasn't very long before America had once again turned against defending America or even other people (like the Afghans or the Iraqis) if it took any real effort or incurred any real cost. So these men and women risked much and returned with little thanks or support. No, not as bad as the Vietnam vets saw, but not nearly the warm embrace that World War II veterans enjoyed. Maybe it's a problem with society.

Maybe it's elsewhere. Or everywhere. A combination. Other factors. I'm just wondering, because it's sad to see so many suffering so much. Like I said, I don't know if there are actual answers and I don't know if getting the answer would fix anything. I just wonder.

Anti-Gay

You'll hear the term anytime a Christian speaks out about the morality of the behavior. The media almost certainly will refer to them as "anti-gay remarks" or something like it. Oh, sure, you'll hear it when some nutjob like the Westboro Baptist types says, "God hates fags," and we all get that. It is, without a doubt, "anti-gay" because they are opposed to the existence of such a thing. But when applied to your average, everyday Al Mohler or John MacArthur or Atlanta Fire Chief Kevin Cochran who are simply saying, "The Bible says that behavior is a sin," I have to wonder if the accusation is accurate.

So let's take it apart and look. We get "anti". You're opposed to something. "Antifreeze" opposes freezing. Easy. An "anti-terrorism" group would be working to stop terrorism. No problem. So this term, whatever it means, is opposed in some way to the subsequent "gay". So, what is "gay"? Now that all depends. If you asked me as a youth, it was commonly used to refer to being happy, or, perhaps, to cheerful colors. "She was gayly dressed" meant simply she wore bright and cheerful clothes. "Everyone was feeling gay" meant they were all happy. In its original sense, that's what it meant. By the middle of the 17th century, a second use became "an immoral or loose life". In the 1920's, right alongside the "happy" theme, it could be used to refer not only to a promiscuous man, but to one who had sex with other men. It was, apparently, just such men who drove the meaning from "cheerful" to "homosexual". They felt "homosexual" was demeaning, but "gay" sounded less offensive. By 1955 it was their mostly private term for themselves. In my youth it still meant "happy", but that has long since been excised from the word. So, when we say something is "anti-gay" today, what do we mean?

Well, I'm still unclear. You see, "homosexual" once referred to the acts committed by same and, therefore, so did "gay" in that sense. "Homosexual" today is primarily a reference to a state of being. People are offended if you call it a "preference"; it's an "orientation". They're "born that way." It is likened to race. It's a birth condition and you can't do anything about it. Never mind that people routinely move in and out of just such an "orientation". Set aside any evidence that it's flexible, even a choice. And by no means consider the moral question. It is just part of a definition of particular people. Thus, "gay" no longer means "what they do", but "who they are". So, is that in view with the concept of "anti-gay"?

When Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church says "God hates fags", he is "anti-gay" by any definition of the term. He is opposed to their behavior. He is opposed to their existence. But when Louie Giglio, that guy nixed from the Obama inauguration in 2013 because of his "anti-gay sermon" said, "We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change," was that opposition to people or to an act? When the Bible says, "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), is that opposition to people or to an act?

So we come down to the question of the meaning of words again. If, by "anti-gay", you mean "Anyone who makes a moral judgment on people who identify themselves by their sexual attraction to the same gender", I don't believe it's accurate. Sure, there are some, but I think those are the exceptions, not the rule. On the other hand, if the Bible is correct in warning that those who practice homosexual behavior will not inherit the kingdom of God and people warn them about that, can that be classified as "anti"?

If the term "gay" refers to a behavior, then Christians are "anti-gay". That's because the Bible is anti-gay ... in that sense. If the term "gay" refers to a definition of a particular group of people, then Christians aren't--should not be--anti-gay. And warning those people who categorize themselves by that term is not opposition to those people. It is a service. So, tell me again. Just what do you mean by "anti-gay"?

Responding to Newsweek

If you've heard about Newsweek's piece, The Bible So Misunderstood It's a Sin, in which the author assures us there is very little reason to think we have a usable Bible, you will not likely find a more comprehensive response than this one as well as Daniel Wallace's excellent response. You know, just in case you were looking and wondering.

Update
Newsweek has given space for a response from Dr. Michael Brown ... another right-on response. (Apparently they were concerned when they saw me posting something on it, right? Yeah, right.)