Religion or Christianity?

I have been told repeatedly and sometimes belligerently that "Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship." Now, I honestly understand the point ... but why must it be such a point of contention? Based on the Random House Dictionary, religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The American Heritage Dictionary says it is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

So ... how is Christianity not a religion? What I fear is that the modern church's anti-intellectualism and anti-creed stance has made it ... not a religion. Creeds and reason provide systematic methods of examining a common set of beliefs. Without a doubt, if creeds and reason are included in Christianity, then it is indeed "a set of beliefs", "reverence for a supernatural power", a "personal [and] institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." The question then becomes "Do we not want it to be?"

Christmas Carol Quiz 2 - the Sequel

Just when you thought it was safe ...

I've received these carol quizzes over the years and I enjoyed them. I thought you might as well. To the authors of the quizzes, I apologize. I have never known the source. But thanks.

(Again, the answers will be in the comments, so if you want to play, don't look there yet.)

(Oh, and there is no guarantee that there aren't duplicates from the first quiz.)

1. Bleached Yule
2. Castaneous-colored Seed Vesicated in a Conflagration
3. Singular Yearning for the Twin Anterior Incisors
4. Righteous Darkness
5. Arrival Time: 2400 hrs -- Weather: Cloudless
6. Loyal Followers Advance
7. Far Off in a Feeder
8. Array the Corridor
9. Bantam Male Percussionist
10. Monarchial Triad
11. Nocturnal Noiselessness
12. Jehovah Deactivate Blithe Chevaliers
13. Red Man En Route to Borough
14. Frozen Precipitation Commence
15. Proceed and Enlighten on the Pinnacle
16. The Quadruped with the Vermillion Probiscis
17. Query Regarding Identity of Descendant
18. Delight for this Planet
19. Give Attention to the Melodious Celestial Beings
20. The Dozen Festive 24 Hour Intervals

Christmas Carol Quiz

These are popular Christmas carols. Can you figure out their normal names?

1. Approach everyone who is steadfast.
2. Ecstasy toward the orb.
3. Listen! The Foretelling spirits harmonize.
4. Hey, Minuscule urban area southeast of Jerusalem.
5. Quiescent Nocturnal period.
6. The Autocrat troika originating near the ascent of Apollo.
7. The primary carol.
8. Embellish the corridors.
9. I'm fantasizing concerning a blanched yuletide.
10. I apprehended my maternal parent osculating with a corpulent unshaven male in crimson disguise.
11. During the time ovine caretakers supervised their charges past midnight.
12. The thing manifests itself at the onset of a transparent day.
13. The coniferous nativity.
14. What offspring abides thus?
15. Removed in a bovine feeding trough.
16. Creator, cool it, you kooky cats!
17. Valentino, the roseate proboscises wapiti.
18. The slight percussionist lad.
19. Father Christmas approaches the metropolis.
20. Seraphim we aurally detected in the stratosphere.

(Don't read the comments until you try to answer them yourself. I have put the answers in the comments.)

Really?

Watching the CBS Evening News last night, I was quite surprised to hear a comment by Katie Couric, a piece of news of which I was totally unaware. According to Couric (in a story about the President's plans to increase military strength in Iraq), the majority of America believes we cannot win in Iraq. That was the statement. She made it in passing (so much so that my wife missed it entirely). It was something like "While polls show that most Americans believe we cannot win the war in Iraq, the President believes we can."

Completely aside from whether or not one is for or against the war, for or against keeping troops there, or for or against the President, I am wondering if this is true. Is it true that most Americans believe that it is impossible for us to finish the task of placing a democratic government in Iraq?

I ask because it would certainly answer the question I asked here. If most Americans believe that we are incapable of accomplishing the task, then my "What then?" answer would be, "Nothing! Write off Iraq! We need to run and hide."

Good News!

Mr. and Mrs. Jones (not their real names -- their names were changed because ... frankly I don't know their real names) lived in sunny Sun City, Arizona. They were getting up in years, so maintaining the lawn and the rest of the house was difficult, but together they managed the task. That is, until Mrs. Jones suddenly passed away. Mr. Jones found it impossible to keep up the job of living as well as the lawn. So it was no surprise when the Home Owner's Association informed him that he needed to remedy the lawn or face legal action. Mr. Jones was at an impasse.

A landscaper in the neighborhood found out about his plight. He checked with his connections at local rock suppliers and got them to donate the rock and desert plants for the yard. Then he organized volunteers and together they met, removed the lawn, and installed a desert-friendly, minimal maintenance front yard. Problem solved.

Mr. Jones was grateful. His gratitude was only magnified by the fact that the neighborhood landscaper was a nine-year-old who mowed lawns and tended yards, and the fact that the oldest volunteer he got to help out was twelve years old.

---------------

Army Pfc. Ross A. McGinnis served at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq. He was the youngest soldier in Company C, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, attached to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. Pfc McGinnis was manning the gunner's hatch when a grenade was tossed into the vehicle. McGinnis could have jumped out to safety, but instead he covered the grenade with his body, taking the force of the blast to protect the crew. The Silver Star Medal has been approved for McGinnis’s actions Dec. 4, and will be awarded posthumously.

---------------

Jaimen Ortiz noticed a toddler hanging from a second-story window. Acting quickly, he jumped the fence and arrived just in time to catch the 2-year-old as she fell screaming. "If I had delayed one more second, she would have fallen to the ground," Ortiz said through a Spanish interpreter, recalling the Oct. 13 incident. Arlington, VA, has awarded him a certificate of recognition for his heroism and quick thinking. But it wasn't his first time at being a hero. As a teenager in Guatemala, he helped save a woman from drowning. It's good to see someone who cares enough to get involved.

---------------

Anybody that knows the cartoon Dilbert will recognize the name of its creator, Scott Adams. Adams has a blog. He entitled this one "Good News Day".

Adams was suffering from Spasmodic Dysphonia. The unusual condition causes the vocal cords to spasm, making speech impossible. There is no cure for the condition. It was possible to get Botox injections into the vocal cords, but that was extremely painful and only temporary. So he suspended the Botox injections and just lived with the problem, all the while trying his own methods of fixing his problem.

One day he discovered that, while normal speech was impossible, he was able to speak in rhyme. (The theory is that the brain maps speech processes, and that this condition blocks that process. Using unfamiliar speech processes could cause the brain to re-map the process.) Scott repeated a nursery rhyme over and over out loud and found, to his surprise and joy, that his speech returned.

Scott Adams is not sure if the change is permanent, but being able to speak again after a year and a half of lost voice is good news indeed.

---------------

Just thought it would be nice to see some pleasant, uplifting news stories.

Santa Claus Is Not Coming to My House

There's something I've never been able to quite figure out. At this time of year you will find a whole host of movies, stories, and people who argue for the existence of Santa Claus. It's as if some folks believe that prior to the Santa Claus myth, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men" didn't exist. Now, to be fair, I suppose I can imagine why those who have no real belief in God or faith in Christ would need this tool. What I don't understand is the number of Christian parents that perpetuate this story to their children as if it is real.

Perhaps after this admission I have no right to comment, but that won't stop a blogger, will it? I grew up believing that Santa Claus was a fictional character. I was taught that he was modeled after Saint Nicholas, a historical character, and that the current Claus was an embodiment of all that Americans thought of as "nice" about Christmas coupled with some snazzy marketing from Macy's and the like. I even received gifts at Christmas marked "From Santa", but I never believed it was from Santa. That was Mom and Dad's way of giving us an extra gift, and we all knew it.

As a father of my own children, I passed on this same concept. You see, it was my belief that a parent should not intentionally lie to his children. And, further, it was my fear that if I did perpetuate a lie about a mythical character that brings good things to good children as if he was real, when my children discovered it was a fabrication, what would they think of my tales of a Savior born 2000 years ago offering salvation to children who believe in Him? So my kids grew up believing that Santa Claus was a fictional character and they understood that any gifts under the tree labeled "From Santa" were not actually from Santa.

I was somewhat surprised at the conflict this caused. When my sons went to a private Christian school (thanks to the generosity of a kind "Santa"), they told their friends at Christmas, "There is no Santa Claus." They were reprimanded by the teachers and complaints were filed by angry parents who didn't want some faithless child propogating this kind of truth on their children. The belief that Santa Claus was a real character rather than a nice story was imperative, and I was evil for suggesting to my children that this wasn't true. The next thing I'd be teaching my poor children was that there was no Easter Bunny! The nerve of some parents!

Santa Claus used to represent good things. He represented generosity and good cheer and caring for those who have little. That was his "origins". Today he represents getting and greed, a materialistic Christmas where I can ask for whatever I want and get it. There was always that "better be good" caveat, but who has ever really used that one? So we have shifted this "jolly" representative of good to so many bad things about our society ... and then get offended if someone denies his existence??

I've never been able to quite figure it out. Why do Christians try to convince their children that Santa Claus is real? Why do they offer a poor substitute (a lie) for the truth, which is the Gospel? I understand we wish to spare our children the harsh realities of the real world, so we don't pour all that out on them, but this isn't the same thing. A mythical Santa will not bring any good thing. How is it beneficial to continue that falsehood? I don't suppose that it's my task to correct the intentional lies parents wish to foist on their children, so I haven't made it my mission in life to tell children of all ages that there is no Satan Claus (ever notice that rearranging the letters produces a frightening result), but outrage aside, I won't be handing lies to my kids and call them "good".

Mount Hood

I'm sure most are aware of the drama and tragedy at Mount Hood, Oregon. Three climbers were climbing the mountain when they ran into foul weather. They were trapped on the mountain in a life-threatening storm. A few days ago the weather lifted enough for rescuers to get a closer look. They found the body of Kelly James in an ice cave. His two companions are still missing.

One of the most interesting side notes of this story is the media's repeated mention of the intense religious faith of the climbers and their families. What you may not have known is that Kelly James was a member of a PCA church in Dallas. His brother, who has been on TV commenting for the families on several occasions, is Frank James. Dr. James is the President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL and a professor of Church History.

Please hold these people with "intense religious faith" in your prayers as the search continues for the other missing hikers ... and those without "intense religious faith" as well.

An Inerrant Bible

The debate about King James Version Only (KJVO) rages on despite all the time spent in the debate thus far. The complaints are many. Those evil translators of the NIV are trying to deceive us by removing the Trinity (evidence 1 John 5:8, missing in the NIV). They've moved stuff around (as in Rom. 8:1 where the phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is now only found in verse 4). Their wording is offensive (such as "May it never be!" in Rom. 6:2 rather than "God forbid!" or "your spiritual act of worship" rather than "your reasonable service" in Rom. 12:1). Those blasphemers! They're out to destroy biblical theology!

In the words of my dear mother-in-law ... oh, piffle! The debate only tells us that we've run into a snag in the original concept of the inerrancy of Scripture and people are arguing a point they don't actually understand. Let's see if we can look at some of the pertinent issues here.

There are basically three types of Bibles out there: 1) Paraphrases, 2) translations, and 3) original manuscripts.

The paraphrase is someone's idea of what the text says. Typically, a paraphrase comes from the translations available in the language (as opposed to coming from the original manuscripts). The easiest form of paraphrase is what most of us do all the time. "The Bible says _____. That means _____." When we explain what it means, we have paraphrased it. A Bible paraphrase, then, is someone taking the time to reword the entire Bible in their own terms. The goal is to make it more readable, more applicable, more pertinent. Two obvious examples here are The Living Bible and The Message. The advantage of a paraphrase is obvious. Someone has made it more readable, more applicable, more pertinent. The disadvantage should be equally obvious. No one is 100% accurate in their understanding of Scripture, so no paraphrase will be inerrant. To use a paraphrase to illustrate a point because it says it well is acceptable. To argue a doctrinal issue from a paraphrase alone is unwise. Paraphrased Bibles are not inerrant.

Translations are another issue. These are supposed to be a direct conversion from the original texts to the language of the reader. There are two basic types: Dynamic Equivalence and Word-for-word. The dynamic equivalent presupposes that language has meaning in phrases, not just words. Thus, the translation would have to take into account the entire phrase rather than simply the words. It attempts to make a translation that is more fluent, more idiomatic. The NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation. The word-for-word translation, on the other hand, simply translates the words as they come, producing a pure equivalent in the reader's language. The advantage of the dynamic equivalent is that it can often take into account phrases and their meanings that the word-for-word version won't. The disadvantage is that a dynamic equivalent is fed by the translators understanding and, as such, may be subject to error. A dynamic equivalent is not as readable as a paraphrase, but is more accurate. A word-for-word is more accurate still, but less likely to be as readable. The most accurate is the word-for-word (literal equivalent). This one may not be as readable as the others, but it will simply substitute the reader's equivalent word for the original text's word.

A difficulty with all translations, however, is more subtle than we realize. The truth is converting from one language to another is problematic at the surface. There are certain words and/or phrases that have meaning in the original language that has little or no equivalent in the target language. One of the most obvious examples in the case of Bible is the term "only begotten". The Greek is monogenes. "Mono" refers to one, and genes is our root for "genus", meaning "type". "Monogenes", most accurately, would be translated something like "one of a kind, unique, the only one of its type." But that is stilted language, so the translators stick with the King James's "only begotten". You can see, then, that there is a problem with translations. They are limited by 1) the ability to transfer the original text to the target language, and 2) by the ability of the translator(s) to understand the words in the first place. As such, translations are much more reliable than paraphrases, but not inerrant.

What do we know about the King James Bible? The King James is a literal equivalent, word-for-word translation. It is, in this way, more reliable than paraphrases and more accurate than a dynamic equivalent. It was translated from the Textus Receptus. Now, many people think that the Textus Receptus was the original Greek text, but this isn't quite accurate. The Textus Receptus was a Greek manuscript put together by Erasmus. Erasmus used as many Greek manuscripts as he could find for this version, but the Church at the time didn't have manuscripts for all the Bible. Consequently, Erasmus filled in the gaps by translating Latin texts into Greek where Greek manuscripts were not available. Already, then, we have an introduction of a problem -- a translation. The other problem is that the existing Greek manuscripts were, in many cases, quite new, relatively speaking. They were copies of copies of copies. The originals were long gone. Therefore, there was another problem -- potential copy errors. The King James Version is an excellent translation, but it is a translation of existing Greek manuscripts plus translated Latin manuscripts. That, added to the necessary lack of knowledge regarding Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew, means that the King James Version is a very good translation ... but not inerrant.

Other translations we have today enjoy new manuscript data. Older manuscripts were found. Comparisons were made to find out where possible copy errors could have occurred. Gaps in Erasmus's text were filled with actual manuscripts rather than translated Latin. According to those who know about such things, we can be quite confident that the manuscripts we have today reflect the original manuscripts better than 99% of the time. Our modern translations still suffer from the ability of translators to understand the original words. Some of the words in the Hebrew portion, for instance, aren't known at all. No one is quite sure what the Hebrew word for livyathan means. Many translate it "leviathan". Others think it means "alligator". The Hebrew for behemowth is equally elusive. Some translate it "behemoth", while others think it is "hippopotamus". Exodus 28:15-20 lists a series of stones for the priests' breastplate, but no one is absolutely sure what all those stones actually mean. So while today's translation enjoy the luxury of better information, it still cannot be said that today's translations are inerrant.

What, then, are we saying when we argue for an inerrant Bible? The Church has always held that the Word of God is inerrant and infallible. But the Church has always held that with a caveat: "In the original texts." The position has always been that when God inspired them and the authors wrote them, they were inerrant and infallible. The Church has never held that the copies or the translations were equally inerrant. This is a new concept, surfacing recently in the battle between the KJVO and all other English translations.

What can we conclude then? Are we to say that we don't have a reliable Bible? Not at all! (Or, "God forbid!" for the KJVO types or "May it never be!" for the rest.) The translations we have available to us today are closer to the original manuscripts than ever before. The level of confidence that the texts from which they were translated are equivalent to the originals has never been higher. And the level of scholarship of the translators is ever improving with new finds and studies of ancient Greek and Hebrew languages. There is little doubt that the Bibles we read today contain the same information that the original manuscripts intended. And where there are variations from the original for whatever reason, they are never in the realm of any significant issue. It might be that scholars will some day determine that the "jasper" mentioned Exo. 28:20 is actually a different precious stone, but that doesn't change the intent of the passage. Perhaps, if we are clear enough on the real issue -- that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original manuscripts -- we can begin to set aside our petty squabbling over King-James-Only-type things and settle into reading what it actually intended us to read.

The Grinch Blogger

In the spirit of "confess your sins one to another" (James 5:16), I have a confession to make. I don't like Christmas very much. My wife knows this. I suppose my family seriously suspects it. But I am not a "Christmas fan."

There is more than one reason. And there is, in some sense, no reasons. By that I mean that some of it is simply a gut-level dislike. I set aside that gut-level side or, better yet, call it "inspiration" because of the reasons I have.

I don't like gift-giving. Don't get me wrong. I like giving gifts. What I don't like is the extortion and entitlement that is Christmas. You see, in other instances I have the option to give or not. Those gifts are my idea. They're "from the heart". I try to give when it's not necessary to do so just so people can know I intended it. But at Christmas, there is no option. If you don't give gifts, you're a "Scrooge." Well, I don't want to be disliked, so I give gifts. I don't give them because the wise men gave gifts to Christ; I give them because I'm supposed to. I don't give gifts because the people who are near and dear to me can use them; I give them because I'm supposed to. To avoid being disliked, I give. That's extortion. And it's not cheap extortion. A local radio station is running an ad from a mortgage company that says, in essence, "Don't get stuck with all those credit card bills buying Christmas presents ... take out a second mortgage!" And because I give because I'm supposed to, the recipients are, often, ungrateful. Why? Because they're supposed to get a gift. They're entitled to a gift. So ... they get it, and that's that. Why be grateful? They simply received what they were owed. And, I have to say, that tie he got wasn't what he really had in mind. And, seriously, did you really think she would appreciate a new vacuum cleaner? And, come on, was that really all you could afford to spend on the oldest son? So, no thanks to me, there is no thanks to me. And, oh, hey, did you forget that your sister-in-law sent a nice gift basket last year? You had better get on the ball and send her something nice this year. Extortion and entitlement.

Now, to be fair, I don't like receiving gifts. You see, I'm quite contented. There is nothing I need that the Lord hasn't provided, and I can't think of anything I really want. So people who love me ask, "What do you want for Christmas?" and I can't think of a thing. It's not my fault. I'm content. So they'll give me stuff. Stuff I don't want or need. Stuff that it would never occur to me to buy. I appreciate the heart that goes into such things. I appreciate the love that they carry. But, I gotta tell ya, I hadn't the slightest thought of ever in my whole life buying a nose-hair clipper. I mean, thanks, really, but ... yuck! And why is it that new shirts are always in colors I won't wear or styles that I can't stomach or 4 sizes too small? (I mean, really, folks, I appreciate it that you don't see me as fat, but let's be real here.) And I end up one of those very same people I complained about just a paragraph ago, the ungrateful ones. I don't like receiving gifts.

I don't like Christmas decorations. Oh, don't misunderstand, I like seeing them ... well, some of them. That guy at the end of the block has overdone it a bit. But I just don't think that the benefit outweighs the cost. These things aren't cheap, you know. We are deforesting areas for trees to be cut down and thrown away in a month. We risk our lives climbing up ladders to hang lights on houses. We spend money on sparkling, twinkling, flashing, color-changing, shiny, moving things to hang about the yard and house. The electric bill for December rivals the summer months with the air conditioner fighting 100° heat. There are ribbons and bows and pretty paper to put around things that go under trees. There are stockings that no one can wear and wreaths of dead plants to hang. The work that goes into all this is only equalled by the work that goes into cleaning it up afterward. You will risk your life again to bring those lights down, defy physical laws wrapping up lights in the hopes of untangling them and using them next year, and fill three times the normal trash space with colorful paper, ribbons, and bows now devoid of the gifts they surrounded. You will need to put all this in places that won't be seen again until next year. Yeah, good luck with that. When it comes to cost comparison of time, money, and effort, I don't like Christmas decorations.

The biggest reason I don't like Christmas is the pointlessness. My daughter was born on Christmas. Several years ago, while she was a teenager, I gave her a cartoon of a little girl, sitting in her room, moping. "It sucks being born on Christmas," she says. Jesus, standing behind her, says, "Tell Me about it." You see, many of us give lipservice to "Jesus is the reason for the season," but we don't very often actually mean it. We often make little or no connection to the things that are "Christmas" and ... Christ. We might tell the Christmas story at our gathering of the day. We might have a Nativity on the lawn. We might even put up a "Jesus is the reason for the season" sign. But, let's face it, for the most part we leave Christ out of Christmas. He doesn't get our gifts like any normal birthday person would. He isn't central in our planning and decorating and all that goes into Christmas. He doesn't get our attention; friends, family, and the trappings of Christmas do.

I tried once to change all this. I gave it a shot. I suggested that we alter our entire approach. Let's not give gifts to one another. Instead, let's give gifts to Christ. Maybe we spend some time helping out at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Maybe we give gifts to Christian organizations such as mission groups or the Salvation Army. But if the birthday being celebrated is Christ's, then shouldn't He get gifts instead of us? And how about if we don't decorate with the standard fare. Instead, let's try things that say, "We're celebrating Christ's birthday!" We could use the constant reminder ourselves. Or maybe we skip Christmas altogether? You know, the early Church never celebrated Christmas. And the Puritans who first settled this country believed it was wrong to celebrate Christmas. Maybe they were right? I had other suggestions, but you know none of this would fly. The kids, who didn't really appreciate the gifts they got, would appreciate "no gifts" even less. The message -- "Let's focus on Christ, not bright shiny lights and getting gifts" -- would be misinterpretted as "Dad doesn't want to buy us anything, and we all know he doesn't like Christmas anyway."

So, here I sit, my hat in my hand, confessing to you, my readers. I don't care much for Christmas at all. I apologize for that.

Christmas Under Attack

It's Christmas time once again. And what's Christmas without some good, old-fashioned complaining? You know the ones -- dedicated Christians who are appalled by the treatment of Christian by our society, or those special Christians who are offended by Christmas's pagan connections. Look around a little, and you'll likely find both. I'm not sure I get it, and on several levels.

Hard as it is to imagine, the Christian celebration we call "Christmas" is not in the Bible. Oh, I know, the birth of Christ is in the Bible, and all that is incorporated in that, but the command for such a celebration isn't there. We are told the celebrate His death and resurrection which we do in the Lord's Supper. But I can't find a single command to celebrate His birth. How odd! So ... why are we so upset about it?

Jesus told His disciples, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Paul said, "The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7). And we Christians are offended when we find out that the world is hostile to us and our beliefs. I would say, with Peter, "Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you as though some strange thing were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). In all honesty, the fact that they put "XMAS" rather than "Christmas" on their signs barely qualifies as a "fiery ordeal". The fact that some businesses won't allow "Merry Christmas" isn't really something I'd call "persecution". And while, logically, I think it's nonsense that the ACLU works to remove all Nativity displays from public arenas, that really can't be considered inhumane, can it? I don't get it when Christians complain that Christmas is under attack because we were promised that the world would hate us just as they hate our Lord. Surprise! He was right.

Then, of course, there is the simple yet painful fact that we are often just like the ones about whom we are complaining. "They aren't celebrating Christmas!!" Well, are we? What part does an evergreen tree that is brought into a home and is decorated with lights and colourful ornaments have to do with celebrating the birth of Christ? Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying it can't have anything to do with Christ. I'm simply asking what most Christians think of such a tree? How about gift-giving? How is that a celebration of Christ's birth? (To illustrate, try this. At your next birthday celebration, make sure that you celebrate by having everyone give gifts ... to everyone else, ignoring you completely.) We are just as guilty as "they" when it comes to greed, ignoring Christ, and inaccurate "Christmas". Take, for instance, the standard Nativity. It always includes three wise men or kings. Why three? Well, our Bibles don't list three; they list three types of gifts. And what are they doing there? Biblically, they didn't arrive until later -- perhaps up to two years later -- and they weren't at the manger. (See Matt. 2:11 -- they entered the house.) So how accurate are we with our Nativity scenes? Indeed, almost everyone knows that Christ wasn't actually born in December. (Shepherds in Palestine don't have their sheep out in the winter.) So we're ignoring accuracy and succumbing to the worldly "Christmas" about which we are complaining.

I'm just as disturbed about the complainers of pagan origins. But what really disturbs me is the Christian propensity to be upset about things that, to me, shouldn't upset us at all. So, here's my Christmas wish for you all: "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful" (Col 3:15).

News Flash!

Hey, Christians, here's a news flash! Christianity is in danger. According to Jay Bakker and Marc Brown, if Christians don't avoid political trappings, the very survival of Christianity is threatened. Now that's news!

Bakker (the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker) and Brown wonder "when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?" Instead of urging people to be what they should be, we are supposed to "love others just as they are, without an agenda." One of their big complaints is the "screaming", angry Christians, reflected in words like "spewed forth".

I was not aware of this problem in Christianity. I wasn't aware that we were required to offer "unconditional love". Christ didn't offer "unconditional love". Ask the Pharisees. Ask the moneychangers at the Temple. God doesn't offer "unconditional love". Ask those who choose Hell over Heaven. Or, easier yet, ask Esau. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). This is not to suggest that we ought to "hate and condemn", but I think the concept of "unconditional love" isn't quite accurate. Nor was I aware that Jesus had no agenda except to love others just as they are. Again, He seemed to have a message for the moneychangers that was not "just as you are". He seemed to suggest that the Pharisees were headed in the wrong direction. And when He met the woman "caught in adultery" (we can debate that another time), He didn't say "Just go on as you are." He told her to change directions: "Go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).

This account of the woman is an excellent example of what I'm suggesting. Bakker and Brown have suggested two extremes. Either we "love unconditionally" or we "spew forth hate and condemnation". Obviously the second is wrong. We must do the first. While Jesus didn't "spew forth hate and condemnation", neither did He simply nod at sin. He told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you" followed by "Go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11). The two concepts -- a clear handle on what is right and wrong, recognition of sin, and avoiding hate -- are not mutually exclusive.

I think the boys are right when they call on Christians not to "hate and condemn". I think they're right when they warn against "screaming" Christians. I think they're right that we should be able to talk to believers and unbelievers alike without cruelty, anger, or hate. And I think they're right when they say we're not doing that well. In many cases this is true.

But I have a couple of problems with their suggestions. The first problem I have is in the notion that we should have no agenda. We are commanded to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). That is not "no agenda". It is, instead, a huge agenda. It doesn't include "beat sinners over the head to make them good people." It doesn't include trying to force a "Christian society". But it is not "no agenda".

The second problem I have is the biggest problem. The very survival of Christianity is threatened by bad Christians. Assuming this is true, it is my opinion that Christianity ought to go away. Apparently it is only a human force, operating under human power, existing only as long as it is "acceptable" or "worthwhile". That's all well and good ... but it is not TRUTH. As such, it is not of any ultimate value on the field of ideas. On the other hand, if Christianity is what we believe it to be -- God's Truth -- then what possible action on the part of Christians, good or bad, could advance or decline Christianity? If Christianity is God's own, then it does not depend on Man. If Christ was right about His Church, He said, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

We can agree, I think, that many people do bad things in the name of Christianity. I don't need to list them -- others have done an admirable job. I think we can even agree that many Christians today are not doing a good job of displaying the primary factor that Jesus said heralded our discipleship -- love (John 13:35). Most of us would agree that we don't need to "spew forth hate and condemnation." Most of us would agree that this very act among Christians is getting too much press and, as such, too much validation. But I would hope that most of us wouldn't fall for this "death nell" plea that if we don't stop being bad Christians, Christianity is threatened. God doesn't need our proper following to maintain His truth. Even Hell cannot defend itself against this truth. And the real "Christianity" isn't about political involvement, unconditional or even conditional love, "no agenda", or morality. The real Christianity is about knowing or rather being known by God (John 17:3; Gal. 4:9), a relationship that changes hearts and lives (1 John 3:9, etc.). It doesn't depend on us.

PC Merry Christmas

I wanted to say, "Merry Christmas", but we all know that's offensive, so here's my attempt at offending no one.

*******

At this time of the start of winter in which we gather lights and gifts and wish each other well, I wish to convey to you my wish that you have a happy day noted on the standard calendar as "December 25th" and that your new year that follows would be good.

Note that "happy" in the above wish is not to be construed as a promise or even narrowly defined as what I would consider "happy". It may include a positive outlook on anything at all or even a non-negative view on something. It may include the religion of your choice or it may include no religion at all. Perhaps you will receive gifts from friends and family or perhaps you have a non-standard definition of "friend" and "family". Indeed, "happy" should not be construed to mean anything at all, but only what you intend it to mean. If this intended meaning is not legal, I have the right to withdraw any and all connection to this wish.

Note that "good" is subject to similar conditions. Perhaps it is reduced stress or socially productive or improved income. "Good" is not intended to be defined in merely the terms that I understand "good", but may be whatever "good" you wish it to be. Again, if this intended meaning is not legal, I have the right to withdraw any and all connection to such a wish.

Should any of this wish be considered offensive or pejorative, I retain the right to cancel my wish on your behalf without notice. No insult is intended, nor is any real content suggested with this "wish".

*******

There ... much better, right?

(For a more "professional" one, this was quite good.)

Jesus Didn't Say

Thursday night on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN, the last hour was consumed with a report on "What is a Christian?" It was an interesting report, fairly balanced, and covering several areas such as Christianity and politics, Christianity and environmentalism, end times, the Word Faith movement, and Unitarians. Several times during the show, Mr. Cooper interacted with a panel of three. Richard Land is pastor and president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Jim Wallis is the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." He's also the president of Sojourners, a progressive Christian ministry. The Reverend Dwight Hopkins is an American Baptist minister and professor of theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Mr. Cooper asked the three what a Christian was. Of course, there were varying answers. Reverend Hopkins suggested that Christians were to be primarily concerned with "what Jesus Christ says in the four gospels of the New Testament." In context, it seemed innocuous, but there was a method to his madness. When the subject of homosexuality came up, Mr. Cooper asked what each thought. Reverend Hopkins fell back on his mantra. "Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality. So we're at a loss as far as what Jesus has to say."

This is a standard "defense" against Christians who argue that homosexual behavior is against the Bible. I would hope that a mere moment's thought would shoot this one down in flames. "Jesus never spoke on the issue" of rape, torture, incest, child molestation ... oh, lots of things which we all agree are against the Bible. This is no form of evidence that homosexual behavior is a biblically sound practice.

The real problem for me, however, is not merely this defense. It is the further ramification. Reverend Hopkins has managed to eliminate nearly 94% of the Bible. If the primary concern of the Christian is 4 books out of 66, we've lost a lot. We've lost the wisdom of Solomon, the worship of the Psalmists, the morality of the Law, and the history of Israel. We've lost the prophets and the apostles, the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Without Paul, we've lost the entire explanation of redemption, justification, and sanctification. Without James we wouldn't know that faith without works is dead. It is only John who tells us that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sinning. And while we may have a good idea of things like the Deity of Christ from the gospel of John, the concept is filled out in Paul's letters and in Hebrews. Let's face it. If Christianity is only concerned with the four books of the Gospels, Christianity is anemic and baseless (Eph. 2:20).

Homosexual behavior and its sinfulness aside, we dare not limit our Christianity to "what Jesus said". Too many things are at stake. We need the whole counsel of God as contained in the whole Bible. And basing our Christianity on what Jesus did not say will put us in a nightmare realm. Let's not try to push limits by removing truth.

Take Back Christmas

Let's take back Christmas. That's what I say. Consider the facts.

"Christmas" means "Christ's Church". So ... why are all these non-Christians celebrating "Christ's Church"? Seems somewhat insincere, doesn't it?

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. Very, very, very few actually celebrate the birth of Christ. Why should they get gifts, trappings, and a holiday out of something they sharply deny?

Christmas is about the coming of the Savior ... the Savior that most people refuse. Why should they get any benefit out of a celebration of someone they refuse?

Christmas is full of imagery intended to point to Christ. The tree is supposed to represent eternal life. (Originally it represented the Christ child's conquest over Satan, believe it or not.) The lights on the tree were originally put there to glorify God in His creation. The gifts are supposed to remind us of the gifts the wise men gave to the Baby. The angels represent the angels who told the news to the shepherds. The stars represent the star that led the wise men to Him. Even Santa Claus is premised on Saint Nicholas who characterized Christ-like giving and generosity at Christmas time. Why should any of this apply to people who have no interest in Christ?

We call it a "holiday". The idea behind the word is "holy day". How can people who have no concept of the holy be allowed a holy day?

I say, let's take back Christmas. It shouldn't be a holiday. It shouldn't be a day off or a week off. There shouldn't be all the lights and trees and gifts and all. It should be a quiet celebration afforded only to those who actually wish to celebrate Christ, His coming, and His Church. Any pretenders ought to be slapped with a fine and have their gifts and lights removed.

Okay, it's all tongue in cheek, but sometimes I wonder ...

Joy To The World - Verse 4

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders of His love.

“He rules the world with truth and grace.” Somehow, this seems an understatement. Abraham asked, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen.18:25). The implication is, “of course!” Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Jesus is The Truth. In Isaiah we read, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever” (Isa. 9:6-7). We have seen that truth and justice are not the operating mode of America, but they are ever-present in God’s government. He is not merely truthful; He is Truth. He is the essence of integrity.

“Truth and grace,” the song says. We can only begin to sing the wonders of God’s grace. Paul says in Rom. 9:14-16 that there is no injustice in God, but all of salvation is completely dependent on God’s mercy. Paul claims that it is the grace of God that made him what he was (1 Cor. 15:10), a laborer for Christ. In Eph. 1:5-6 we read that God “predestined us to adoption as sons” according to His own kind intentions “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” We know from Eph. 2:8-9 that our salvation occurs by grace, and in Titus 3:7 he merges the two concepts, saying that we are “justified by His grace that we might be made heirs.” Grace, in fact, is the focal point of our lives, according to Peter. We are to be “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10).

The hymn goes on to say, “and makes the nations prove the glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love.” First, I’m fascinated by the phrase, “makes the nations prove.” It is this same concept in mind in Rom. 12:2. Paul says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we can “prove what the will of God is”. The concept is also carried forward in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah quotes God as saying, “To me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance” (Isa. 45:23). Paul echoes the prophet in Rom. 14:11 when he says, “It is written . . .” But in Phil. 2:9-11, he more fully explains the process. “God highly exalted Him (Christ), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Although we are currently in rebellion, there will not be a rebel on the Day of Judgment. There will only be rejoicing or acquiescence.

What will the nations prove? The glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love.

We don’t seem to recognize the glory of righteousness. We see the wickedness of sins. We despise the evils we read and hear about on the news daily. But just as we don’t recognize the depths and horror of sin in our own lives, we don’t seem to grasp that righteousness is glorious. Those who appear to be righteous we ridicule as “goody goodies”. We almost revel in our humanity, our fallenness. Who hasn’t said, “Nobody’s perfect?” We all know the phrase, “to err is human.” What is the completion of that phrase? “To forgive, divine.” But the song says we will all prove the glory of His righteousness. Prov. 14:34 says that righteousness exalts a nation. Isaiah says that God makes righteousness the standard by which all else is measured (Isa. 28:17). Elihu warned Job that his righteousness could never exceed God’s (Job 35:2). The Psalms love to proclaim the righteousness of God (Psa. 7:17; 9:8; 22:31; 35:28; 36:6; etc.).

Nor can we comprehend the wonders of His love. Paul’s fervent prayer for the church at Ephesus was “that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19). John says that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). In that statement of love as an attribute of God, we see that all God is and all that God does is tied up in love. That is, in His grace, He is loving; in His wrath, He is loving; in His mercy, He is loving; in His justice, He is loving. Now that is a wonder. Who can comprehend that kind of love, the kind that expresses itself in the midst of hate (Rom. 5:8)? Who can understand a love that cannot be broken (Rom. 8:38-39), that is new every morning (Lam. 3:22-23)? God will make the nations prove, that is, demonstrate, all this.

Joy is to be the way of life for us. Joy should mark our paths. The joy of the Lord shouldn’t be “in our hearts”, but in our lives displayed. We have a King, a ruling Savior, who is adored by nature itself, who will free us from the very essence of sin. We have been saved from slavery to sin! We have a Sovereign who rules with integrity and unmerited favor, who is the highest example of righteousness, and who loves us beyond our comprehension. It is the coming of this King that we celebrate at Christmas. JOY TO THE WORLD!

Joy To The World - Verse 3

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as the curse is found.

“No more let sins and sorrows grow nor thorns infest the ground.” “Here’s an impossible task,” you might conclude. “Who can prevent sin from growing?” Remarkably, Paul echoes the same theme: “Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” (Rom. 6:12). So what does it mean to “not let sin reign”, or to “no more let sins . . . grow”? To the believer, the one with the new nature (2 Cor. 5:17), we have died in Christ (Rom. 6:2-11) to sin. We are putting to death the flesh (Rom. 8:13). We are no longer cultivating sin, but fleeing it. (Eph. 4:27; 1 Cor. 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22).

Why is this an issue? Because of the depths of sin. In Gen. 3, after mankind took up arms against God by transgressing His Law, God cursed the participants. He cursed the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15). He cursed the woman (verse 16). He cursed the man, and in it he cursed nature (verse 17-19). The thorns that mar the loveliness of the rose are a product of sin. Paul says that creation itself groans under the weight of our sin and decay, joyfully anticipating redemption (Rom. 8:19-22).

We don’t tend to use this language in our discussions. We tend to think of “sins” rather than “sin” as the problem. It is those things we have done to transgress God’s Law that we need to repent of and be saved. But the real problem is not “sins”, because these are just the result of “sin”, the natural state of the human being. Sin is the condition of the flesh into which we are born. Sin is the natural hostility we bear to the Creator. Sin is the Cosmic Treason we harbor that prods us to rebel against our Sovereign. It is this from which we need salvation.

This is in sight when the song says, “He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found.” How far is the curse found? It extends to nature itself, to the thorns and thistles, to death and decay - to our very nature. In this is the great joy brought to the world. The King, the reigning Savior, is bringing release from the curse!

Joy To The World - Verse 2

Joy to the world! The Savior reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.

“Joy to the world! The Savior reigns.” In America, we have sprung from a stock that says, “We will serve no sovereign.” Above all else, we cling to freedom. So it comes as a shock to us that “the Savior reigns.” This is a difficult concept for us to grasp and even harder to accept. Yet, in light of who the Savior is and what He has done, this ought to be a point of great joy for us. As David says in 1 Chron. 29:11, “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.” There is no more joyous place to be than in the safe control of the Savior.

“Let men their songs employ.” What does it mean to “employ”? It means to put to work, to use something or someone to accomplish a particular task. This song calls on us to “employ” our songs. Paul calls on us to “speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16). Work those songs. Put them to good use, and use them for their intended purpose – the praise of God.

This working of songs to demonstrate the joy of having a reigning Savior is picked up by all of nature. “While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains repeat the sounding joy.” This is the same thought in Psalm 96:11-13: “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy; they will sing before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his truth.” All of God’s creation echoes His praise! Imagine it when the vast crowd in heaven sings praises to God! “After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: ‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God’“ (Rev. 19:1).

Joy To The World - Verse 1

It's Christmas time. I'm going to do a Christmas carol. Well, actually, I'm going to take several days to sing a Christmas carol. I'm planning on taking four days (four verses) to examine and expand Joy To The World. Let's see what we can learn from a classical Christmas hymn.

Joy to the World!
From Psalm 98, Adapted by Isaac Watts

Joy to the world! The Lord is come;
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare him room,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven, and heaven and nature sing.

Psalm 98 says, “Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth; break forth and sing for joy and sing praises” (v 4). “Shout joyfully before the King, the Lord” (v 6).

Joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It is the natural result of the recognition of God’s care for us (Psa. 98:1-3; 100). It is commanded repeatedly (Phil. 2:18; 3:1; 4:4; 1 Thess. 5:16). Joy to the world!

It is disconcerting to hear secular singers belting out this song because of phrases like this: “The Lord is come; let earth receive her King.” Even we who believe have difficulty calling Him Lord and King, but the song calls on us to “receive” Him. This is the same word used in both a positive and negative sense in John 1:9-13. Negatively, “His own did not receive Him” (v 11). Positively, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God” (v 12). Our normal term today for becoming a Christian is to “accept Christ”, but the biblical term, “receive Him”, carries a fuller connotation. When you “receive” a TV signal, it is processed and displayed. When you have a “reception” for someone, it is to honor him. We are to “receive” our King, to open ourselves to Him, to appropriate and display Him, to honor Him.

“Let every heart prepare Him room.” Luke records that when it came time to deliver Jesus, “there was no room for them” (Luke 2:7). Jesus moves only into places that are vacated for Him. For us to receive our King, we must prepare Him room in our hearts.

The last line of the first verse repeats the phrase “and heaven and nature sing.” We live in a world that has divorced science and religion, the natural from the supernatural. We have divided out God and His world, and classified things as secular or sacred. God doesn’t see it as such. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, His detractors told Him to silence His disciples. He replied, “I tell you if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:40). The language of Scripture includes nature in adoring God (for example, Isa. 55:12). All of nature and all of heaven sing for joy at the coming of the King.

In the Word

People are always trying to come up with some method of reading their Bibles in meaningful ways. Often they go to Bible study books with nice fill-in-the-blank type questions and such or they'll find their favorite teacher's latest and greatest study on Ruth or Ecclesiastes or whatever. While I'm sure this is all well and good, I think it is a good idea to study for ourselves. So I am going to recommend the technique I was taught years ago. It has served me well, and for those to whom I have passed it on, it has served them well, too.

The method can be remembered using the acrostic, 2PROAPT:
P - Pray.
P - Preview.
R - Read.
O - Observe.
A - Apply.
P - Pray.
T - Tell.

It's not a difficult approach, but it encompasses all the major aspects. So, let me explain it a little.

Open with prayer. What you're looking for is God's presence as you read.

Preview the passage you will be reading. Scan it. Look it over quickly, maybe even as a larger view of a smaller section you intend to cover.

Read the passage. Maybe it's a paragraph, maybe a chapter, maybe a book. Just read it.

Having scanned it and then read it, make some notes. What do you see in the passage? "Just the facts, ma'am." What are the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of what you just read? What strikes your attention?

Now you've made observations ... hopefully things that God has impressed on you. The next step is to apply it. You're looking for specifics. Something measurable, verifiable. "Today I will _____." "For the next week I will ____." What does the passage ask you to do? Maybe it's an action. Maybe it's a thought process. Maybe it's a change of attitude. But God is speaking to you. What is He telling you?

Having noted what you believe God is telling you specifically, pray again. Make the observations and application a matter of prayer.

This final step is difficult for some, but you won't believe the value. Tell someone. Maybe you can tell a spouse. Maybe you have a "prayer partner" or an "accountability partner" you can tell. Maybe you have a pastor or friend. Maybe it's not always the same person. Just tell someone. "This is what I learned, and this is what God asked of me today." This will help motivate you and include others in what you're learning.

Packaged studies are fine, but when the Word becomes God's speaking to you, something you treat with reverence and with respect, something intended for you, perhaps the packaged studies and applications won't be what God has in mind for you. Try it. You'll like it.

The Good 1955 Wife

A friend sent me a copy of a Housekeeping Monthly article dated 13 May 1955. The title of the piece was The Good Wife's Guide. It was sent for the laugh factor. No one could actually think this was a good idea.

The article had "helpful" ideas on how to be a good wife. Some were good like "Be happy to see him" or "Try to make your home a place of peace, order, and tranquility." Nice. Some were mundane if not dated like "Have dinner ready" or "Clear away the clutter." Others were offensive to the modern American wife. "Catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction." "Remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours." "Don't ask questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity ... You have no right to question him." And the ultimate insult: "A good wife always knows her place."

Looking it over, there really isn't much of any value to today's wife. It's about a time gone by when women actually thought they were supposed to submit to their husbands. It presupposes that husbands were supposed to love their wives. It actually believes the ridiculous notion that love believes the best of the one loved. Well, the whole idea is preposterous.

But I enjoyed the fantasy. I wondered what it would be like to live in a world like that. I imagined a home where the husband is working at loving his wife as Christ loved the Church (Eph. 5:25) and the wife is submitting to her husband as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22). I dreamed about a marriage where two people consider each other as more important than themselves (Phil. 2:3). I thought about a husband who was deeply concerned with washing his bride in the Word (Eph. 5:26) instead of having a "show wife" and a wife whose goal was to adorn herself with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4) rather than a good career, family, figure, and "stuff".

Ah, yes, nice fantasy ... but reality is back. Husbands (Okay, men in general) are the bane of society and wives have to be "all" to their families while still working to get what they want out of life. That fantasy world probably didn't even exist in 1955, even though there was someone who thought it should. No, we're much more enlightened now. The war of the sexes is much better than that fantasy world ...

No Swearing Please

So, Keith Ellison wants to swear in on the Koran rather than the Bible. What's the big deal? I mean, consider the facts. Congressmen are sworn in as a group without any book present at all. The "Bible swearing" is a "photo op", a statement by the congressmen after the actual swearing in and isn't binding in any way ... since they were already sworn in. It's just so they can get their picture taken, and lots of them choose the Bible because it's the standard thing, whether or not they believe in the Bible. And there is that fact. How many atheists or, at least, practical atheists have done this "swearing in" thing (which we've already determined isn't a real swearing in) on a Bible that they don't actually believe? Is that a good thing? Isn't it better if Ellison, the first Moslem elected to Congress, does so on a book he values? Besides, religion isn't a test of office and we have a separation of Church and State here, so why would this be any issue at all?

I'm going to toss my two cents into the ring (just to mix metaphors). I think it is an issue.

Why is the Bible used for these events? It is because it is the standard -- it is what has always been done. There is no denying that the founders of America founded it on biblical principles. Even those who weren't "Christians" respected the principles of the Bible. So it is natural to include it. Doing so doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because there is no enforcement or demand made to honor it. It simply recognizes the roots of the country and the values of the values therein.

But there is more. We often hear of "multiculturalism" without actually thinking about what that means. A culture (in these terms) is defined as the common behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular group. "Multiculturalism" is a denial of culture. That is, if there is an American "culture", it is predicated on commonality, not diversity. The areas in which we are diverse are not "culture". They're not bad, but they're not culture. Thus, "multiculturalism" is an embrace of the destruction of commonality. It says, "America cannot have a culture." On the other hand, if we were to speak of what America has in common, what would that be? Well, there is the geography (which, given the vastness of this country, isn't much in common). There is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, but most civilized countries have similar documents, so that isn't strictly "American." One of the keys, one of the undeniable facts, is that a vast majority of Americans label themselves as Christian. This isn't a legal label, but a cultural label. The majority may not follow Christianity or the Bible, but they consider it worthwhile to some extent. Our laws are often based on Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible. There is much in our culture that has at its roots (perhaps deeply and sometimes obscurely) the Bible.

Enter Congressman Ellison who decides to substitute the Koran for the Bible in his ceremonial (not actual) swearing in. What is the purpose? The original purpose for all such events is to make a statement: "I'm your new congressman and I want you to believe that I will do my job." What is Congressman Ellison saying? I can't imagine a clearer way of saying, "I want to set aside the normal beliefs and the common culture of America and substitute my own." I cannot imagine a more obvious way of saying, "I want to replace the Bible in American Law with my own beliefs." This is only exacerbated by the fact that many Moslems view the Bible as a largely good book, ironically more so than many of the elected officials who have posed for their picture with one. Yet Congressman Ellison is unwilling to allow that possibility, wishing instead to force a statement against the Bible and American culture.

Go ahead ... rant and rave about racism and bigotry and islamophobia and the like. Complain that Christians are trying to violate the Bill of Rights and make our religion the American religion. I can't imagine what any of that has to do with this. It seems to me an obvious statement that the Bible has to go and the Koran should replace it. I understand the arguments that I offered at the outset, but I think there is more going on here and I am concerned about the effects that such arguments don't take into account. Are we really ready to toss out any basis for American Law and culture? Or is it a good idea to shift the basis from the Bible to the Koran? Is that really where we want to go?

Is God Just?

One of the common objections to God is this one: "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust." I have to be honest. For a long time, that one bothered me, too. I was told the standard fare. I knew "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I knew "The wages of sin is death." Fine. But ... why? I mean, when I transgressed my parents' rules, they didn't kill me. The wages of violating normal rules around my house was variable, but never death. So why death?

The first problem in my thinking was the temporal limitations. The phrase "an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime" suggests that the time of the offense should determine the time frame of the payment. Now, we know at the start that this is nonsense. It would be like suggesting that a person can only spend as much time in jail as it took them to commit the crime. "Hey, that robbery only took me half an hour to plan and execute." "Okay, you will spend the next half hour in jail." Ridiculous! No, the time frame of the payment isn't determined by the time frame of the offense, but the severity of the offense. A drunk driving offense isn't as bad as an armed robbery offense, which, in turn, isn't as bad as a murder offense. Each offense has a time frame of payment that correlates to its seriousness, not the time it took to commit it.

The second problem in my thinking followed from the first. If it is the seriousness of the offense, exactly how serious was the offense? Well, transgressing, for instance, my parents' command to get home before midnight clearly wasn't the same as transgressing, say, the federal law against murder. What I tend to do, however, is to equate human violations to divine violations, as if my parents' commands are equal to federal law. In truth, for the creature to violate the Creator is vastly larger than any human transgression.

The third problem in my thinking was the companion of the second. The nature of the violation determines the nature of the payment. But disobeying my parents is not the same as disobeying God. When we examine the nature of the violation, it exceeds "petty crimes" and spans to a much larger transgression. Given that this is the creature defying the Creator, what we have is Cosmic Treason. I have set aside the rightful commands of the Creator and said, "No! I will be my own god!" I have overthrown the rightful government of my life.

Putting these together, I finally found the thinking processes I had been missing. In any normal country with any normal rules, the common penalty for treason is death. Given that the "country" that is violated, the "government" against which my treason was committed is an infinite, perfect, right government, it is reasonable that the violation merits eternal death. Treason against a country merits physical death. Cosmic Treason against the Most High merits spiritual death. Finally I see that "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is perfectly just."

God is in Trouble

Look around you. The Internet is full of it. But it's in your country, your state, your town, maybe even your home. God is in trouble. As it turns out, He has lots of enemies and apparently He has a lot to answer for.

"I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am."

"If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God."

"I am not interested in any God that is not completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving."

In his NPR piece entitled "There Is No God" Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) says, "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us..."

These are popular objections for many. They are commonly used to refute the existence of God, but more often simply to personally choose to ignore Him. They will not settle for anything less than "hard scientific evidence." They cite wisdom like "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" or "If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it." You've all heard the complaints, "If God is omnipotent ..." followed by some impossibility. You know ... " ... can He make a rock too big for Him to pick up" or some such. Most of all, of course, God is on trial for His problems with His image. You see, "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust."

One of the hottest contested areas in the field of theology is known as "theodicy," the branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. The question: How can a good, kind, loving, just, omnipotent God allow the evil we see around us? Not many unbelievers care much for the answers. However, I would suggest that the questions are all wrong.

Being humans, prone to self-centeredness (oh, how we've turned that into a trite little term rather than the ominous evil that it is), we tend to think of God from ourselves rather than vice versa. So God, if He is to be good, must be "at least as compassionate as I am," as if I am the standard of compassion. We would hear, "If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God," as if we should have the right to declare what is right for God. (It isn't, by the way, an accurate statement to say that Gandhi would go to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff.) We create our own measure of "good" and "loving" and "forgiving" and, oddly enough, "perfect," then declare that God falls short.

I would suggest the reverse. It's interesting what we can learn from etymology sometimes. The question is whether or not there is such a thing as a "good God" in view of the evil we see. But etymologically speaking, the thing we are seeking is the same thing. The word "good" is premised on the word "God". In other words, God is good. He defines it. Without Him it does not exist. And, of course, without good, we have no concept of evil. Therefore, without a "good God", the entire question falls apart.

It isn't a satisfactory answer for unbelievers, but it doesn't make a difference. The truth is that God is not measured by justice; He is justice. He is not measured by good; He is good. He is not compared to love; He is love. Without God, none of this is, and the entire question goes away.

You see the problem, I hope. The problem is that we typically start with ourselves. We are the standard by which everything else is measured. If God does not measure up to the standards we choose, God fails. Never mind that we have no right or ability to make such standards, nor any reason to believe that God should measure up to them. Take, for instance, the demand for "hard scientific evidence." Demanding that we provide natural evidence for a supernatural being is simply nonsensical. It's like claiming that sound doesn't exist because I can't see it or light doesn't exist because I can't hear it. The supernatural, by definition, is outside of the realm of science and, therefore, by definition beyond the realm of "hard scientific evidence." Yet, it is the standard we are required to meet. It is, in short, the fundamental problem of human nature: "I will be like the Most High."

More

I recently read a post from Peter Beddow about experiencing God. In his piece he gives one person's experience, Ilona, who experienced meeting God. On the other hand, he describes his own experience where he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but didn't feel anything. He says, "I have never been able to shed the doubts about that experience, and though I still retain the ability to speak in that new language, I still ask God whether it is His Holy Spirit or whether I've created it out of my pride."

I understand this. My experience is slightly different, but I understand the sentiment. Years ago I was close with some people who believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. Now, not wanting to limit God in any way, despite the fact that I had never seen this concept in Scripture, I went with them to see if God had more for me than what I currently had received. It was a Wednesday night service, and the pastor invited anyone who wanted to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues to come down to the front and be prayed over.

Well, along with the three other people with me, we went on down. The pastor instructed us, before he started to pray for us, to babble. We were to speak in "baby talk." It was like priming the pump. We would start the babbling, but God would take over when the Spirit came upon us. So we started, and the pastor started praying. The three others with me received the Spirit with tongues, but eventually I gave up the babbling and went back to my seat with the rest, rejected.

What happened? Why did God reject me? I came to Him with open heart and fervent prayer and a desire for everything He wanted for me. I didn't let past teaching or beliefs get in the way. I didn't allow for doubt or questioning. I went up for it all, and came back with nothing. My friends, on the other hand, came back dancing in the Spirit.

These questions plagued me for years. I pushed them aside without answers, but they still were nagging at me. Did I block God? Or did God reject me? Or was I just not good enough? I answered the questions with biblical responses and that eased things for me, but it still felt bad. Then one day God pointed out the outcomes. One of the others who had received this special blessing had degenerated into lunacy. I'm not being trite. She literally lost her mind. The other threw Christianity out the window, embraced blatant, overt sin, cursed God, and today lives a sad, lonely existence. Me? I love the Lord more today than ever before, have a lovely wife whom I love dearly, and am still hard after all that God has to give me. How is that possible? How is it that they could receive more from God than I and they have such poor outcomes?

I don't have answers for that. I don't wish to cast aspersions on the experiences of others. I certainly don't want to suggest that "the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues" is a false experience. What I do believe is that, rather than being something "more", it is often the result of an experience-seeking mindset that is not satisfied with truth and seeks, instead, something beyond what God intends. Paul says, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil. 3:8), and prayed "that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10-11). For Paul, knowing Christ was the highest possible thing. To many Christians, personal experience is the highest possible thing. Paul longed to know the suffering and death of Christ. Many Christians simply seek the sweetness. A missionary once wrote this: "My goal is God Himself. Not joy or peace or even blessing, but Himself, my God. 'Tis His to lead me there - not mine, but His. By any road, dear Lord, at any cost." That, too, is my prayer.

Do Not Love the World - 1 John 2:15

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD! (Isa. 31:1).

It happened more than once to Israel. They faced enemies that outnumbered them. The odds were bleak. Their options were limited. The outcome was fairly certain, and it was failure, destruction. So Israel would often take up alliances with godless nations around them. Find strong armies to help defend them. That would protect them. The result, of course, was always the same. Their "wise approach" proved no help whatsoever. Instead of fending off disaster, they received it double.

One of the brightest exceptions was King Jehoshaphat. The Moabites and the Ammonites joined to go to war against Jehoshaphat. His choice of action? Pray (2 Chron. 20:3-4). God told Jehoshaphat, "Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's" (2 Chron. 20:15). Jehoshaphat followed God's instructions and developed a different battle plan than the oft repeated, always failed approach of others of joining with the godless. He took the people to a hill overlooking the approach of the enemy, called up the choir to sing, and watched God annihilate their enemies (2 Chron. 20:20-24). All they had to do was go down to their encampment and pick up the spoils. Not a bad approach.

As the 20th century was winding down, Christian "prophets of doom" began warning of the impending demise of the Church. "If we don't come up with new techniques, the Church will vanish by the early 21st century." It was a dire prediction from the likes of George Barna, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and many, many more. The response of the Church, largely, was not prayer, but an alliance with the world. Take up the world's techniques. Use their marketing methods. Join in their entertainment mentality. Appropriate their musical styles. Give the people want they want (2 Tim. 4:3). The result was the "megachurch." The megachurch phenomenon goes on today. Oddly, it isn't a result of more people going to church, but simply people leaving smaller churches for larger churches where they can get what they want. And while it might appear that the Church is improving her position, I would contend, instead, that she is preparing herself for double disaster.

What would make me think that? Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). In Acts 2:42-47, the first Christian church found itself "praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day" (Acts 2:47). One would think from this, then, that a large gathering of growing Christians would produce an effect in their immediate surroundings. What we find instead is a growing number of people pointing to the fact that immorality is just as prevalent in Christians as non-Christians and that the United States, a "Christian nation", has a higher crime rate than other, less "Christian" nations. This is not an improvement in the Church; it is a serious decline.

What else is in decline? One of the biggest things is worship. It is connected to the borrowing of worldly techniques. Many, many Christians have learned that "worship" is defined as "feeling good toward God". When they experience feeling warmly toward God in church, they say they worshiped. If they felt nothing, they didn't worship. Indeed, many churches have turned their sights on "felt needs". Meet the felt needs of the people that show up, and they will be inclined to be Christians. In other words, "worship" has changed from a singular focus of attention on God's worth (the definition of "worship") to self, what I need, and how I feel. God gets an admirable spot in the Church, but He is certainly not the sole or even primary attention. Paul says that worship is self dying (Rom. 12:1), but we've made self the focus of worship because self is the focus of the world and its techniques. Self-esteem, warm feelings, and so on are the goals of the world, not the Word.

I'm not a Christian prophet of doom. I don't believe the Church will cease to exist. I believe that the Church is the function of God and His work. It is aimed at building believers, not meeting their felt needs and making them feel warmly toward God. It doesn't belong to us, depend on our techniques, or hinge on our ability to make it function. But I do suspect that the Church as we know it is headed for radical losses if she doesn't learn to approach the crisis with Jehoshaphat's successful method of depending solely on God rather than Israel's failed method of depending on the world's methods.

Ruth Doesn't Get Church

In her splendidly candid post entitled I Still Don't Get Church, Ruth of Journal of Ruth has some interesting things to say. She expresses what I think a large number of Christians feel, things like "I think I have too high an expectations from the church" or "I always feel like I’m outside." One of the biggest, I think, is "They get church. For some reason, they get it and I don’t."

I think that a large number of believers feel like this. I also think that the truth is that most don't. They don't "get church". They don't feel like insiders. They don't even meet their own expectations for church.

One of the comments she made was very interesting to me:

I feel like I can be honest with my non-Christian friends, but I feel like if I really tell Christians what I really feel like, they’ll be uncomfortable.

I suspect she's quite right. I suspect that nearly all believers don't feel like they can be completely honest and up front with their church friends. After all, their church friends get it and they don't. Their church friends are godly folks and they aren't. Their church friends never speak of doubt or temptation or struggles with sin. And, perhaps, the light begins to dawn? They don't feel comfortable speaking about it ... with you, either.

The church has a lot to commend it. First, it is biblical. It was established by God for God. It is commanded. "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another" (Heb. 10:24-25). But it is also very beneficial. It promotes unity, spiritual growth, worship. It provides fellowship, a place where we can bear one another's burdens, a place to teach and be taught, to sharpen one another, to comfort one another. All well and good.

So ... what's wrong? Why is it that many think we have to revamp the Church or lose it? Why do so many feel like "I don't get it" and so few others know it? I suspect the answer is not simple. Part of it is that many, many churches have lost the notion of what church is supposed to be. A large number believe that church is intended to make converts. The Bible says it is intended to build believers. I think many churches have lost the notion of discipleship, part of the Great Commission that seems to be nearly lost today. (We aren't commanded "Go into all the world and make converts." We are commanded to make disciples ... and, oh, by the way, "teaching them all that I have commanded you.") I think there is a scarcity of churches (and, subsequently, Christians) that even know what worship is anymore.

I suspect, however, that the biggest problem is sin. Perhaps it's ignorant sin. Perhaps we aren't aware of it. Perhaps it's not intentional sin. But when we are commanded to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2) and we don't, it's sin. When we are told "confess your sins one to another" (James 5:16) and we don't, it's sin. When the singular hallmark of being a Christian -- love for the brethren (John 13:35) -- is largely missing from the church, it's sin.

I understand Ruth's feelings. I share them. I know what it's like to walk into a church and no one notices. I know what it's like to even try to work your way into the church, to be "inside", and no one notices. I know what it feels like to look at all this "spiritual people" and think, "They get it, and I don't." But these are feelings, and I suspect that the truth is that these feelings are a lie. The problem isn't that they get it. The problem is that we are sinning, refusing to love, and we are not going to talk about it. Now, can we just sing a nice little ditty about how much we love God and get on with the pleasant sermon? Please?

As I said, I don't suppose it's a simple answer. Perhaps there are things the Ruths of Christianity ought to be doing. Perhaps there are things other Christians ought to be doing. Maybe not. But there are clear things that are wrong. Perhaps we -- individuals -- need to start with "I" and work on love and spread that around a bit. We ought to work on "bear one anothers burdens" and "confess your sins" and "love one another" and see ... just see if it makes a difference. I suspect that, at least for the individual who chooses to obey God this way, it will.

Both - And

Has this ever happened to you? I'm muddling about, trying to find answers to a question. Maybe it's "What should I do about ___?" or (more likely) "What does this mean?" or other possibilities. Then, without working at it, I open my Bible to read and ... POP ... there it is.

I posted a couple days ago about the need for sanctified Christians here followed here with a post about my confusion on the question. We have this dichotomy. It appears that Scripture is abundantly clear that we are not saved by works. It seems that Scripture is abundantly clear that if there is no change in the person, they are not saved. So what am I to make of it?

Well, I've been reading through Paul's letters in sequence, and inevitably I come across this:

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth (2 Thess. 2:13).

Paul is not ambivalent here. He is not unclear. Paul affirms Election ("God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation"). And Paul makes this amazing claim ... that we are to be saved through sanctification. Oh, okay, now it's clear. Hodges is wrong; MacArthur is right. Salvation is by sanctification -- the process of becoming Christ-like. No, it's not so clear. This sanctification occurs "by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

And, of course, since I am reading through Paul's letters sequentially, I just read this:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it (1 Thess. 5:23-24).

There it is again -- sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which we cooperate with God to be made into the image of Christ. But Paul here says that God Himself will sanctify us completely. Then, in a typical Hebraism, he reiterates "He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it." In other words, He will sanctify us completely, He will sanctify us completely. You can count on it.

Again, it looks like a contradiction. It's not. It's a paradox. A contradiction is a violation of logic; a paradox is an apparent contradiction ... which may or may not be an actual contradiction. What we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin. One -- the one I've expressed here -- is God's perspective. He will do it. We are sanctified by the Spirit. He will surely do it ... completely. One side of the coin. The other side is our perspective: Work!!

It is the same two-sided perspective offered in Phil. 2.

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13).

So ... is it my job to work out my salvation, or God's? Yes. No, no, you don't understand ... Do I work? Yes. Oh, okay, so it's not God's work but mine. No. Oh, then it's God's work. Yes. So it's not my work; it's God's. No. The answer is work because God is at work in you. The answer is that we always act on what we truly believe, so if you truly believe that Jesus is Lord, you will necessarily submit to Him ... because God is at work in you. The answer is that a person who is born of God will not make a practice of sin (my work) because God's seed abides in him (God's work) (1 John 3:9).

Do we work out our salvation? Yes. We need to work as if it's all up to us. Does that save us? No!!! Then ...? We work because God is the one at work in us, enabling us to do the work and giving us the will to do the work and, ultimately, accomplishing the work in us. Since He enables both the will and the power to do it and carries it through to its conclusion, we cannot say we earned anything. We can say we worked at it.

The question is primarily one of assurance. Does our assurance come from our work or our faith? MacArthur seems to say it comes from our work. Hodges seems to say it comes from our faith. Clearly, work and faith are at work. Clearly God is at work and the believer will work. Assurance, then, comes from faith. We can know we have eternal life (assurance) if we believe. The alarm being raised about "test yourself" and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "faith, if it has no works, is dead" is this. Your assurance comes from faith. However, if there is no works, no change of the person, then there is reason to question your faith.

Zane or John - and the Bible

Scott over at Christian Telegram references an article by Dr. M. James Sawyer entitled Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation in which he compares and contrasts Zane Hodges's "Free Grace" with John MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation".

Briefly, John MacArthur (and others) advocate that a person who becomes a believer must actually submit to Jesus as Lord, while Zane Hodges (and others) counter with "No, no, no! All you need to do is believe."

It is an interesting article, but, in all honesty, it simply leaves me wondering what the truth is.

On Hodges he writes, "Hodges is responding to a caricature of a position rather than fully grasping what the Lordship position is saying, due in part to his own presuppositions. He hears the Lordship position insisting on the necessity of good works and interprets this as making works a condition of salvation." He believes that the problem occurs because of "the desire for absolute certainty that an individual possesses salvation." He thinks that Hodges fails to properly grasp or define faith, saying, "His working definition seems often to have reference to assensus and possibly notitia but without fiducia."

On MacArthur he says, "There is a hardness, an absoluteness, in the form of statements which preclude discussion." He believes that much of what MacArthur espouses is right, but he complains, "It is not a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. It is, however, being read as such, and as such it presents an unbalanced view of what the gospel is all about." I think one of the telling sentences begins "While I applaud the Lordship position in its insistence that the believer in Jesus Christ will show by his life that he is a believer, the rhetoric I hear ..."

I have to wonder if the rhetoric isn't the problem. I have to wonder if the opposition to Lordship Salvation isn't a product of misunderstood rhetoric. More accurately, I wonder if the Lordship Salvation position isn't intended to be an overstatement for effect. Sometimes, when we see a particularly egregious erroneous viewpoint, we can try to compensate by firm, deliberate, even excessive statements to the contrary. I have to wonder if MacArthur (and others) aren't responding to what they perceive to be a serious error and are, therefore, using more serious language than would ordinarily be used. Lordship Salvation, for instance, is not intended to provide a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. Dr. Sawyer is absolutely right. So is it possible that the critics are responding to something never intended?

As for me, I'm more confused than ever. I concur with Hodges (and MacArthur) on the doctrine of sola fide -- justification by faith alone (apart from works). We are not saved by works ... period. We do not contribute to our salvation. We do not earn, merit, achieve anything to do with our salvation. It is a gift, grace apart from my merit. And I agree with Sawyer that Hodges's approach lays the foundation for antinomianism. The sharp separation between justification and sanctification -- the hard-nosed battle cry that works are not part of Christianity -- flies in the face of Scripture after Scripture. But where is the balance?

On one hand we hear comforting words all around. John says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). There it is, plain as day. If you believe, you can know that you have eternal life. Paul writes, "This was according to the eternal purpose that He has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him" (Eph. 3:11-12). See? "Confidence through our faith." What more do we need? On the other hand there are resounding alarms throughout Scripture, warnings that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17) and that "anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God" (1 John 3:10). We must test ourselves to see if we're in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). We must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). We are warned -- warned -- to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

This same dichotomy is carried out in Scripture in plain sight. We don't have to dig for it; it is explicit.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).

So how do we handle this? Is assurance certain? Do we need to work or don't we? How do we correlate "not of works" with "for good works"? MacArthur and Hodges seem to go head to head. Both seem to be right ... and wrong. Without regard for either MacArthur or Hodges, how do we make sense of the Scriptures?