Success

The dictionary defines "success" as "The accomplishment of an aim or purpose." I suppose that is what most people consider "success". Very few, however, think about whether or not their "success" is good or bad. Consider, for instance, a bank robber who conceives, plans, and executes a robbery. He gets away with lots of money. Success! Except I think we're all clear that this success is not a good success. As such, it is a failure when aiming at anything good. Key, then, to genuine success -- achieving a good aim or purpose -- is having a good aim or purpose. It's hard to consider, for instance, Hitler as a success for taking most of Europe which was pretty close to achieving his purpose. We want success to represent something good.

Aimee Byrd tells of Gracie, a 49-year-old wife and mother of two, who is part of an "ethical non-monogamy community". Swingers, essentially, although Gracie differentiates between swingers and "ethical non-monogamy" in ways that are meaningless here. Gracie argues that "monogamy is monotony" and "Having sex outside my marriage makes me a fabulous mother." How is that? "Anything that keeps me happy and gives me energy makes me a better mother.” In other words, "It's all about me and my personal pleasure. If my personal desires are satiated, it's good. Anything else is bad." Ah! There, you see? "Ethical". At least, that's what she'd like you to think.

Gracie, then, is defining "successful motherhood" as "whatever makes me happy." That she is foisting off radical sexual sin onto her currently 11-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter is "good". She is a better mother for it. She's so concerned about the welfare of her children that "If my kids asked me to stop being polyamorous I wouldn’t. I could not stop being who I am, I could not stop living the lifestyle that is me."¹ Because the best moms are the ones that are most concerned about their own personal gratification. Success! She calls herself "sex positive." Carl Trueman explains how she's actually "sex negative". I would argue that, while she would consider serial sexual immorality a success, most of us and certainly God (1 Cor 6:9-10) would not.

So what about us? Are we aiming to succeed at things we ought? Danny writes, "If my children get a good education, get a good job, and get and stay married, I will consider myself a failure as a father." Wait ... what? Why? Because he recognizes that this is the world's version of "success". Genuine success is to love Christ.

You see, we have just as much difficulty with "success" as Gracie above. She sees it as personal satiation. We see it as personal satiation, too, except we think our personal satiation is more ... godly somehow. We aren't seeking to satisfy our lusts like she is. Except we often are. More comfort, more money, more power, more pleasure. Not often "more of God". Even churches have difficulty with defining "success". They'll do it in terms of programs and numbers. "If our count goes up, we're succeeding. If it goes down, we're not." And it is "success" if the aim or purpose is to increase numbers, but no one seems to be asking if that is the aim or purpose that God has for the Church.

In the end, I suppose, that's what I'm asking. If success is defined as the accomplishment of an aim or purpose, is your aim or purpose what God wants for you? Or is it what you want? If it is simply to satisfy your own desires, you are defining success in precisely the same way as our "ethical non-monogamist". You might satisfy your desires and call it a success, but God won't be impressed. And isn't that the ultimate goal of anyone who knows Christ? Don't we want to hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matt 25:21)?
________

¹ "‘Sex Outside of Marriage Makes Me a Fabulous Mother’: Woman Has Unusual Reason for Cheating", Independent Journal Review

Husbands, Love Your Wives

It is clear (at least to any reasonable reader) that Scripture holds that the husband is to be the head of the household. The Bible repeatedly says that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6) -- that the hierarchy is Christ -> man -> wife (1 Cor 11:3). It takes a carefully turned blind eye and skillful linguistics to wriggle out of this certainty. And, to be sure, the rise of radical feminism has surely produced many a blind eye and skillful linguist. But the Scriptures are not unclear.

It's not surprising, then, that equally blind and skillful linguists have twisted the other view. The idea, you will likely hear from husbands of this other ilk, is that men are to be the head. By this they mean husbands are to lord it over their wives. They are to insure that their wives submit. They are superior; wives are inferior. Headship is lordship and she has to do what he commands. As it turns out, however, no such thing exists in the pages of my Bible.

You see, if you examine the instruction sets for husbands and wives, you will find that wives are commanded to submit, but husbands are not commanded to lord it over them. What are they instructed to do? "Husbands, love your wives." (Eph 5:25-31; Col 3:19) Oh, and "Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life." (1 Peter 3:7) Now, let's see ... I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! It's not there. Nowhere does it say, "Husbands, be the slave-master over your wives." Nowhere.

In the Ephesians passage where wives are commanded to do what God commands them to do and husbands are commanded to do what God commands them to do, the text is preceded by a general command. We are to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph 5:21) Mutual submission, you see. Not "She submits to him and he doesn't submit to her." This is not a position of lordship. It is submission. Now, it is not symmetrical submission. Some (those blind but skillful linguists) will try to tell you that this is about mutual submission, so husbands and wives are supposed to submit to each other in the same way. This conclusion can only be reached by tossing out the explanation that follows. This mutual submission is not identical; it is gender-oriented. She is supposed to submit to her husband as to the Lord and he is supposed to submit to his wife by loving her as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? He died. So while women are clamoring, "It's not fair! It's too hard!", men should be responding, "Submitting to a husband is harder than dying?" Better yet, neither of us should be complaining.

I implore you, husbands, to love your wives. This isn't lordship. It is submission. It is ever seeking what is best for her. It is leadership by example, not by fiat. This headship is the power to serve. It is divinely appointed and must not violate divine commands. It understands and honors, not overpowers the wife. It cares for her as he cares for himself (Eph 5:28-29). It mimics Christ's love, laying down His life for sinners. You can't really find in any of this some divine support for the overbearing, domineering, tyrannical husband that "wives, submit" brings to so many minds, including too many husbands -- even Christian ones.

Husbands, love your wives. Love them as Christ loved the Church. Lay down your lives for them. Understand them. Honor them. Constantly seek their best. Imitate Christ for them. Oh, and that whole "headship" thing? There is no command for you to insure her submission. Leave that to her to obey. Your task is to love your wives.

A Failure to Communicate - Reprise

I was talking to someone recently who commented that they liked my entry titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on August 27th. We spoke briefly about being held hostage by the use of language and how we have to conform to a moving target. I thought then of this entry. I posted it originally way back in June of 2008 when the question of the redefinition of marriage was raising its ugly head in California. I tried here to illustrate the difficulty of changing what words mean. In this case, the word is "marriage". (Note: I changed the date from the original from "June, 2008" to "June, 2015". I think you can guess why.)

One commenter asked me if words can change their meaning over time. Of course they can. The problem is that communication becomes imperiled when they do if we're not careful. Let me give you a fictional exchange and see if you can understand my dilemma.

I'm at a gathering of some sort ... you know, an ice breaker. A guy comes up to me and we strike up a conversation. He tells me he's married. Okay, here's what I know about this guy. He is connected to a woman who lives in the same house as he does and sleeps in the same bed with him. He is actively involved in advancing the needs of our society by making a permanent home, a stable environment suitable for the rearing of children. He either already has children or will have children barring any unforeseen, unfortunate event that might prevent it because children are the natural and right result of marriage. He will be married to this same woman for the rest of his or her life because marriage is "'til death do us part."

"Oh, no," he tells me, " I meant the more modern term."

Oh, I'm sorry. My mistake. Now what do I know? Well, he is connected to a woman who likely lives in the same house he does and shares his bed. They may or may not have children in mind. Lots of people these days have decided that children can be an unpleasant by-product of marriage. And I can't really say for how long he'll be with this woman because the divorce rate is something over 50% by now.

"No," he corrects me again, "I meant in the June, 2015 sense."

Ooohhh, I'm so sorry. I completely misunderstood. I've got it now. He is a guy who is connected in some sense or another to another person. Children aren't really a consideration in the question. And who knows how long this relationship will last? Essentially, then, I only know that he's a guy. Wait! Maybe I'd better ask about that ...

You see, as the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage has deteriorated, so has its usefulness. As we expand the meaning of a word, we tend to end up making it mean less and less because it has too many meanings to be of any value. When marriage meant a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman that would in all probability include children, there was meaning ... and value. Now? Not so much. And as the word has deflated in meaning, we've lost the ability to properly communicate the original intent. So how is this progress?

I want to point out that there is more than one reason I wrote this then and is one of the reasons I reissued it now. I give, here, three definitions of "marriage". The first is the original. The last is the current. The middle is the one that most people my age grew up with. I want to point out that the middle is wrong -- just as wrong as the last. The secondary difficulty of the change in definition of "marriage" to today's "whatever" is that people -- even Christians who have a Book that gives them God's version of the concept -- don't recognize that the second definition is just as mistaken as the third. Very few -- woefully few -- people today recognize that the first was God's version and has been the version of "marriage" recognized throughout history up until the last half of the 20th century. Is yours the first or somewhere in between?

Prayer and Sovereignty

Scripture is clear. God is sovereign (Psa 24:1; Psa 115:3; Prov 16:4,9; Gen 50:20; 2 Chron 20:16; Isa 55:8-9; Amos 3:6-8; Rom 13:1; Eph 1:11; 1 Tim 6:15; Rom 9:16, etc.). Not sovereign like a human king who makes rules and can't actually make things happen. Absolutely sovereign. "Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps." (Psa 135:6)

It begs the question. So, if God is absolutely sovereign, why do anything? It's called fatalism. If fate (in this case, God) determines all that happens, then all that happens is determined and we don't need to do anything at all. What will be will be. This argument is thrown against the doctrine of Election. "If God chooses whom He will save, then why evangelize? God chooses whether or not you do anything." It is used to demonstrate that, in fact, God is not sovereign because if He is, everything is determined and we do nothing. And to the sincere believer who sees the inescapable conclusion that the Bible definitely teaches this kind of Sovereignty of God, it makes you wonder, "Why pray?" The Bible isn't very helpful on that last question. Jesus said, "Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matt 6:8) Precisely! So ... why pray?

As it turns out, just as there are multiple Scriptures that teach us that God is absolutely sovereign, there are multiple reasons to embrace His sovereignty and to pray (and evangelize and work and ...). Now, first, consider. Prayer consists of many components. There is praise and adoration. Surely the biblical certainty that God is Sovereign does not serve to limit our praise and adoration. So, pray. There is thanksgiving. Again, His Sovereignty should encourage, not defeat thanksgiving. So, pray. There is confession. Nothing about God's Sovereignty would negate our need to confess our sins to God. So, pray. That only leaves one other basic component -- supplication. Prayer is not merely making requests, but it includes it. So already we have a vast amount of praying we can do without even asking the question, "If God is Sovereign, why pray?" Still, down at this last piece, we might still ask, "Why pray?" Here are some good reasons.

Demonstrated

We are, first and foremost, Christians. Oh, we might be some denomination of Christian, but we are, first, followers of Christ. If we are to follow Christ we ought to do what Christ did. And one thing Jesus repeatedly did was He prayed (Luke 11:1; Matt 19:13; Luke 9:28; Luke 5:16; Luke 6:12; John 17:1-26; Matt 26:39-44, etc.). Why pray? If Jesus, the Son of God, prayed, then so ought we to pray.

Commanded

Clear in Scripture is the command to pray. Jesus taught His disciples, "Pray in this way." (Matt 6:9) He gave parables regarding the requirement to pray (Luke 18:1). Paul said, "Pray without ceasing." (1 Thess 5:17) We are told not to be worried, but rather "in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God" (Phil 4:6). (Note: there is a side benefit listed here. By making our requests known to a Sovereign Lord, we are told that "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Phil 4:7) Thus, we are commanded and it is to our own benefit.) We are commanded to pray at all times for all men (1 Tim 2:1). Prayer is a required act of obedience. Why pray? Because God says so.

Invited

Not only are we commanded, we are invited. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." (Matt 7:7) He told His disciples, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14) James says, "You do not have because you do not ask." (James 4:2) and assures us that "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." (James 5:16) Why pray? Because God invites us to.

Participation

God is sovereign -- absolutely -- but God is also a God of means. That is, He uses things to accomplish His purposes. More specifically, He uses people to accomplish His purposes. So He tells us to make disciples (Matt 28:19-20) and preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15), not because He lacks the ability to do it on His own, but because He uses means -- us. Prayer, then, as a matter of command and invitation, offers us an opportunity to participate with God in what He is doing. Thus, He says, "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) Pray in God's will and you can be certain that He will do it. Prayer is part of our participation in His divine work. So, pray.

For God's glory

When Jesus said, "Ask Me anything in My name," He wasn't talking about a magic formula. He was talking about asking under His authority for His glory. We are to "do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Praying is one of those things, and praying is at the outset for the glory of God. We ask; He works. He gets the glory. Definitely, pray.

To know God

Just before the famous "All things work together for good" verse, we read this.

In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:26-27)

Prayer is not merely "what's on my mind". Prayer is an exercise between pray-er and God via the Holy Spirit. It is an intimacy where the Spirit searches our hearts and expresses what we don't even know how to express to God. Prayer is our opportunity to bring our concerns to God, even though He knows them. In this sense it is for our benefit. In order to interface with God -- to know Him and have Him know you -- pray.

Prayer, at its basic level, is not mere communication. It is communion. It is communion with God. His Sovereignty only enhances that. In fact, only a person who rejects Man's Ultimate Self-Determination and embraces God's Absolute Sovereignty can pray safely for the lost because it is only a Sovereign God who can open a sin-dead heart to respond to the things of God (Acts 16:14). We don't know what we really need and we don't know what is really best (Rom 8:26-27), so it is only in a Sovereign God that we can have any real hope of praying for those things. In this sense, prayer is the ultimate expression of the total dependence of sinful human beings on a Sovereign Lord. In so doing, we obey Him and join Him in accomplishing His will, finally bringing Him glory. I think those are good reasons to both embrace a biblical view that God is Absolutely Sovereign and to pray to this Sovereign God.

Labor Day, 2016

Labor Day is celebrated in the U.S. on the first Monday in September. We think of it as a celebration of labor, of the work that has made our nation great. Unfortunately, that isn't entirely accurate.

According to the United States Department of Labor, Labor Day is a creation of the labor movement. That is, Labor Day came about to celebrate not merely the laborers of America, but to celebrate union labor. It was proposed by Mr. McGuire of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and executed in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. It included a parade to exhibit "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations." It would most accurately be called "Labor Union Day".

Of course, very few know that anymore and most people simply view it as a celebration of American workers. That's fine. I think it's a little odd that we celebrate workers by not working, but, hey, this is America and we don't have to make sense, right?

I think that it is a good thing to celebrate labor since it was God's idea. A lot of Christians don't seem to realize this. They think that labor was part of the curse when Adam sinned, but what we read in Scripture is "Cursed is the ground because of you" and "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground" (Gen 3:17, 19). Work was not the curse. Hard work was. If you recall, the first thing God did before He even made Eve was to give Adam work (Gen 2:19-20) and together they were tasked with "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28) No, work was God's idea ... God's good idea (Gen 1:31). So we ought to celebrate labor.

Maybe, while we're lounging around today doing as little as possible, we might remember to thank God for the work He has provided. He thought it was a good idea.

God's Kryptonite

I was talking to one of my fellow church members recently. He's having a tough time. Someone close to him is going through drug problems and not interested in help and ... well, you get the idea.

"Yeah," I told him, "that can be tough."

"Yeah, it is."

"Aren't you glad we know a tougher God?"

"Yeah, but there's always the problem of free will, isn't there?" It wasn't a question. God, you see, is pretty powerful, but He is hamstrung when it comes to Human Free Will. It's His ... kryptonite, so to speak.

At least, that's what I hear from Christians, over and over. God will do what God will do ... as long as we cooperate, as long as we go along, as long as we let Him.

"You really don't mean that, do you?" I asked him.

"What do you mean?"

"Do you actually believe that God's will is limited by Man's will?"

Where would I get such a notion? Where would I get the idea that God can and does override Man's free will when God wants to? Well, from Scripture, of course. We know, for instance, that God claims to have kept Abimelech from sinning (Gen 20:6). Now, if Abimelech was not going to sin (he kept himself from sinning), God would be making a false claim. So clearly, however He did it, God actually kept him from sinning. And that cannot be anything but an interruption of Abimelech's free will. We know that David credited God for bringing Abigail to him to keep him from evil (1 Sam 25:32-34). Well might Abigail protest. "Hey! That was my idea!" But David both agrees that she did it and affirms that God did it. We know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Over and over we read "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (Exo 7:13, 22; Exo 8:15, 19, 32, etc.), but God told Moses "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants" (Exo 10:1), and the rest of the account laid Pharaoh's hard heart at God's feet (Exo 10:20, 27, etc.). In the end, we read, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." (Rom 9:17-18) Proverbs says, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." (Prov 16:9) Over and over Scripture claims that God retains the right and the ability to interrupt Man's free will whenever God chooses to do so.

I write this today because it's Sunday. I write it today because it is a reason to celebrate our Heavenly Father. I write it because God doesn't have any kryptonite. When we face tough times, when we deal with people and their choices, when we pray for hard-hearted loved ones, when we go through these things that all of us go through at some time or another, it is of great comfort, at least to me, to know that there are no lost causes, that God's hands are not tied, that God always wins and God always does what is not merely good, but what is absolutely best. I may not always understand it and it may not always feel good to me at the time, but I can always say, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! To Him be the glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:33, 36)

Up in Arms

Perhaps you haven't heard about Colin Kaepernick. He is the multimillionaire San Francisco 49ers quarterback who refused to stand for the national anthem because he refuses to stand for a country that "allows racial inequality". Some have complained; others agree and applaud. Now, we can examine that for all it's worth. Like, how would a country -- any country -- eliminate all racial inequality? Or what does a richer-than-just-about-anyone fellow know about the downtrodden? Or how does someone whose father was black but was raised by white parents and has become rich in this country have grounds to complain? And what makes him think that it's a "nation" problem rather than a human problem? You might even wonder about the wisdom of a guy making his money off a nation that "allows racial inequality" protesting that self-same nation. But what you can't -- or rather, shouldn't -- do is stand up in outrage because he's sitting down. We are, after all, a nation that honors the people that fight for our freedom. How could we complain about someone who exercises it?

Here's what bothers me. Imagine a quarterback in the NFL who refuses to stand for the national anthem because he refuses to stand for a country that approves murdering babies and destroying marriage. What, do you suppose, would be the response to such a fellow? I suspect you'd see a direct inversion. Those who are now pounding their proverbial pulpits over how this guy needs to respect the flag and the national anthem and all that would be applauding this imaginary quarterback. On the other hand, all those currently praising Kaepernick now would be up in arms against this other fellow who had the audacity to take such a stand. The difference, of course, is that in the case of Kaepernick those who matter -- coaches, the team, the government, etc. -- are letting him be. In the case of this other protester, however, I think you'd see the end of his career and his livelihood. The public would vilify him, the press would haul him up the media hanging tree, and the NFL would quickly see to it that he was made an example of.

It isn't, you see, the fact of the protest in question. It's that lots of people like his protest ... without considering the wisdom or logic of it. On the other hand, a protest in favor of babies and marriage might be wiser and more logical, but it certainly wouldn't have much popular support. Welcome to the inverted world in which we live.

Remember Amalek

We hear a lot about God forgetting our sins. Well, technically, not remembering. Just so you know, that's not the same thing. Still, God doesn't remember¹ our sins, and that's a good thing. It's interesting, then, when we hear God say that we ought to remember something. The thing I'm thinking about right now God told Israel to "remember" and reiterated "You must not forget."

"Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall come about when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget." (Deut 25:17-19)

So this is pretty serious. Remember; don't forget. What? Amalek.

So, who was Amalek? As it turns out, Amalek was family. Remember, Jacob was renamed Israel by God. Jacob's brother was Esau. "Timna was a concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz." (Gen 36:12) Amalek, then, was a cousin of sorts of the Israelites. He was Esau's grandson.

But God said, "Remember what Amalek did to you." What did Amalek do to them? Well, you remember that story of Israel in the desert when they were complaining about not having anything to drink, right (Exo 17:1-7)? They were camped at Rephidim. God told Moses to take them to a rock at Horeb and strike it and, well, you know the rest. Water came out. And the next verse says, "Then Amalek came and fought against Israel at Rephidim." (Exo 17:8) Nice. The battle with Amalek was epic. Moses and two others went up on the hill and as long as Moses held his arms up, Israel prevailed. So Aaron and Hur (no, not Ben) had him sit on a rock and they held his hands up until the sun went down and the battle was won. The chapter ends with this. "The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation." (Exo 17:16) Bad news for Amalek.

It got worse. When the spies looked into Canaan, they reported that it was, essentially, impregnable. One of the reasons was ... you guessed it ... the Amalekites (Num 13:29). Later, when Balaam did his aborted cursing of Israel -- you know, the one where he blessed them instead -- he included a word for Amalek. "Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction." (Num 24:20) Thanks, Balaam, buddy. So, Amalek, for their treachery against family which constituted God's special people, stood forever under God's curse.

Eventually, after Israel was well entrenched in the land, God brought this back up. You may recall. It's one of those "hard things".

Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam 15:2-3)

Eww, yeah, that one. What we've come to think of as genocide. Now, to be fair, it was not genocide. We know this because the text says that Saul killed everyone except the king, Agag (1 Sam 15:7-8), and soon thereafter Samuel finished him off (1 Sam 15:32-33), yet Amalekites appeared multiple times in multiple places thereafter. So it was a particular group of Amalekites Saul was sent to destroy. Still, it seems bloody. So we have to remember what God told them before. "Remember what Amalek did to you. You must not forget." It wasn't out of the blue. It wasn't small. It wasn't trivial.

Later, Amalek raided Ziklag and took everything that David and his men had, including families (1 Sam 30:1). He had to hunt them down and kill them. And around the same time, it was an Amalekite that killed King Saul (2 Sam 1:8-10). Later, in the time of Esther, it was Haman, an Agagite, who sought to kill all the Jews (Est 3:1). Agagite? Yes, an offspring of the king of the Amalekites that Saul failed to kill. It just never seemed to stop.

What's my point? Well, there are several. First, beware the danger of attacking God's people. It did not go well for Amalek. Remember Amalek. Then, when God sent Saul to begin carrying out His judgment, he failed. He failed to remember Amalek, and it did not go well for him. Remember Amalek. But something that jumps out at me over and over in the pages of Scripture is the "return on sin". Over and over again sins committed earlier come back to bite, sometimes generations away. Amalek was the son of a concubine, not a wife. That was not part of God's design. Saul failed to obey, and it was an Amalekite that killed him and an Amalekite that sought to kill the entire nation. Scripture says, "Be sure your sin will find you out." (Num 32:23) It is still true today. We think that we sin in a vacuum, that no one will know, that it won't make a difference. It will. It always does. It may be forgiven, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. Remember Amalek. Remember what God says to remember.
________

¹ "Remember" here means to call to mind. It's not that He doesn't remember them anymore. It's that He doesn't bring them up anymore. God doesn't actually forget them. You couldn't, say, tell Him, "Lord, you remember that sin I confessed the other day. Well, I still feel sorry about it," and have Him go, "Wait ... what sin was that? I don't know what you're talking about" because God always knows everything.

No Rest for the Weary?

You may be new to the controversy, but for a long, long time there has been a dispute. Is the phrase, "No rest for the weary" or is it "No rest for the wicked"? I mean, "the weary" makes sense because ... well ... they're weary, so they don't have rest -- duh! But, as it turns out, the phrase is actually drawn from Scripture (who would have thought?). In Isaiah we read,

But the wicked are like the tossing sea, For it cannot be quiet, And its waters toss up refuse and mud. "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (Isa 57:20-21) (See also Isa 48:22.)

That, my friends, is the primary source. No rest for the wicked. According to God.

But what about the Christian?

If I were to make a reference to "standing on Jordan's shore", you might be well-read enough to know that I'd be referring to dying. Or, should be. The idea comes from the parallel of the children of Israel coming out of the desert and into the Promised Land. To get into Canaan, they had to cross the Jordan. And people like to set the story of the Exodus and the taking of Canaan as an analogy to the Christian life. In fact, this is biblical.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. (1 Cor 10:1-6)

Paul draws the parallel between the crossing of the Red Sea to New Testament baptism. In fact, he's using the whole exodus story. You remember. They sacrificed the Passover lamb, a figure of Christ, then were released from slavery in Egypt, a picture of slavery to sin. They passed through the Red Sea, the image of baptism. They had God-provided food, just like we have the Spirit, and were sustained by water from the rock, a picture of Christ. It's all there. So, the notion goes, Egypt is the world out of which we come, the desert is the Christian life, and when we "cross the Jordan", we "enter into the Promised Land" -- when we die we go to heaven.

It's all nice and neat, but I'm not convinced it's accurate. I see two glaring difficulties. First, if we hold to this idea, then the claim is that the best we get in life is ... a bleak, desert experience. That doesn't sound like what Jesus described (John 10:10). Second, do you remember what it was like for them crossing into the Promised Land? It was war. They had to take the land. They had to fight. They even failed miserably at Ai. How is that a picture of heaven? No, I'm not convinced.

Here's what I think. I go right along with Paul's parallel of Egypt as the world and crossing the Red Sea as coming into Christ. I believe, however, that on this side of the Red Sea we have two types of the Christian life. One is the desert; the other is Canaan. Some Christians live and die in the desert. They're out of Egypt, sure, but they're not happy. They're struggling. They're complaining. They're hungry and thirsty. They trust ... sometimes ... but more often they are just unhappy with this whole Christian experience. "I'd be much happier in Egypt." And when you tell them there can be more, better, far superior, they run. "Oh, no," they say, "there are giants in the land! The problems are too big." On the other hand, there are the Joshua and Caleb types. Having endured too much dry desert, they say (and fairly soon if you're familiar with the story), "If the LORD is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us -- a land which flows with milk and honey. Only do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land, for they will be our prey. Their protection has been removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them." (Num 14:8-9) These Christians (and, if there is a parallel with the actual account, they're in the minority) go forward beyond the desert experience and enter the Promised Land to fight for the Lord. They take strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-6). They go in with the Lord on their side. Oh, they stumble from time to time, sometimes seriously, but theirs is primarily a victorious Christian life. They live out, "If God is for us, who is against us?" (Rom 8:31-39)

"But," some might say, "doesn't the author of Hebrews say otherwise?" In Hebrews 3-4 there is a similar parallel drawn between Christian living and Israel under Moses. Hebrews says, "Let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it." (Heb 4:1) Now, isn't "rest" heaven, not here and now?

This, dear reader, is, in the end, my point. This is what I was getting to. Rest. Here's what the Hebrews passage says. "They were not able to enter because of unbelief." (Heb 3:19) Now, if the "they" refers to the Israel that already passed through the Red Sea ("Christian"), then it isn't total unbelief. They've come to Christ. Genuinely come. So the unbelief here would not be unbelief that keeps them out of heaven. It would be an unbelief that keeps them out of complete success, of victory in Christ, of doing all that they could in the power of the Spirit, of "walking on water". It would be, in the final analysis, rest. Sure, this Promised Land Christian would be in conflicts and battles. Sure, there would even be failures. But on the whole it would be rest because it would be "God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) That would be rest.

Like so many other paradoxes in the Christian life -- joy in suffering, when I'm weak I'm strong, die to live, Jesus Christ as both Man and God, etc. -- we have this apparent contradiction that is not a real contradiction. Work out your salvation for it is God working in you. It is rest in battle, victory in surrender, His life lived out in me. It is rest for the weary and rest for the wicked who have been saved by grace. I would urge us on to that kind of Christian living.

Train Up a Child

I have a friend who has, for nearly a year, been writing a blog giving reasons that you, Christian, should be homeschooling your kids. Now, to be honest, when he started, I thought the idea was ... well, a little bit over the top. A little bit alarmist. It had the "conspiracy theory" scent about it. I mean, after all, I spent time in public school and I didn't come out a heathen. But the more I've read from his blog, the more I've begun to think about the dangers of Christian parents sending their children off to government-run schools.

Mind you, I'm not saying there are no good public schools. I'm certainly not saying that there are no good teachers in public schools. I am absolutely certain that there are honest, reliable, loving, even Christian teachers working in public schools. I'm not saying otherwise. The problem is not that they don't exist. The problem is that the system is rotten at the core ... like the natural human beings that run it. Today's public school systems in America (again, I'm talking about the systems, not individuals or exceptions) are fundamentally religious -- built around the religion of secular humanism. Why, then, would Christians wish to send their kids to pagan temples for their education?

But, look, I am always of the opinion that opinions are fine, but we need to know what God says before making it a principle. You may be of the opinion that sardines are tasty; I am not. No problem. No conflict. But when you suggest that arsenic is tasty and I know it's deadly, we're going to do more than separate on matters of opinion. So, is this educational thing a matter of preference and opinion, or does God actually have something to say about it? I think He does.

There are, obviously, no biblical references to public or government-run schools. Don't look for them. They're not there. There are, however, references to teaching your children. First and foremost, God places the responsibility of teaching your children squarely in the lap of you fathers (Eph 6:4). Not that this is meant that fathers are required to be the home-school teachers of their children, but certainly fathers are to be responsible for the teaching of their children. Note, however, that there is another aspect to this responsibility in the verse I referenced. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4) That is, fundamental to the education fathers are to ensure for their children is an instruction of the Lord. Their education needs to be immersed in Christ, not merely reading, writing, and arithmetic, etc. God commanded the Israelites, "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." (Deut 6:6-7) Yes, they were to teach their children diligently, but what? God's Word. Because, you see, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov 1:7) Education is not supposed to be independent of God. On the other hand, the public schools of America mandate it. So sending your kids to public schools is sending them in direct violation of what God says is right.

Beyond the texts on teaching your kids and knowledge, there are Scriptures that are oriented around how Christians are to live. Here are some examples.

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers. (Psa 1:1)

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (2 Cor 6:14-15)

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)

So, what do we do? We send our kids off to walk in the counsel of the wicked and stand in the way of sinners. We encourage them to be conformed to this world. We yoke them with unbelievers. We immerse them in the philosophy and empty deceit of current tradition driven by the elemental spirits of the world. Now, how is this reasonable, consistent, or obedient?

Educating our kids is our responsibility. It isn't the responsibility of the government, the public school system, or some other teachers. It is not even the responsibility of the church. We might employ tools that include other people, but educating our kids is our responsibility. Fathers, it is, biblically, your responsibility. It is possible to find good teachers, churches, maybe even schools that can assist you in executing your responsibility to "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." But abdicating that responsibility in favor of churches, teachers, and, worst of all, a public school system fundamentally premised as hostile to God is not an act of obedience for any Christian father or any Christian parent. Too many of us are allowing our kids to be taught, both at school and at church, things contrary to the truth and even hostile to God. Then we wonder what happened when our kids go astray. Wonder no more. It can often be traced to our sin of neglecting God's commands in raising our kids. We ought, then, to follow Christ's command, "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11)

Respect

This is one of my occasional "question" entries. Everyone knows that I don't have all the answers, and I do these from time to time to demonstrate it. I want to ask about respect.

The most common New Testament word translated "respect" is ἐντρέπω. But you knew that. Oh, not helpful? Okay, here, a transliteration -- entrepō. Still not helping? Fine. I have a dictionary. I can tell you what it says. The word can means to either shame or respect someone. If stated in the negative, it is to shame someone. In the positive, it is to respect or reverence someone. There is another word, but that one is using "respect" as in "with respect to", meaning "in such a way". These are fine. I get them. There is one, however, that eludes me.

The reference is in Ephesians. Here's the verse.

Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:33)

Okay, the content appears clear enough. Looking through various translations, we find that they're pretty much in agreement. It might be "respect" or it might be "reverence". One says, "shows deference to". Fine. But ... this translation of this word appears only here. The word appears all over the New Testament, but it is only translated "respect" here. What else is it used for?

The word is φοβέω -- phobeō. Recognize it? It is the word from which we get our "phobias". This word occurs 93 times in the New Testament and is almost universally translated "fear", "afraid", even "exceeding fear", but never "respect" ... except this one instance. Oh, wait, it does appear one other place in a slightly different form. That is φόβος -- phobos. And where is this other exception?

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. (1 Peter 3:1-2)

There it is again in precisely the same context, the attitude a wife should have toward her husband. In fact, the King James actually translates this one "fear". Strange.

So, we have the standard definition of "respect" which is basically "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements." We get that. Admiration. Okay. And that's the basic notion we think of when we think of respect and is a common idea in biblical terms. Fine. So when we hear, "You don't give respect; it has to be earned", that makes sense. I mean, you can't simply drum up admiration, right? But then there is this other one. It is not the same concept. It is a different word, a different sense, even a disturbing sense.

What sense? What is this version of respect commanded by God for wives toward their husbands? It is beyond admiration. It is something more. It is the same term applied to how we are to view God (e.g., Rom 3:18; 2 Cor 5:11; 2 Peter 2:17). What is this? It is not our normal "respect". What is it? It looks like wives are commanded to have a similar fear toward their husbands that we are all commanded to have toward God. What does that look like?

Change or Die

The University of Vermont Women's Basketball team has cancelled their contest with North Carolina. Why? Well, because of HB2. What's that, you say? Of course, it's the North Carolina law that requires people to use the public restroom of the sex on their birth certificates. And that does not engender feeling "safe, respected, and valued." Never mind that it does not affect the "LGB" of LGBT despite all the popular hype to the contrary. Never mind that North Carolina allows so-called transgenders to change their birth certificate to match their "new gender". Never mind that it will have zero affect on the Vermont women's basketball team. It's a matter of principle. What principle? The principle that you must conform or die. The principle that you must embrace all of the talking points of this particular group or suffer the consequences. Oh, and suffer you will. So, you have principles, too? Well, fine. We'll just see if they stand up to the pain you'll endure for holding them.

It's not just North Carolina. We are, Salon Magazine tells us, now in "post-Christian America". That's right. Say goodbye to "Christian" America and hello to ... not. That old "Judeo-Christian ethic" that has driven the United States since before its inception is gone. We are now in the rise of the irreligious. (Note to those wondering. "Irreligious" can mean either indifferent or hostile to religion. I would suggest we're seeing more of the latter than the former.)

Matthew Sheffield, the author of the Salon piece, says, "While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly." He warns that, since most of the "Nones" (as they're now being called) are Democrats, we're looking at the demise of the Republican party. (Why is it not a red flag to people who call themselves "Christian" and hang with the Democrats that "Democrat" is most closely tied with "irreligious"?) If the GOP is going to survive, they're going to have to dump their religious convictions.

But ... since most people without religious convictions are also Democrats, won't we be simply producing a Demopublican party? If we strip the Republican party of anything "Christian", what would be their distinctive? We're already seeing the outcome of stripping the nation of Christianity, and it isn't good. How would it work if we stripped politics of all Christian values? And (a question that has nagged at me for some time, to be honest) if we eliminate "Christian" from politics, how will we not end up with the original problem of "taxation without representation" (or anything else government-related without representation)?

American Christians, I don't think it can be denied that we are in the "last generation", that we're looking at an end of an era. There was "Christian America" and it is no more. I need to point out, however, that I don't say that in sadness. I say it with anticipation. Too long have we lived in a society where "Christian" is "fine" and "Aren't we all Christians?" We're looking at a time when "American" no longer means "Christian" in most people's eyes. And that's a good thing. We're looking at the end of easy-believeism. We're looking at a purging, a burning off of the dross. Around the turn of the century the polls said that some 75% of Americans were Christians, but that only 15% went to church and only 5% said their beliefs actually made a difference in how they lived. We're looking, then, at a scraping off of 95% of America to leave the few who actually believe. Oh, sure, it won't be easy. It won't be pleasant. It won't be comfortable. Still, I think it will be good. Good for America to see genuine Christianity instead of the milksop they're accustomed to. Good for Christians to figure out if they really believe or are numbered among those on the wide road. Today I hear people saying, "I don't know if I'm really a Christian." If this goes the way it looks like it's going, there will come a day when it won't be such a hard question for Christians living in a new, secularized, Christian-hostile world. It will cost you (Luke 14:26-35). That's not a bad thing.

The Land of the Easily Amused

While most people would like to tell you that they are working hard to find satisfaction, completion, that sort of thing, I am of the opinion that C.S. Lewis was right when he said that we are "far too easily pleased." Think about it. People are working hard to satisfy their lusts, to find their little patch of happiness, to get a little peace and quiet. They would like to be able to have more stamina, to get along with people, to be remembered as a good person. All well and good.

And then we read,

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)

So we're muddling about trying to appease little demons and finding some success while God has bigger and better things in mind. He'd like to take those lusts and replace them with genuine love. He'd like to substitute joy for that momentary happiness. He'd replace "peace and quiet" with a peace that passes understanding (Phil 4:7). He doesn't offer us mere stamina; He offers genuine patience. We won't be getting along with people; we will be genuinely kind. Memories of being a good person is fine, but He offers actual goodness. And gentleness. And self-control.

While we're busily mucking about here finding little scents of something pleasant and considering that satisfaction, God wants to make us into something really marvelous, replacing our poor substitutes for the real thing, the divine alternative. But not us. We come from the Land of the Easily Amused. We'll pass on that, thank you very much.

Too easily pleased.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Prior to 1994 the military refused to allow military personnel who self-identified as homosexual¹. President Clinton enacted a directive that was known at "Don't ask, don't tell" in which self-identified homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they weren't "out", so to speak. In 2011, this directive was replaced with a repeal of the military ban on homosexuals entirely. "Don't ask, don't tell" was replaced, in effect, with "We won't ask because we don't care." In June of this year the military further removed restrictions on self-identified transgenders serving openly. Now the government will pay for their hormone therapy and mental counseling to aim to change the gender they were "assigned at birth". (Sounds arbitrary, doesn't it?) In other words, insofar as the homosexual and even transexual goes, "Don't ask, don't tell" is so far gone as to be only a distant memory.

Recently officials at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs removed an open Bible from a major’s desk based on a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRRF). One military member said, "It certainly gives the appearance of favoritism toward one religion."

It would appear that for Christians the trend is the reverse of the homosexuals and transgenders. While Christians served openly in the military in the past, it looks like we're already arriving at a "don't ask, don't tell" status for being a Christian in the military. Oh, sure, you can be, but only as long as you're not "out". Keep that to yourself. They already listed Evangelicals and other conservative Christians as examples of dangerous religious extremism. Oh, they took it back, but the military has been silencing chaplains for years, so their "We were only kidding" line was simply a cover for the growing trend toward removing Christians from the military. No, not openly ... just, you know, "don't ask, don't tell." Don't worry, civilian America, I'm sure you won't be far behind. It's already in the works.
________

¹ Please note. I'm using "self-identified as homosexual" as my term for what everyone else simply calls "gay" because I'm tired of allowing for the idea that "I'm born that way" or that one's choices about who they have sex with is a matter of identity or "orientation" rather than choice. Sometimes we use "scare quotes" around words or phrases to indicate that they are being used in a nonstandard or special way. I'm using the phrase "self-identified as homosexual" to indicate that they claim to be a person who cannot help but have sex with others of the same sex, but I don't agree with their claim. The same is true of the phrase, "self-identified transgenders". It is their term, but I don't agree that such a being -- someone who is the opposite sex trapped in their current body -- exists. In both cases, neither does science.

Extreme Poverty

Sometimes Paul wrote some strange stuff. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he penned such things as

In humility count others more significant than yourselves. (Phil 2:3)

For 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)

For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:10)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1)

Really strange stuff. But this passage in 2 Corinthians is, well, mind-boggling. Notice what he says.

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints -- and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Cor 8:1-5)

He starts with the "grace of God" that is given to the churches of Macedonia. What grace? Well, they were "in a severe test of affliction" and "extreme poverty". Wait ... grace? Well, no, of course not. Their response to their circumstances was God's grace. But doesn't their response to these things seem really strange? In response to their severe affliction they had an "abundance of joy" and in their destitute condition they overflowed with "generosity". God's grace to them, then, was that they responded precisely the opposite to their circumstances as we might expect.

Paul says that they begged to be allowed to give to the relief of the saints. Really? Weren't they saints in need? You'd think so. But they gave according to "and beyond their means." In our time, giving at all is at an all-time low, but these persecuted and poverty-stricken Christians had an overwhelming need to give to the needs of others. We're rich Americans and protest any suggestion of a tithe, let alone regular giving, but these persecuted Christians were overflowing with generosity. We read, "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7) and conclude, "I'm not cheerful about giving, so I shouldn't", but these impoverished believers begged earnestly "for the favor" of taking part in the relief of the saints.

What was their secret? How did they manage to appropriate this kind of grace from God? Well, Paul tells us. "They gave themselves first to the Lord." There's the secret. There's how they, and we, can do wonderful, even-to-the-point-of-appearing foolish things for the Lord. Don't hold back. We need to give ourselves first to the Lord. The results will be amazing.

Anti-Gay

We all know the term. "Anti-gay" refers to, obviously, being opposed to "gay". But the term is used all over the place and I'm not entirely sure that they mean it as simply that. For instance, it is a known fact that those who are opposed to redefining marriage from "the union of a man and a woman" to "some other unclear union" are "anti-gay". No other possibility. Except it is also true that there are those in the gay community opposed to just that. So they are "anti-gay"? Everyone knows that the belief that homosexual behavior is sin constitutes "anti-gay" and, oh, don't forget, homophobic (another odd and ill-defined term). On both of these I would beg to differ.

It is clear that there are those who are anti-gay. The guy that shot up the nightclub in Orlando qualified. People who commit hate crimes against people on the basis that they believe them to be gay qualify. The Westboro Baptist folk qualify. I'm just not sure that wishing to defend traditional marriage or believing that a particular behavior violates God's commands constitutes an opposition to those folk who find themselves sexually attracted to the same sex.

The dictionary definition of "anti-gay" is basically to be opposed to gays or gay rights. That's problematic on its own, given our loose definition of terms these days. You see, the concept of "gay rights" has expanded way beyond normal "rights". It has overrun the First Amendment protections of religious freedom and free speech. It has trampled the definition of marriage held by mankind since the beginning of time. It has even moved into the Orwellian world of thought police who will hunt you down and eliminate you -- if not actually, at least from public appearance -- for thinking anything remotely "negative" about anything remotely connected to "gay". Indeed, "gay" no longer is just those who have a same-sex attraction. It includes both genders (male homosexuals and female homosexuals), those who are attracted to both genders (bisexuals), and even the completely confused transgender who isn't clear on what gender they are so can't be sure if they're attracted to the same one or the opposite one. That is, if you oppose letting the guy who claims to feel like a girl into your daughter's locker room, you are "opposed to gay rights" and, by definition, "anti-gay".

I personally don't understand any of this. Let's say that Bill defined himself as "gay". Let's further say that Bill was also a serial killer. He believed it was his right to kill people. If you, under today's current perspective, were to say, "No, Bill, you don't have the right to kill people", would you rightly be classified as "anti-gay"? The obvious answer would be "No." Why? Because Bill does not have that right, and because opposing Bill's killing tendencies is not the same thing as hating people who have same-sex attraction. Most people can see this. So why is it that they can't see it in the other questions? We understand that 1) claiming to be "gay" does not constitute permission to do whatever you wish to do and 2) what we are permitted to do is the question we need to answer. So why is it that a person who says "God's Word calls this particular behavior sin" must necessarily be classified as "anti-gay", but a person who says, "God's Word says that killing another person is sin, so Bill would be committing sin if he did it" does not?

There is, of course, the whole problem of calling sin sin. Somewhere along the way it became hateful to point to some behavior and say, "Sin!" Oh, sure, that's not a product of our time. That was long ago. Maybe always has been. But if I point at a rattlesnake on which you're about to step and say, "Snake!", you're not going to complain that I'm evil, mean, or judgmental. If I post a sign -- "Bridge out" -- in front of a bridge that has collapsed, you won't complain that I'm cruel and hateful. But when someone warns that a particular behavior is opposed to God's commands and offers, "You need Jesus", now that is intolerant, judgmental, bigoted, and hateful. Why?

Rev. David Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. He has written an article warning that "middle ground is disappearing" on whether or not you are for "LGBT equality". He tells us that everywhere in American life "discrimination against LGBT people" has been outlawed and abandoned with the sole exception of conservative religious communities. Gushee (as a Professor of Christian Ethics, no less) has worked hard to get those conservatives to drop their principles. But, he tells us, it won't be voluntary for much longer. He says, "If Hillary Clinton is elected president, making for 12 to 16 straight years of Democratic control of the White House, it is quite possible that by Supreme Court ruling and federal regulation any kind of discrimination against gay people will have the same legal rights and social acceptance as any kind of racial discrimination. Which is, none." Clearly "Reverend" Gushee thinks this is a good thing. Religious schools will lose accreditation and government dollars. Some will be required to change or close. Eventually no corner of American life will be free to think of homosexual behavior as sin. Expect fines and jail time for failure to comply. Loving the homosexual enough to warn him or her that they need Jesus will no longer be tolerated. Nor will adherence to biblical principles if they transgress certain societally sacrosanct values, like the right to choose whatever sexual behavior you wish without having anyone think badly of you. You will no longer be allowed to say, "I have nothing but love for all people including those who have same-sex attraction, but I believe that acting on that attraction is sin and hope that all sinners will come to Christ." If they can stop you from thinking it, they will.

There was a time when a segment of Christianity was "postmillenial" in their eschatology. They held that the kingdom of God was going to occur here on earth and they worked to bring it about. With enough prayer and obedience and civil involvement, they could bring back a theocracy. Through the 19th century they thrived, seeing in America the proof of the concept. World War I put a real clamp on their progress and World War II nearly killed it. Today "postmillenials" are rare. There was a time when American Christians believed in democracy. That is, they believed that if you were biblical and vocal enough, you could make the world a better place. Think of Falwell's "Moral Majority". If you just got the conservatives to vote, you could make secular America a moral America. I think (at least I hope) that the Supreme Court ruling that slashed "marriage" from its moorings and replaced it with "gay mirage" as the law of the land may have driven a stake into the heart of that false hope that democracy and government can be used to produce a moral society. Instead, we're finding that, instead of advancing biblical morality, conservative Christians -- those who believe God's Word -- themselves are vanishing. The so-called "rights" of the so-called "LGBT" bolstered by the so-called "anti-gay" epithet are wearing away at anything called "biblical Christianity". It is not an improvement, but it may wake up the few that remain to the realization that 1) there is a god of this world and 2) our hope is not in him or his followers. We have been warned.

What if ...?

I struggle from time to time with the concerns about my adequacy as a father and a husband. If you don't, you're either not one or the other or both or you're not paying attention because we all are sinners, inadequate to perfection. The other day I saw a man with kids and observed what he was teaching them, not by intent, but by example. His language was painful to hear in the presence of his children. He was not kind to them, constantly complaining about this or that. He wasn't kind to his wife. You get the idea. And it made me wonder, if my kids had grown up to mimic me, how well would they have gotten along in life?

It's amazing what we teach our kids by accident. They just see us in our daily behavior and they learn it. They learn that kids are not that important if Dad is more dedicated to work than to them. They learn that it's okay to be unkind to Mom if Dad isn't a fine example of tenderness and understanding to her. They learn that church is something to endure until they don't have to anymore if, while Dad may have gone every Sunday (and it's just worse if he didn't), he certainly wasn't much "into it". If church for Dad was something to endure rather than enjoy, they learned the same thing. They learn that honesty is not always the best policy if they watch Dad deceive friends and family for whatever reason. Dads mold their children's world and, in so doing, their children's character. And they do it without even trying. (Moms do it, too. As a father, I seem to have a focus on fathers.)

I wasn't trying to describe my life with my kids. Not the point. Each of us has our own failings and God certainly knows I have mine because, after all, Christ has paid for them. And it's good to know that I wasn't the only influence on those kids. There were other parents and other grandparents and other siblings and other friends. There was, above and over all, God at work. Taking human error and parental shortcomings along with all the other fragmented clay He had to work with, He formed out of my kids what He intended, "one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use" (Rom 9:21), so to speak. I was the one placed in the responsible position, but it was God who carried out His plan for my kids. I just want fathers to think, to pray, to seek the Lord, to pursue godliness, to love their wives and kids above every worldly thing from personal ego to cultural pressures. To get to the stage I'm at where kids are grown and out of the house and think, "Did I do that okay?" is the wrong time to ask. So ask yourself while they're still at home. What if they grew up to mimic you? Would that be a good thing?

In the Vineyard

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

Most Christians are familiar with Jesus's "vine and branches" analogy. Most Christians nod their heads and agree that we need to abide in Him. Most Christians miss entirely the weight of the last phrase.

Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing."

Wait ... what? Really?? "Nothing"??!

That's what Jesus said. So, what did He mean? You see, if it is true that we can indeed do some things without Him, then He didn't mean "Apart from Me you can do nothing." He was wrong (we'll reject that out of hand) or He was using hyperbole, but He didn't mean a flat "nothing".

Now, it could be that He did mean "nothing at all" After all, "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) "In Him all things hold together." (Col 1:17) "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things." (Rom 11:36) So in a very real sense we can actually do nothing -- not even exist -- without Him.

I don't think, however, that "absolutely nothing" was what, exactly, Jesus had in mind here. I think He was speaking in context of His statement. That is, "Apart from abiding in Me you do not have the capacity to produce fruit."

Now, I know, lots of people are saying, "We could have told you that." But I think it's imporant to think things through. More importantly, however, I think that it is in these kinds of examinations -- even examinations of the "obvious" -- we might arrive at something monumental. And I think we have done just that here.

We are told that we need to abide in Christ. We are told that He will abide in us. We are told that, in this arrangement, we will actually produce fruit. We will be fruitful, productive, useful. We will make a difference. We will have a godly purpose. And we all know that ... except, for reasons we don't fully understand, we seem to often fail to recognize that it is abiding in Him and His working in us that does it. So we come up with plans and programs, cool gimmicks and careful shows, events and spectaculars, lots of things to produce fruit, forgetting that apart from Him we can do nothing.

Those things aren't, by nature, evil. Not my point. The point is that we need to abide in Him. The point is that He needs to be working in us. The point is that He needs to be the point. He is the direction, the purpose, the goal, and the power for producing "fruit". So while we, on one hand, get deeply concerned that we won't be able to do things for the Lord and, on the other hand, find ourselves leaping into "best laid plans" that actually don't come from Him, let's try to keep Christ in mind. We need to be thoroughly connected to Him. He will be working in us. What He plans cannot fail. It will produce. Count on it.

Useful Obedience

I've often played tug-of-war with the ideas of both God's Sovereignty and Man's responsibility. Just look at the current political situation. We are required to vote according to our conscience, but we also know that all authority is established by God. So, which is it? Us or Him? The question comes up all over the place. We are required to plant and water, but God gives the increase (1 Cor 3:6). We are required to work out our salvation, but it is God at work in us to do it (Phil 2:12-13). So, which is it? Us or Him?

I came across this interesting little story in 1 Samuel 25 that makes this point. David and his little band were hiding out and while they did they guarded the flocks and shepherds of a man named Nabal. Eventually David dropped in on Nabal, pointed out the service he had done, and simply asked for a meal for his men and himself. Nabal kicked him out. Well, David was ... miffed. "May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him." (1 Sam 25:22) More than miffed. But Nabal's wife, Abigail, got wind of the trouble her husband was bringing down on them. She put together a sizable tribute and hurried off to intercept David before he killed everyone. She was apologetic and kind and David acquiesced. Here's what David said.

"Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me, and blessed be your discernment, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodshed and from avenging myself by my own hand. Nevertheless, as the LORD God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from harming you, unless you had come quickly to meet me, surely there would not have been left to Nabal until the morning light as much as one male." (1 Sam 25:32-34)

So, here's the question. Did Abigail prevent David from killing everyone over at Nabal's house or did God do it? Well, the text tells us the answer.

David starts with God. "Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me." Oh, see? It was God who sent Abigail. So it was God who prevented David from carrying through with his plan. But wait! He goes on to say, "Blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodshed." Oh, now that's different. Now he is crediting Abigail with preventing him from shedding blood. So it wasn't God. But wait! David finishes with, "... as the LORD God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from harming you ..." Now we're back to God doing it.

And that, dear reader, is the right answer: Yes. When God tells you to pray, who accomplishes what you prayed for? You or God? Yes. God uses our obedience to accomplish His plans. When God tells you to share the gospel and someone comes to Christ, who accomplishes that? You or God? Yes. God uses our obedience to accomplish His plans. Over and over the answer is "Yes." God does it, and He does it by using people. Sometimes it is faithful believers. Sometimes it is a donkey (Num 22:28). Sometimes it might even be you. He does it. He uses us. And then He gives us rewards. Such a deal! So do not grow weary in doing good (2 Thess 3:13). God will use your obedience.

Walking on Water

Everyone knows the story of Jesus walking on water. The world knows it. There is even a "Jesus lizard" known for running on water and so-called because of that story about Jesus. Some even use it as a reference to perfection. To someone claiming moral superiority they might say, "You don't walk on water, you know!" Because, as everyone knows, Jesus, the Son of God, walked on water.

Jesus was not the only one.

After the feeding of the 5,000 (Matt 14:13-21), Jesus withdrew to pray while the disciples went on across the Sea of Galilee where they ran into a storm (Matt 14:22-23) and Jesus walked out on the water (Matt 14:25) to help. When the disciples saw Him coming, they thought He was a ghost but He identified Himself and told them not to fear (Matt 14:26-27). Peter said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." (Matt 14:28) (Strange way to prove it was Jesus, but ...) Jesus told him to come, and "Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus." (Matt 14:29)

There you have it! Jesus was not the only one to walk on water. Peter did, too!

Why don't we remember Peter for that? Well, it didn't last long. "But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'" and Jesus took hold of him, berated him for his lack of faith, got him into the boat, and the storm stopped (Matt 14:30-32).

A popular story, to be sure, but what's my point? My point is that Jesus walked on water, but so did Peter. My point is that Jesus's disciples have feats of faith they can perform if they're only willing. So what was the limiting factor? What is our limiting factor? What prevented Peter from walking on water long enough to be noticed as "the other guy who walked on water"? Not his lack of perfection. Peter was never perfect. It was his lack of faith. What stunted Peter's faith? "Seeing the wind, he became frightened." (Matt 14:30) Peter was looking at the problem, not the answer. Peter was looking at circumstances, not the Savior.

We live in stormy times -- politics, the economy, education, loss of religious freedom, oppression from without, destruction from within ... on and on. The storm is real. Indeed, the storm was promised (e.g., John 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12). The problem is not the storm. The problem is where we look. If we get our eyes on the problems, we will miss the Savior and the opportunity to act in faith. Jesus makes it possible for all of us to walk on water in a storm. We just have to keep our eyes on Him.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.