Dangerous Ground

²² Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴ But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:22-24).

¹⁷ Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. ¹⁸ Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col. 3:17-18).

¹ In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, ² as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. ³ Your adornment must not be merely external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; ⁴ but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; ⁶ just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1-6).

I know ... I said we couldn't talk about these things. And I know ... I'm about to take a poke at a hornet's nest. But it's on my mind, and this is my blog, so I should be able to to this kind of thing on my own blog ... right? (We'll see from the responses I get how wise this is, won't we?)

Christianity in general and the Bible in particular sometimes fall in the "politically incorrect" category. It's politically incorrect to talk about sin. Too judgmental. It's politically incorrect to talk about repentance. Too intolerant. And it's definitely politically incorrect to suggest that wives are called to submit to their husbands. Not only is it politically incorrect, but anyone with half a heart would have to admit that it can be difficult to make such a statement, given the character (or lack thereof) of so many men and the abuses women have suffered under such a suggestion. So perhaps it gives one pause to make the suggestion that wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands. Maybe it's not right?

When we look at the first one, there is always the "hand raise" from the crowd. "Doesn't it say that we should be subject to one another?" Yes, indeed. The preceding verse, Eph. 5:21, says exactly that. In fact, truth be told, Eph. 5:22 does not say, "Wives be subject to your own husbands." The Greek words simply give us, "Wives to your husbands." The translators fill in "be subject" because it is inferred from the previous verse. So, let's carry this thought through from the passage. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Husbands, be subject to your wives. Children, be subject to your parents (Eph. 6:1-3). Parents, be subject to your children. Slaves, be subject to your masters (Eph. 6:5-8). Masters, be subject to your slaves. Perhaps, when we lay it out like that, we can see that it doesn't quite work. Wives are to be subject to their husbands, but the subjection of husbands to their wives is to love them (Eph. 5:25), not submit. Children are to obey their parents, but the subjection of fathers to their children is not to exasperate them (Eph. 6:4), not to submit to them. Slaves are to be obedient to their masters, but the subjection of masters to their slaves is to please Christ and not threaten them (Eph. 6:9), not submit to them. In other words, the way each is to "be subject" is not the same for each function. The wife "ranks under" (the actual intent of "subject" or "submit") the husband's leadership. The husband subjugates his personal interests in seeking the best interests of his wife. The children obey their parents. Fathers subjugate the extent of their control so as not to exasperate their children. Slaves submit to their masters. Masters subjugate what could be their rightful control to show kindness to their slaves that their society didn't require. There is "mutual submission", but not the same kind of submission.

This is why there is no equivocation in the Col. 3 passage. This one is not stated as examples of mutual submission. Wives are to rank under their husbands.

Peter's passage starts with a tell-tale phrase: "In the same way." What way? "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). Peter lists this as part of our growth in respect to salvation (1 Peter 2:2). More specifically, it is part of "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12). The verses that follow explain what this "submit yourselves" looks like. "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable" (1 Peter 2:17-18). The rest of chapter 2 is precisely on this topic of servants submitting to unreasonable masters. "You have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21). So we find ourselves once more on the doorstep of submission. This is why Peter says to wives, "Be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives." Now, some use this as a tool to bludgeon wives. "He hasn't been won. You must not be submitting right." That isn't in the text. It says they may be won. They may not. It isn't intended to be a measurement of submission. However, it seems very hard to get around the fact that it is a call to submit in the same sense that slaves submit to masters and Christ submitted to the cross.

The problem for many is the concept of authority. While many argue for "co-equal submission and headship", it doesn't seem to work here. Some will point to the Trinity. "They're co-equal in headship." This, however, is not true. Jesus clearly indicated that He submitted in all things to His Father, and clearly the Father and the Son send the Spirit, so within the Godhead there is a submission. Paul, in fact, repeats this structure in 1 Cor. 11:3, where he says, "the head of Christ is God." Now, if Christ who is co-equal with God is in submission to the Father, what makes us think that the equivalent submission process doesn't work in human terms?

The other problem for many is the abuse of this concept. Too many over the centuries have taken this concept to extremes, requiring that wives submit to anything their husbands choose to dish out -- abuse, cruelty, anything at all. Men have used this concept to batter wives with the command: "Submit!!!" First, "submission" does not mean necessarily mean "obedience". In the case of a child's submission to his parents, it is obedience. But not in all cases. In the language, "submit" is a military term meaning "to rank under". In the military, when you are outranked, you "submit", but that does not mean you always follow orders. When the orders you are given are immoral, you are obligated to disobey them. The point is to be a helper. That does not mean to be inferior or a doormat. And sometimes the help that is needed is to withdraw. A husband on drugs does not need a wife who gets him his drugs, but a wife that refuses him his drugs. A husband who is damaging his family with abuse doesn't need a wife that lets him, but a wife that stops it. That is help. "Submit" doesn't mean "doormat". And the men that have used it to mean such have been quite foolish, considering the burden placed by God on men is much larger than that of women. I mean, seriously, guys, since you are the one that God holds as responsible for just about everything in this world (home, family, children, work, wife, church, etc.), do you really have time to be berating wives who aren't matching your twisted idea of "submit=doormat"? Bottom line, an abuse of a concept does not render the concept false. It is simply an abuse of the concept.

The Bible represents a serious departure from the culture of its time. Women were to be considered of equal value. Men were not to lord it over them. They were "co-heirs". No longer were they the chattel of their husbands. Still, God set up a "chain of command", a family order. The Son submitted to the Father. Husbands are to submit to the Son. (For some reason, no one seems to have the slightest problem with these two.) And, despite the protests of so many today, wives are to submit to their husbands. This isn't a "doormat" submission. It isn't a death of personal identity. It isn't intended to make women whipping posts. It is part of the order that God has designed. It may not be easy, and it may not always function as intended, but it is the command.

Border Patrol Uproar

Here's the email that's floating around. I'm sure you can find this information in a variety of forms. The web and the media is abounding with info about of it:

Two U.S. Border Patrol Agents are serving decade long prison terms for attempting to apprehend a known drug smuggler for illegally crossing our border with more than 700lbs. of drugs!

Almost as outrageous is that the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was given free medical care, and immunity for testifying against the agents is now suing the U.S. for $5 million -- claiming his civil rights were violated!

The first thing that comes to my mind is ... "Huh???!!!" In what world are Border Patrol Agents put in prison for doing their job? The whole thing struck me as bizarre, so I had to look further.

There was a link in my email to a site called grassfire.org that was spearheading a petition to get these two guys pardoned. So I looked at the website. They had a link to a story from WorldNetDaily (WND) about the story, explaining how the wrong law was used to convict the agents. (See, that's not helping me at all. We have a law that is similar to "convict border patrol agents for doing their job", but not quite the same.) So I looked at the story. In that story there was a link to an earlier interview with the prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. (And it is not a "friendly" interview.)

So I look at the interview. And here I find a completely different story. It appears that these guys weren't arrested, tried, and convicted for doing their jobs. Instead, it appears that they were arrested, tried, and convicted for shooting an unarmed man, hiding the evidence of the shooting, and filing false reports. Now, it is just my suspicion, but I'm thinking that nowhere in the job description of the U.S. Border Patrol will I find anything resembling "Shoot unarmed people and lie about it."

Now, I'll be honest. I don't know all the facts in the case. I do know that there is an uproar over this. I do know that people are angry at the government for prosecuting these two agents and angry at the president for not pardoning them. I do know that there is almost zero information being offered about why it is that they were prosecuted. I'm not suggesting that these officers were right to be prosecuted, and I'm not suggesting that they should be freed. I'm asking that people take a few minutes, examine both sides, and calm the rhetoric. Surely I'm not the only one thinking "Something is not right with the story we are being told on the 'free these guys' side." Let's not fall victims to the emotional assault.

Division and Unity

It has been said, "Experience unites; doctrine divides." There is truth to the statement. And we all know that unity is better than division ... right?

The Bible calls for Christians to be "one". We are to be of one spirit and one mind (Phil. 1:27), united in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13). We are to have the same judgment, without division (1 Cor. 1:10). It might appear from a multitude of passages in the Bible that unity is the highest calling and division is bad.

But, before we toss out doctrine (a suggestion by many these days), let's look a little further. Does the Bible allow for division? I would think that, with a minimum of examination, we would be forced to answer with a resounding, "Yes!" When Jesus told His famous "Sheep and Goats" parable (Matt. 25:31-46) He told about two groups of people. One group, "sheep", are put on His right hand, and the other, "goats", are placed on His left. One group fed Him and clothed Him when He was in need, and the other did not. The group on His right inherits His kingdom, while the group on His left is sent to eternal punishment. That would seem to be a clear division. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells of two types of people. The wise man builds his house on the rock, while the foolish one builds his house on the sand. That is a division. Jesus told His disciples:

³⁴ "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ³⁶ And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. ³⁷ Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. ³⁸ And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:34-38)

That is division.

Paul tells the Corinthians "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor. 5:11). That is a division.

The accusation that "doctrine divides" is true. Truth is a divisive thing. It divides between that which is true and that which is false. The unity into which we are called is a unity in truth, not in spite of truth. And the suggestion that "experience unites" is also a truism, but it can produce false unity. People are capable of fabricating actions and mimicking experiences. We all know people who appeared to be Christians and weren't. The Bible refers to people in the Church known as "wolves in sheep clothing" (Matt. 7:15), "antichrists" (1 John 2:18-19), "tares among wheat" (Matt. 13:24-30). These are false believers who appear to be united to us by experience.

Unity is a good aim, but it must be a unity in truth. As such, doctrine, though it may divide, is a good division as long as it is true doctrine. Beware the anti-intellectualism of the age. We are called to be of one mind, but let's try to make sure that mind is set on truth as much as we can and not surrender to mere experience.

You've come a long way, baby!

It's a tag line from an advertisement for Virginia Slims. You see, classy women didn't used to smoke. Then Women's Lib came along and women were allowed to do anything they wanted ... including suicide with tobacco products. Yes, a long way.

I wonder sometimes if "progress" is really that. There is a phenomenon known as "the ugly American" in which arrogant Americans travel abroad thinking that their way of life is the best of all and anything else is less. It's not accurate, however, to lay that solely at the feet of Americans. Most people think that their way of life is the best and look at others with disdain. The French, for instance, are legendary for refusing to speak English to visitors because they're so much better than English-speaking folks. And it's not merely the French. All of Europe, it seems, is quite sure that their civilized living is highly superior to other civilizations. So Americans aren't the only arrogant group of people.

When we take a look, however, at the contrasts, I have to wonder how far we've really come. Compare our lifestyles to that of, say, some remote Pacific islanders, a mostly untouched tribe in the Amazon jungle, or a distant group of Africans, and, if you're fair, you'll have to wonder. There is no doubt that our "standard of living" is higher. We certainly have more "stuff". They don't drive SUV's or use dishwashers. They don't even have running water. But what else are they lacking? They typically lack traffic congestion, unemployment, divorce, appreciable crime rates, or abortion. Their children think that it's a good idea to obey their parents and respect their elders. They are not "youth-oriented" societies, but find value in the knowledge and experience of their elders. They rarely have runaway fathers or mothers abandoning their families. Their kids never shout, "Why can't I have a cell phone??!! You don't understand me at all!" They are not contributing to the problem of greenhouse gases nor do they fear what will happen when the oil runs out. They are rarely concerned about "keeping up with the Joneses" and generally unaware that they are "living in poverty". Instead, they are uniquely blessed with a general sense of satisfaction of simply being alive. They are relatively content with what they have and seek only to live out their lives as they are.

No, I wouldn't be able to go to that way of life. I'm too "civilized". But still ... sometimes I wonder exactly how far we've really come, baby? Perhaps I should learn to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself.

The Terror Within

They're raising the alarm. The global warming problem is certain. And they are 90% positive that humans are causing it. (For the uninitiated, in "science speak", "90% positive" means "there is no doubt".) Some suggest that even if we stopped dumping greenhouse gases into the air, the effect would continue for centuries. And, apparently, it is primarily the United States who is to blame for this problem.

But, don't stop there. They're raising the alarm. The AIDS epidemic is out of control. Millions are getting the disease around the world, but especially in Africa. There is no cure and precious little treatment. Children are contracting it from their infected parents. Babies are being born with it. It's a horrible problem worldwide. One of the saddest tragedies in this problem is that the United States isn't doing enough to solve it.

And they are still raising the alarm. We're losing in Iraq. It is a poor strategy with insufficient reason and inadequate goals, and we are not likely going to succeed in Iraq. Americans are dying almost daily. Worse, Iraqis are killing Iraqis in sectarian violence brought on by the U. S. intrusion into the area. Iran is feeding the violence. Syria is recruiting young men to go to fight in Iraq. It is a $400 billion mess, costing the lives of more than 3000 Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis.

And they're still raising the alarm. President Bush is the worst thing to happen to the United States since ... I don't know, I guess since its inception. He is incompetent, irrelevant, ill-advised, and dangerous. He hasn't had a good idea since he took office, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.

Surely you can see by now that this list can go on. There is disaster around every corner. It's unclear that there's anything good at all happening anywhere. Calamity is upon us from all sides. The most difficult part is that there are no answers -- just problems. "Okay, let's say that there is a problem with global warming and that Man is to blame. Now what?" The answers are either inane or non-existent. According to wikipedia, the primary sources of human emission of greenhouse gases are the use of fossil fuels, livestock, landfills, chlorofluorocarbons, and the use of fertilizers. So ... if we'd all stop driving, eliminate the use of electricity and refrigerators, stop making trash (and going to the bathroom ... one of the specific problems cited), and stop growing food with fertilizers, well, then, this global warming problem would go away ... after about 200 years ... when we're all dead. I checked one website which made practical suggestions on how each of us can decrease emissions. I already do most of them without thinking of emissions. Some of them I don't do because the cost is prohibitive. They're suggesting that if each of us properly inflated our tires and took shorter showers, well, then, the problem is fixed! (I'm over-simplifying. But the list is overly simplistic and non-effective.) The only thing that humans can do to stop this problem we've caused is to eliminate most of the human population and all of our technology and civilization and return to prehistoric times where we didn't live anywhere long, there weren't too many of us, and we had no technology.

The list goes on. There is no cure and no prevention available for AIDS. What do they recommend we do about it? There is already several ongoing investigations into cures, treatments, and immunizations. That's not enough. The epidemic is out of hand. Do something! Do what? What do they recommend we do in Iraq? If we stay there we've lost. If we pull out we've lost. What is the recommendation? What do they want us to do about our President? Shall we impeach him? Assassinate him? Tar and feather him and ride him out of Washington on a rail? None of these are useful, practical, responsible suggestions. What do you want us to do?

I sometimes wish we could make a law. "Don't complain about a problem if you aren't going to offer a viable solution." As it currently stands, all this raising of alarms is simply terrorism. It raises fears with no possibility of fixing the situation. There is no productive use for this kind of alarmist tendencies and no one is offering suggested solutions. There is very little difference between this kind of running around yelling, "The sky is falling" and the terrorism of the radical Islamist.

Here's what I suggest. For every minute that you spend listening to the fear mongering news media, spend an equal amount of time in prayer and in your Bible. For all the garbage you take in, spend an equal amount of time renewing your mind. Maybe that will help. (Just trying to offer a viable solution.)

Conspiracy Theory

It's a conspiracy, I tell you ... a bona fide conspiracy. Now, to those who know me, this statement would be a bit of a surprise because I'm not your typical conspiracy theorist type. I don't believe that the government is trying to read my thoughts or poison us with fluoride in the water, that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by George Bush, or that aliens are residing in Roswell. I don't believe that John Kennedy is the Antichrist (seriously, that one was floated for a time), that the AIDS is an intentional organism aimed at killing homosexuals, or that Christianity is a product of a secret organization in France. I'm not buying any of this.

I don't believe that people are behind this conspiracy. It's not some particular group. I think it is, if you will, a scheme from the pit of Hell. Nonetheless, it is gaining ground and taking control in more places than you can imagine. So ingenious and successful is this effort that you may likely have fallen victim to it already, not know it, and even think it is a good idea.

What is the conspiracy? The goal is to emasculate men. The purpose is to strip men of that which makes them male and, in the process, devalue that which makes men men. What would be the reason for such an effort?

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3).

God has set up a chain of command which begins with Him. In human terms, it places males over females. The extent of that chain of command is not in question here. That is a dialog for another time. However, the existence of that chain is irrefutable. Now, if you are the Enemy (say, oh, I don't know, Satan?) and you were at war with God and wanted to mess up His system, one of the smartest things you could do is disrupt His chain of command. Of course, he has no means of disrupting either the Father or the Son, so he is left with disrupting the connections between Christ and men and between men and women.

How is he working out this conspiracy? I think we are all aware of this major thrust in society today to "tame the beast", to take the edge off of marital problems, to fix families. The primary approach is to alter men. Men are to "get in touch with their feminine side", to find their "inner child". They are to set aside aggression, learn sensitivity, be more "feeling". (Funny thing ... why is it that we never hear anyone tell women, "You need to get in touch with your masculine side"?) The primary model we use today of "good people" is women. Women are fundamentally good. Men must become more like them. That's the thinking.

Unfortunately, that's not a biblical perspective. What we (yes, even we Christians) have forgotten is that God made men to be men and women to be women. The two genders are different, and they are different by design. Women are designed to nurture; men are not. Women are designed to multitask; men are not. When God designed the genders, He did a very odd thing. He designed the two to complement each other. Careful; check the spelling. I didn't say "compliment". To "complement" is take two parts that make up a whole. God designed men to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed women to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed the two to work in such a way that together they can accomplish much more than they ever could apart.

We've forgotten that. We've decided that the way God made men wasn't good, so we've decided to fight the very nature of the beast and try to make men in the image of women. Sometimes we seem to succeed ... by breaking the male in question. More often we fail and bemoan how awful men are. Neither of us -- male or female -- seem to be willing to take into account that women are not men and men are not women. As the French would say, Vivé la difèrence!

There are differences between men and women. Some are sinful. Some are not. We need to figure out that some of those differences are necessary and good and embrace them. Stop trying to make men into women. God designed men to be responsible. Can't we allow for God's design in that arena rather than trying to remove those characteristics? Do we really believe that we can improve on God's design? Are we really going to let the Enemy get the upper hand with this conspiracy?

Herman Who?

Theologians are quite good at muddying the waters. If there is a multi-syllabic word for a simple concept, they will find it and use it because it sounds so impressive. Now, I don't mean to be insulting to theologians. I would love to be one. And in some sense, I am. All Christians should be involved in the study of the nature of God. (See? Even "theologian" is a fancy word for "people who study the nature of God".) But wouldn't it be nice if we could all speak the same language?

Here, let me show you a prime example. If you look up the word, "hermeneutics", you'll find that it means, "the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis." There you go. Plain as day. Wait ... the branch of what that deals with the principles of what? So we learn to speak the language, not because it's superior, but because we can actually use those things if we learn to understand them. So ... slowly, now. "Theology": The study of the nature of God. Good. So there is a branch in that particular study that examines ... Biblical exegesis. Good. Okay. Now, "exegesis": the critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Oh, okay, now we're talking. So hermeneutics is the task of actually figuring out what the Bible says. Well, why didn't you say so?

Hermeneutics is an important field for any serious person who wants to know God. We need to know how to properly understand the Biblical texts without "eisegesis". I know ... slowly. Okay, if "exegesis" is what comes out of the Bible, then "eisegesis" is what goes in. That is, eisegesis is the process of putting meaning into Scripture that is a product of the reader's perception and not actually there.

This is an extremely common problem. Many people "proof text" their favorite ideas. That is, they have something that they believe, then go find verses that will support it. The verses, taken in context with proper understanding, may not actually support the view, but that's no matter. Eisegesis is fun and profitable. (Just look at the "name it and claim it" theology.)

One of the easiest errors of eisegesis is the error of the implied. We will often read a passage of Scripture and, by implication, come to a conclusion. An example would be "whosoever will". We see that concept often in Scripture. The most famous is, of course, John 3:16. Okay, all together now: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Yeah, we know that one. Now, when we read it, we conclude that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can". It is, perhaps, implied, but nothing in the text requires it. Undaunted, people still press on with the confident belief that John 3:16 teaches explicitly that it is possible for all people to believe in Christ. If you suggest that, perhaps, that's not the case, you are defying clear Scripture ... what's wrong with you?

Now, as I pointed out here, the Bible speaks explicitly in more than one place that there is a problem with the human condition that makes him unwilling and, therefore, unable to believe simply by his own choice. One of the first rules of hermeutics is that we must interpret the implicit from the explicit. So while it may be implied from John 3:16 that everyone has the capability of believing, the explicit Word of God says that this is not the case. Therefore, it is an error to assume from John 3:16 that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can believe". It is ... eisegesis.

There are a limited number of rules in hermeneutics, but we would all do well to learn what they are. Understanding what the Bible says ("hermeneutics") is key to understanding God ("theology") and a given pursuit of anyone who considers himself a follower of Christ ("Christian"). Fancy words aside, we would all do well to take some time to figure out the common rules of understanding the Bible and check our own beliefs against the possibility that we may have gone down the wrong doctrinal path from time to time. It's humbling and difficult ... but much more profitable than some false theology that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy ... or whatever other faulty theology you might find out there.

Christ Has NOT Returned

One would think that this would be too easy to avoid, but it appears that this isn't the case.

Meet Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. Jose is a Puerto Rican native, 60 years old, with a church in Doral, Florida. Jose has gone from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal to Baptist and then on to his own brand of doctrine. His organization is called "Growing in Grace" and he has taught that there is no sin, no Satan, and everyone is predestined to salvation. Okay. Nice. Wrong, but nice. Oh, did I mention? He also holds that he is the second coming of Christ.

A native of Puerto Rico, de Jesus, 60, spent his youth drifting from the Roman Catholics to the Pentecostals to the Baptists. Then one night in 1973, he says, he awoke to a vision of two hulking men at his bedside who announced the arrival of the Lord, who, says de Jesus, "came to me and integrated with me."

Source

One would think this was easy to avoid because apparently the second coming of Christ was an evolutionary process. In 1998, he was the reincarnation of Paul. Two years ago, he declared himself to be Christ. And last week, he declared himself the Antichrist (complete with a "666" tattooed on his arm) because he rejcts the worship of the "false Christ", Jesus of Nazareth. Apparently the second coming of Christ is an expensive process. All members of his church are required to tithe. (He took in $1.4 million last year.) He lives a lavish life with expensive jewelry and fancy cars. And apparently Christ is returning as a cult leader. He exerts absolute authority. Members disavow normal family ties and make their church their only family. One would think, with all of this, that it would be easy to see that this man is a liar from Satan's camp, but, apparently, this is not the case.

So, let's be clear. There is nothing in all of Scripture, nothing in all of Church history, and nothing in any rational person's mind that would support the idea that Jesus is going to return by "integrating" with a 60-year-old Puerto Rican, making him, somehow, God when just the night before he wasn't. Christ will not return to a sinful body, doesn't care about making money, and won't need to dominate people's lives when He comes. Indeed, when He returns, there will be no further questions about Christianity or Christ. So if you were considering the possibility of checking this guy out, please, spare yourself the effort.

Man's Inability

One of the real sticking points many times with those who disagree with Reformed Theology is the suggestion of the "inability of Man". The position of Reformed Theology is that natural Man lacks the capacity to obey God or choose Him. More accurately, while Reformed Theology holds that Man is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel, the position is that he is morally unwilling and unable to do so.

The responsibility of Man to repent and believe is well known among Christians. It is straight out of Scripture. Over and over people are commanded to believe, to come to Christ, to seek Him. Therefore, it is concluded, Man has the capacity to do these. So why would anyone suggest we don't?

Well, that, too, is straight out of Scripture. While humans are reticent to make such a claim about the lack of ability, it appears that the Bible has no such problems. More than once Jesus used the phrase, "No man can ...", a phrase clearly highlighting the inability of man to do something. Paul writes, "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). That doesn't speak of a weakness or shortfall; it speaks of total inability. In 1 Cor. 2:14 he writes, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." In this verse there are two statements. One speaks of whether or not it happens. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." The second speaks of the ability to do so. "He is not able to understand them." When we argue that human beings must have the natural capacity to understand and accept the things of God, we do so in the face of these Scriptures, not because of them.

The most difficult one is one of those I mentioned first, where Jesus uses the phrase "No man can ..." He uses it twice in John 6. In verse 44 He explains that Man lacks the natural ability to come to Him. But the real hard one to avoid is the one later on in verse 65. To get the full import, you have to get the context.

Jesus was speaking here to a crowd in the synagogue made up of various folks including locals (John 6:42) and followers (John 6:60). He launches into His famous "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51). This odd suggestion really doesn't sit well with many of His listeners. So He goes out of His way to smooth their feathers (not). "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55). This odd talk is so unnerving that, according to John, many of His followers didn't like it (John 6:59-60). Jesus directly addresses His grumbling followers here and says, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64). So, having presented a difficult truth, He has weeded out some who claim to follow Him but who actually don't believe. Verse 65 is Jesus's explanation about those who do not believe.

"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father"(John 6:65).

"This is why I told you" He says. What is why? "There are some of you who do not believe." Jesus is answering the question, "Why is it that some do not believe?" What reason does Jesus offer as to why people do not believe? "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"No man can ..." It's a simple phrase with a major impact. How many men? None! Zero! Zip! What about them? They cannot. They lack the ability. It is not in their capacity. "There is not one man who has the capacity ..." The capacity to what? No man has the capacity to come to Christ. Or, to invert it, all human beings lack the natural capacity to come to Christ.

The statement is a universal statement on the inability of Man to do the one thing that will save him. It, fortunately, includes an exception clause -- "unless". But it should be clear at this point that, despite our discomfort about making such statements about Man's ability, the Word of God seems to have no problem at all with stating that natural Man does not have the capacity to come to Christ or to believe in Him. If it is to happen, Jesus suggests, it can only happen if "it is granted him by the Father."

In other words, the Reformed belief of Man's Inability is a biblically-based belief coming first and foremost from the lips of our Savior.

Faith is

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

We've heard that one before. It is frequently viewed as the biblical definition of faith. But when I read it, I don't see a definition. I see a function.

The reason people often see it as a definition is because of the word "is". "Faith is ..." There, you see, a definition. But "is" doesn't always require that something is a definition. To say, for instance, that "the Sabbath is made for Man" doesn't mean that the Sabbath is defined as "made for Man", but that there is that particular aspect of it. I see the same thing in Hebrews 11. I see the first verse as an explanation of the function of faith, not a definition. In fact, when I've seen the verse used as a definition ... I haven't come away with any definition. Let's look again. The King James puts it in this more familiar way:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yeah, that's more familiar. The terms "substance" and "evidence" are more popular. To me, they throw more of a wrench in the works, but let's just go with them.

If this verse is intended to be a definition, then "substance" and "evidence" (or "assurance" and "conviction") would be the point. So what substance and what evidence is faith? It is, indeed, as the critics suggest, none. Faith is "believing in something for which you have no reason to believe." Faith is believing in something that normal thinking would tell you not to believe. Faith is, as the critics suggest, foolish, irrational nonsense. And if Hebrews 11:1 is the definition, we'd have to agree that faith is "irrational nonsense" while denying the "foolish" part. (Note: "Irrational" means "apart from reason" and "nonsense" means "not based on sense". Thus, it is apart from reason and not based on sense.)

But let's back up a step and see if this might not be a definition. What if it's a functional statement? In my example above, I said (essentially) that the statement "the Sabbath is made for Man" makes a functional statement about the Sabbath, not a definition. The function of the Sabbath, in this statement, is to benefit humans. If Hebrews 11:1 is a functional statement rather than a definition, what is it saying? In this approach, we might reword the verse this way: "When it comes to the things we hope for, we can be assured of them because of faith, and when it comes things of which we're sure even when we can't see them, we can maintain our conviction because of faith." You see, the term "faith" in this instance remains undefined, but you can clearly see how it functions.

I got an illustration of this the other morning, thanks to my cat. My cat operates like an atheist, while I operate like a theist. If I walked into the bedroom and saw a body-sized lump under the covers and heard heavy breathing and knew that my wife had gone in there an hour before, I would conclude, without seeing her, that my wife was in that bed. The other morning, my cat jumped onto the bed in the wee hours of the morning looking for attention. It was chilly, and my wife and I were bundled up under the covers. The cat looked around, saw no people, and left again. "They're not there," she concluded. (I know ... we can't actually know what a cat thinks. Bear with me. It's just an illustration of the point.) You see, I had "faith", while my cat only believed in what she could actually see. I was assured that my wife was there and, even though I couldn't see her, maintained the conviction that she was there because I had "faith". My cat had none.

Silly illustration, I know, but faith is not devoid of reason and, as such, cannot be defined as "irrational nonsense". The Greek word means "to be convinced" and includes the thought of "by evidence". That is not "without reason". Instead, it is simply intended to convey the substance by which we take that which we can certainly confirm to the next step, that which we can reasonably surmise. Let me give a biblical example of a faith-building exercise that will explain.

When Moses returned to Egypt from 40 years in the desert, the people of Israel were not yet ready to walk across the Red Sea. There was a process required. There were, in this case, 10 steps. We call them "the 10 plagues of Egypt". The process, basically, was "God says it", then "God does it". After the 4th plague, the Egyptians suffered while God's people didn't. In the last case, they had a clear warning and specific steps to perform that we now call "Passover" to bring about the passing over of the angel of death. So when the tenth plague had passed and Pharaoh said, "Go!!!", the people of Israel were ready to go. They were no longer in need of questioning. They had seen God work specifically and dramatically. Sure, they were frightened when Pharaoh came after them with his army, but when the Red Sea opened for them, they walked through it. Would you? If you didn't have a series of events that proved to you that God was at work and you came across an opening in a large body of water, would you walk into it? But they didn't hesitate. Why? They hoped that it would stay open for them until they got to the other side even though they didn't see what kept it in place (the two elements of the function of faith), but it was their faith-building exercises that enabled them to say, "Well, if God did all that, then I'm sure He can do this." They had assurance and conviction. They had faith that formed the substance of what they hoped for and was evidence enough for them to go. It was not "blind faith" -- an irrational belief. It was faith built on evidence.

I don't think Hebrews 11:1 was ever intended to be a definition. I think it provides a functional statement instead. It says that faith, properly understood, provides the assurance that we need that God will do what He promises even when we don't see how at the moment. That doesn't demand irrationality. It is, in fact, the most rational thing we can conclude, given the proven track record of the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.

The True Iraq

One would think that, with all the technology and communications and all that we have today, it would be hard to hide current events. However, take some time on Google or something like it and try to find out the news from places like Iraq, and you'll find that only one thing is going on in that war-torn country -- death. No one lives there, not in the sense that we consider "living". Imagine the worst neighborhood of the worst city with the worst gang problem, multiply that by a thousand, and you've got a description of the country of Iraq. It's not safe to walk in the streets ... anywhere. Everyone is killing everyone. All Iraqis hate all Americans. And why is it that 137,000 American combat troops can't take care of the problem there? We know we're getting the truth from Iraq because we have "imbedded reporters", people who go along with the troops and report everything from an eyewitness perspective. So of course that's all the real thing.

It only takes seconds of reflection to realize that none of this is true. It cannot be. If the country of Iraq or even the city of Baghdad was actually in the condition that it is being portrayed, it would collapse in a moment. No business, no infrastructure, no success, no life. And about those imbedded reporters ... are they really telling us the truth? It occurred to me (again) after looking over the responses to the President's State of the Union address that two people observing the very same thing can have very different opinions and report very different things ... while being eyewitnesses!

I want to know what's really going on. As an example, occasionally there is a report that somebody blew up an oil pipeline. That says to me that it is occasional. That says to me that most of the time the oil is actually flowing from the oil fields in Iraq to the ports that will export it. That says to me "progress". But I'm drawing conclusions from a lack of information. Is it right? Or I hear all the time about fighting in a particular region of Baghdad. What about the rest of the city? Is all of the fighting relatively localized? Or is all of the city in flames all of the time? I'm drawing conclusions from a lack of information. What is the truth? And I notice that there appears to be almost zero news coming out of anywhere but Baghdad. Does that mean that there is relative quiet in most of Iraq? I'm drawing conclusions from a lack of information. What is the truth?

How many Iraqi troops are there at work in Iraq? I know, for instance, that of the 137,000 troops in Iraq, no more than perhaps a third of them are actually in combat situations doing combat-type duty. It takes a large number of support troops to take care of a small number of combat troops. If a third of the troops there are combat troops, that puts maybe 41,000 combat troops to work in the country of Iraq. If you throw in another 21,000, that is a significant increase in the combat capability. Is that a bad thing? But I don't know what they're going to do with them. I don't know how many are currently in combat situations. I don't know how many of those 21,000 would be used for what purposes. And I don't know how many Iraqi troops are assisting the unknown number of American troops, or how many troops from other countries are performing what other duties in that country.

I want to know what successes we've seen. The news is very happy to report the problems. That, I suppose, is news. But I didn't know, for instance, that the troops had cleared out a particular neighborhood of its terrorist occupants (I will not call them "insurgents.) until they finished the job, moved out, and started to go back a year later to do it again. Why didn't anyone tell us about that success? I keep hearing sprinklings of news here and there that good things are happening as well as bad. Why don't we hear that on the news?

I'm aware that mistakes have been made. I'm aware that bad things are happening. It is not possible to pay attention to the slightest news without knowing that. But if we "have the right to know", and there is actually balancing news to the conditions in Iraq, why don't we have the right to know those facts as well? Why is it so hard to get the truth out of that country? I know the President isn't perfect. I'm aware that there have been mistakes made. I suspect that one of the President's biggest mistakes, however, has been that he has been too quiet in disseminating the truth about what's going on in Iraq. If only we had a news media that would give us the truth rather than only that which suits their purpose. But, as all of us, I guess they're only human ...

Obfuscating Perspicuity

Okay, class ... are you ready for your new word? The new word is "perspicuity". The term is used almost exclusively by theologians, and references the doctrine referred to as "the perspecuity of Scripture." The word is an oxymoron of sorts because it refers to clearness, lucidity, intelligibility. In other words, we're using a vague, obscure word to describe those things that are intended to be clear and intelligible. Yeah, that works.

Obfuscation aside (oh, go look it up), the concept is important ... and I suspect somewhat forgotten or doubted. Here is the doctrine of "The Perspecuity of Scripture": The Bible can be read and understood. Yeah, that's tough. Well, let's say it another way so we can be clear and intelligible. The idea is not that the Bible is easy to understand. The idea is that the Scriptures are "plain to the understanding", that they are "free of unnecessary complications", that the Bible is not unclear about what it is trying to teach.

Now, to be sure, many would dispute this doctrine. But theologians are wise and have placed enough limitations on it so as to avoid being too far mistaken. We know, for instance, that to properly understand the Bible, there are certain requirements. Paul says that natural Man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), so we must be talking first about the spiritual Man -- someone who has been regenerated, who has the mind of Christ, who has the Spirit residing in him. Paul speaks in Rom. 12 of the "renewing of the mind" (Rom. 12:2), a process by which we change our character. To properly understand Scripture, then, one must be born again and walking in the Light. One must have moved from the original position of "dead in sin" (Eph. 2:1) and "blinded by the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). According to Scripture, there appears to be another factor. On more than one occasion there is a mention of timing, where believers didn't understand at the time but would understand later. I think everyone who has spent any time in the Word has discovered this to be a simple, irrefutable fact. There are things you read today that you don't get at all but, coming back some time later, are blatantly clear.

Still, given these limitations, there are still those who disagree. "If it's so clear, then why are there so many differences? What makes you think this doctrine is true?" Well, the reason for the doctrine is first a biblical one. Moses told Israel, "This commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it" (Deut. 30:11-14). David referred to God's Word as "lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psa. 119:105). Scripture is understandable to children (Deut. 6:6-7; 2 Tim. 3:14-15). And the idea comes from the nature of God Himself. The idea is that God has given us Scripture to clearly communicate His nature and His will.

This doesn't mean that Scripture is easy to understand. Scripture itself indicates that some of it is difficult. Paul tells Timothy to "study to show yourself approved" (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bereans were commended because they checked everything Paul said against the Bible (Acts 17:11). Peter says that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16) and the author of Hebrews says that "solid food" takes time and effort (Heb. 5:11-14). Perspecuity doesn't mean "easy to understand". It simply means that what God wants us to learn is clear, and if we are diligent, we will get it. Do you want to understand the deeper things of God? Try doing what the Word of God suggests: "Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" (Heb. 5:14).

The Practical Atheist

Simon Birch is a 1998 movie based on a novel entitled A Prayer for Owen Meany. The story revolves around two young boys, age 12. Joe is a bastard (I mean that as it is actually intended, not as we have come to use it.) and a good part of the movie revolves around Joe and his friend, Simon, trying to figure out who his father is. Simon, played by Ian Michael Smith, is Joe's best friend. He suffers from severely stunted growth, making him the target of much junior high ridicule, but the children love him. And Simon has an unshakable belief that God has made him that way for a very special purpose.

In a particularly difficult scene, Simon is sitting in the office of Reverend Russell. He is in trouble (again). He has, according to Reverend Russell, just created the first "full contact Nativity scene". The pastor has told him he has to stay away for awhile, and Simon counters with Scriptures that urge mercy. Finally, exasperated, Reverend Russell says, "What do you want from me, Simon?" Simon answers, "I want to know that God has a plan for each one of us. I used to be sure, but now I have questions." It's a simple question, pastor. A junior high kid is questioning the sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience of God. The answer is brilliantly simple. "Yes!" Yes, God has a plan for each one of us. Yes, what God plans comes to pass. Yes, you are right to believe that God has a plan for you. Yes, Simon, yes! The good reverend, however, collapses into practical atheism. He doesn't know. He can't say. Simon totters off depressed and shaken.

It's a movie. I get that. But I would suggest that practical atheism is the most common belief on the planet. While atheism resides way down at the less than 10% mark, practical atheism is the norm. The practical atheist knows the right answer to the question, "Is there a God?" Indeed, many practical atheists are regular church goers. ("Regular" here may be defined as "every Christmas and Easter".) Indeed, our Reverend Russell is a prime example of a regular church goer as well as a practical atheist. In other words, you will find them everywhere ... even in the pulpit. They claim to believe in God. Some claim to be Christians. So what is a practical atheist?

A practical atheist is one who claims to be a theist while denying in practice theism. They will claim to believe in a divine power, all the while denying His authority or existence by who they live. No right-minded person claims to believe in a Just God while ignoring all of His commands. This is a denial of simple reason. God cannot both exist and not exist. Yet, people routinely seem to hold this position.

Theism is often defined as the belief that god exists, but this is a short version. Other beliefs, such as deism, polytheism, and pantheism also claim a belief in god or gods, so there is another distinguishing characteristic that sets theism apart. Theism generally includes the belief in an "immanent" god. Deism holds that there is a god, but that this god doesn't actually interact with its creation. Theism, on the other hand, believes in a god who interacts with human beings. Christian theism takes this a step further and holds that this God is personal, transcendent, and intimately involved in everything that occurs. Christian theism holds to a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. This God actually accomplishes everything He plans to accomplish. This God leaves nothing to chance. He allows and uses human choice, but doesn't rely on it. He maintains a delicate balance between so-called "free will" versus His own unassailable Sovereignty. Without a doubt, this God of Christian theism has a plan for every single human being on the planet.

One of the lines from Simon Burch has Joe's mother shouting, "That boy has more faith than you'll ever have." It's a movie, but in the movie it's true. This young kid with an overactive libido and parents who hate him has more faith than the pastor who teaches him. It's a movie that reflects the too often truth of churches today. We live in a world of practical atheists who sometimes hold positions of leadership in the church. It is these who will stand before God someday and say, "Lord, Lord, look what we've done for you" and hear in response, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." My prayer is that it won't be any of you.

(Completely unrelated, I need to shout out a "Happy Birthday!" to my son, David, who turns 26 today. I love you, son.)

A Literal Bible?

"Do you take the Bible literally?" It's a common question among detractors, Christian and non-Christian alike. There is no real question intended, generally. It is asked with incredulity. It is assumed that no sane person could ever take the Bible literally. "You're not going to claim that you do, are you? That would be intellectual suicide!" That's what is generally suggested in the simple question.

To be fair, there is a problem "taking the Bible literally" if you don't define what you mean. You see, "literally" means something different to various people who use the term. Some suggest that if you are a true believer, you must take the Bible in a "word-for-word" fashion. That's what they mean by "literally". So if the Bible says, "The whole city was gathered together at the door" (Mark 1:33), it actually means every single man, woman, and child stood at the door. You question that???!!! Well, obviously you don't take a literal view of the Bible! (Infidel!) The truth is that taking the Bible in that fashion is nonsensical. The "whole city" concept is an obvious one, but they only get funnier from there. Jesus is a vine and a door. I'm expecting, when we get to heaven, to find that He has hinges and doorknob because, after all, He did say, "I am the door." And, hopefully, at once you begin to see how problematic this approach would be.

However, having discarded a "word-for-word" fashion, I still take the Bible literally. What is meant by most thinking Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally"? Generally it is intended to convey the idea of "true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual, being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy." It is more accurately expressed in the term "as written" than "literally" or "word-for-word". The concept is that we take it to be true as written.

What is the difference between "as written" and "word-for-word"? When we take it as written, we take into account the writer's intent. A historic narrative is intended to give us a narrative of historical events. (Yeah, talk about obvious.) It is not intended to give us myth, metaphor, or parables. A parable, on the other hand, is intended to be a story (not a real event) that portrays an underlying principle or idea. We don't assume that the narrative never happened nor do we assume that the parable ever happened. Taking into account "as written", we include such things as poetry and the nuances allowed that genre that don't go with other forms of writing. We include metaphor, simile, and things like anthropomorphisms. In case you're not clear, an anthropomorphism is when we assign human characteristics to a non-human thing. So when Isaiah writes, "You shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12), we don't actually think that the inanimate objects will become animated. It is an anthropomorphism. We also allow for what is called "phenomenological language". In this approach, a writer explains something in the way that it appears, not necessarily in the way that it is. We use this concept routinely in our language. The weather man will report times for "sunrise" and "sunset". What ... is he stupid? Doesn't he know that the sun doesn't rise or set? Everyone knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Idiot! Of course, we understand that this is just a description of how it appears. So when we read that the four angels were standing at the "four corners of the Earth", there is no reason to get up in arms over "See? The Bible teaches a flat Earth!"

When we take the Bible "literally", we mean that we take it "as written". Let metaphor be metaphor, poetry be poetry, narrative be narrative, and so on. We don't take a narrative and assume it to be a mythical parable. We don't assume that all poetic language should be taken at pure face value. We learn to distinguish between passages intended to convey doctrine and passages intended to convey wisdom because these are different styles and intentions. When hyperbole occurs, we assume it to be hyperbole without needing to be defensive. "Okay, so the whole city didn't actually turn out to see Jesus. What's your point?" When we take the Bible as written, just as you would take any written material, many of these so-called problems go away. So, in answer to the question, yes, I take the Bible literally. I don't find it an intellectual dilemma because I understand "literally" to mean "exactly as written". My return question to any Christian would be "And why would you not take it as it is written?"

Don't Feed the Atheist

Richard Dawkins is famous. If you haven't heard of him, he is an outspoken anti-theist. I use that term rather than the softer "atheist" because Dawkins is on a campaign to convert people who believe in God to atheism. Dawkins is fair. He believes that not only organized religion, but all religion is bad. He is not only against extreme religion; he is against all religion. He considers religion not only to be foolish, but "very evil". He equates raising children in a religious tradition with "child abuse". Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has made it his mission to eradicate religion in all its forms.

Sam Harris is a best-selling author of two books. His The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation have raised his visibility to that of Dr. Dawkins. The End of Faith is intended to explain how faith and reason cannot coexist. He argues against all religion, including moderation of religion, suggesting that it will be the death of the human race if it is allowed to continue. Oddly, he suggests, among other things, the alternative of Eastern mysticism to replace the foundation of morality and spiritual experience in our world. After the release of The End of Faith, Harris received thousands of letters from Christians telling him how wrong he was. His response was Letter to a Christian Nation. In his introduction he explains that one of the biggest problems in our society and his primary reason for writing this book is that Christians believe that Jesus is coming back. This belief, he suggests, destabilizes the future of humanity.

These are just two, loud voices out there. They are "best sellers". They are being carried in Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe ... every major news outlet wants to spread their dogma. But these are just two. Many more are out there, squeaky wheels becoming louder and louder. They are calling for the end of tolerance. They are clamoring for the death of Christianity. And they are doing so in a country founded by people who sought to be allowed to practice their Christianity without regulation. False religion isn't the problem in the world. A lack of morality isn't the problem in the world. The mere existence of religion at all is the problem, they hold, and specifically it is Christianity that is the problem. If we could just eliminate that problematic belief system, many of our problems would go away.

I could launch into reasons why this is problematic thinking. I could explain why it is illogical and untrue. But that's not my point. In fact, there aren't enough people reading this to make a difference if I did. My point is to suggest, just as Peter did, that we should be aware of and ready for it. Persecution is coming. Oh, not that lightweight stuff we whine about these days. "They wouldn't let us pray at graduation." "They said mean things about our beliefs." "That TV show misrepresented us." "I don't think they like us at all!" Yeah, yeah, that might be the foothills of the mountain range to come, but it cannot be classified as "persecution". What is coming is persecution. And I'm not encouraging a defense; I'm suggesting that we be ready mentally and spiritually. As Peter said:

¹² Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; ¹³ but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation. ¹⁴ If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. ¹⁵ By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; ¹⁶ but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. ¹⁷ For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? ¹⁸ And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? ¹⁹ Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right (1 Peter 4:12-19).

Sam Harris complained that most of the "hate mail" he got -- the harshest, most unpleasant responses -- was from "Christians". Let's not feed the irrationality of the anti-theist, okay? Nowhere are we called to assault the atheist. And we should certainly take steps to defend, legally, the rights of religious freedom given to us by our country's founders. I'm not suggesting that we lay down and die. I simply want Christians to be aware that it's coming. Judgment is required and it begins with us. Do not be surprised. Do not be guilty of suffering for being a "troublesome meddler" or an evildoer. Instead, rejoice! Suffering, according to Peter, is "God's will", and we must entrust our souls not to government, law, or our own loud voices, but to the faithful Creator who is doing what is right.

Global Warming

Global warming has become a bit of a joke around here lately. Here in the desert we have experienced snow where snow never falls. We had the coldest temperatures since 1990 (I mean, who ever heard of 18°F in Phoenix?) and the coldest consecutive days since 1978. I'm afraid that if this global warming keeps up much longer we're likely to freeze to death.

But global warming is no joke. Them's fightin' words to some. Do not impugn the eminent scientist, Dr. Al Gore or his fine piece of science, An Inconvenient Truth. Look ... it got two Oscar nominations. How much more proof do you need? Do not question the facts of global warming. Do not question the science of global warming. There is no question to be had. The uncontested scientific opinion on the subject is that the temperature increase over the last 50 years is directly due to human activity. If you question this, you are a closed-minded, head-in-the-sand, equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. You probably still think that the Moon landings were done on a Hollywood sound stage. Only an idiot would question any of the facts.

So when science disagrees, it is stupid, willfully ignorant, politically motivated, or simply not worth considering. When Chris De Freitas, Associate Professor at the University of Aukland, says that the satellite data denies that there has been any significant warming of the surface in the last 20 years, he's a buffoon. When a group of scientists say that the temperature of the Earth may be rising, but suggest that the cause is not known, they're disengenuous. When a large number of scientists agree that the Earth is getting warmer, but link it to natural causes, they're liars. There is even one, Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University, who has suggested "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO₂ enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and global warming." Liars, buffoons, idiots, perhaps even criminals, every one.

Me? I'm not opposed to the science of global warming. I'm not a scientist and wouldn't stake a claim on the topic. But when one group decides that the best response to the argument is derision, insults, wild accusations, and attempts to silence the discussion, it makes me leery. When Man decides that Man has the capacity to alter Nature to the extent that the loudest voices are suggesting, it makes me leery. And when Christians begin to tout this as a matter of spiritual necessity, it makes me very leery. Perhaps we can take the rhetoric down a peg.

Another Time

Total losses in combat were 292,131. Another 115,185 were killed in non-combat situations. There were 671,801 wounded. Additionally, an estimated 11,200 civilians lost their lives, with more missing or wounded. The war, technically, lasted 5 years. It was one of the most expensive wars in terms of American life. In terms of money, the war cost $288 billion, or $412,926 billion in today's dollars. This was no little war in terms of lives lost or economic impact.

Our first official involvement in this war was a battle that cost the lives of 2388, including civilian deaths, and included 12 ships sunk, and 164 aircraft destroyed. But America wasn't to be trifled with. We went to war.

As the Japanese returned from their victorious attack on Pearl Harbor, they overran Wake Island. The American forces there put up a valiant fight, but in the end all of the military personnel and 70 civilians were killed. Later, in October, 1943, the Japanese executed captured American contract workers who had been doing forced labor.

The next target was the Philippines. The Japanese managed to destroy the bulk of the American aircraft on the ground. They landed 100,000 troos on Luzon and overran the island, forcing the surrender of American troops in May, 1942. The result was the Bataan Death March where 76,000 prisoners including 12,000 Americans were forced to march with hands tied behind their backs and no food or water for 60 miles to the prison camp. More than 5,000 Americans died in that march.

In 1942, General Dolittle led 16 B-25 bombers in an attack on Tokyo. The damage was minimal, and all aircraft were lost, along with 11 crewmembers. The Japanese search for the crews in China cost the lives of an estimated 250,000 Chinese. Dolittle expected to be court martialed upon his return to the U.S., but the boost to American morale instead earned him the Medal of Honor.

In May, 1942, the U.S. Navy engaged the Japanese Navy in the Battle of the Coral Sea. America lost one of the two aircraft carriers in the battle group, the USS Lexington. The USS Yorktown was also severely damaged, but managed to survive. While the American force managed to sink two Japanese carriers, 540 Americans died in the battle. (The Yorktown was later sunk in the Battle of Midway.)

The list goes on. While the American public was fed a steady diet of "good news on the front", Americans were dying at an alarming rate. In 1944, when the invasion began to take back Europe, the attack was a ludicrous nightmare. Prior to the invasion, 12,000 troops and 2,000 aircraft were lost in preparation. Nighttime troop drops prior to the morning landings were almost hopelessly disarrayed. Most of the beach landings were miles off their expected location. Enemy guns that were supposed to be silenced were in full operation. Total Allied casualties on that one day are estimated at 10,000. Twenty-four warships and 35 merchant ships were lost. In the subsequent Battle of Normandy, the Allies suffered 209,000 casualties including 125,847 American soldiers.

How, do you suppose, would the Americans of the 1940's have responded if they had this information up to the minute like we do today? Do you think they would have called for an end to Americans fighting in Germany and the Pacific? Would they have complained that the price was too high in lives and dollars and we shouldn't be there? If the American media of the 1940's had portrayed American involvement in World War II in the same light that they portray American involvement in Iraq today, would the Americans of the 40's call for a withdrawal, or would they have insisted on staying in the fight? I don't know the answer. I suspect the Americans of the 40's weren't the same as today's Americans, but I suppose I'll never know.

The State of the Union

The President talked about a variety of issues last night. He congratulated Nancy Pelosi on being the first Madam Chairman, and the crowd applauded. He called for a balanced budget, and the crowd applauded. He encouraged Congress to do more about education, and the crowd applauded. He suggested health insurance initiatives, and the crowd applauded. He called for immigration reform, and the crowd applauded. He called for real change to our environmental approach, and the crowd applauded. Then he talked about Iraq. He didn't try to get their response on his decision to send more troops. He just told them he had done it. But he did try to explain why:

It would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

There was applause, but it was starkly obvious that the Democrats in general and the outspoken opponents of President Bush in particular did not applaud.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al-Qaida and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

Again, the applause was light, and his opponents were outspoken in their silence. With arms folded, the Pelosis and Obamas and Clintons made their statements. "No, Mr. President, we disagree. We do not believe that it is necessary to keep our promises or stick with our friends. We do not care about future security. We are not concerned about Iraq, its struggle, or the chaos that we all know would follow if we withdrew now. All we care about is getting our people out now. Let someone else deal with the results of that move."

Perhaps I read too much into their silence. But when Katie Couric interviewed Hillary Clinton after her declaration that she would run for president, Hillary stated that her plan was "phased redeployment". Now, that sounds like she plans to simply move troops around with some plan, but she explained in the following sentences that by "redeployment" she simply meant "bring them home". They would be redeployed ... the the U.S. And in his response to the President's speech, Senator Webb had a similar suggestion:

Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

The suggestion is "Get our troops out of there and let's just talk to them." Substitute forces with "strong regionally-based diplomacy". You know, if we would only start a dialog with these people, they'd see the error of their killing ways and leap onto the democracy bandwagon. We don't need forces over there. We just need good talkers.

I have asked on more than one occasion what the alternative is to the President's plan(s). It seemed to me at those times that the only alternative being offered is "pull out". It would appear that my assessment was correct. According to polls and to Senator Webb's response, "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." The conclusion is that we must, therefore, put an end to the war and withdraw our troops. This is because, you see, the majority rules in America. Instead, what we have is a Commander in Chief who was duly elected by the people and is operating on his pre-stated principles. What the majority of America has done is decide that his principles are irrelevant, that the notion of a "republic" is nonsense, and that we are not willing to bear up under difficult times in order to achieve what we set out to achieve. The majority of Americans have become ... the stereotypical American. Delayed gratification is a meaningless term. Hard work and effort is pointless. Democracy isn't really worth anything if it doesn't benefit me immediately. And those other countries ... well, they can just handle their own problems because we don't care.

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be called an American.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

The human brain weighs approximately 3 pounds, about 2% of the total body weight. It contains over 100 billion neurons. These neurons transmit thought via electro-chemical activity. The brain is 70% water, but capable of more ideas than there are atoms in the known universe. A modern computer can handle perhaps 100 million instructions per second, but the human brain is estimated to be able to handle 10 quadrillion instructions per second. And with all of our advances, we still don't really know how the human brain works.

When you think about it, it is astounding to think about what goes on without thinking about it. Without your conscious thought, your brain does an amazing number of things. It regulates your heart and respiration. It maintains your body temperature. It manages the astounding flood of sensory information that deluges your system every moment of every day. You don't have to think about how to walk. You just do it. You don't have to analyze language. You just know it. There is no conscious effort involved when your nose itches and your hand scratches it. Your brain monitors all of the nerve inputs from every inch of skin, all of the smell inputs from your nose, all of the visual inputs from you eyes, all of the sounds entering your ears. It determines, without you even being aware, what is worth bringing to your attention and what to ignore. "Excuse me. It's getting cold here on the skin. How about getting some heat?" "That's a painful pressure on the bottom of your foot. Perhaps you ought to stop stepping on that rock before it ruptures your skin." "That sound is nearing dangerous levels. You need to cover your ears."

We know things without thinking about them. That facial expression she just made means something. We don't analyze it; we just know it. This surface would be useful for rubbing my itchy back; that one would be useless. The word he just used has 14 different meanings, but I know exactly which one he meant without giving it a single thought. And while we make mistakes -- we are, after all, only human -- the sheer numbers of stuff that pours through the brain untouched and error free would put the post office to shame.

Let me give a practical example. One day I typed into Google, "How long does a budgie live?" The question is about lifespan; the question is about how long the bird will "live". Now, you readers have no problems determining what is meant by "live". You know how to pronounce it. You know that I'm not asking about whether it's "live or videotaped". That's a different "live". It's like the word "invalid". If I looked for "invalid argument", I might find articles on logical arguments that are not valid, or I might find arguments about whether or not there should be handicapped parking, because "invalid" can refer to the validity of something or it can refer to an infirmed or sickly person. You know from the context which I mean. Software would have a very difficult time figuring out context and nuance to determine which it is. So when I google "How long does a budgie live?", I can found out where they live, how long they live, the survival rate of budgie cells, and where I can see the rock band "Budgie" live. The software cannot tell the difference for all these uses. Your brain understands the question without giving it a moment's thought, while our software can't figure it out for all of the possible variations. The brain, it seems, is a marvelous thing.

I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well (Psa. 139:14).

Perhaps there are many, many reasons of which we're not really aware that we are told "in everything give thanks".

Jefferson's Koran

When Keith Ellison did his ceremonial "swearing in", he did it as promised ... on the Koran. It wasn't just any Koran. It was the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Ellison wanted to show that he was the same sort of visionary as Jefferson, and that Jefferson believed there was wisdom in the Koran.

Congressman Ellison either displayed his own ignorance or intentionally played off the ignorance of Americans, because the story doesn't quite match up to the facts. Everyone knows the Marine Hymn. "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" the song begins. To what is it referring? The reference to "the shores of Tripoli" is a reference to one of the very first official actions of the United States Marines. This was the First Barbary War of 1801-1805. In this conflict, Marines marched on Tripoli. Thus the reference. But ... why Tripoli?

Muslim pirates had reigned along the North African Mediterranean for hundreds of years. Treaties with France and England kept them safe, but when America cast off its connections with Britian, she was on her own. In 1785, two American merchant vessels were taken hostage. The new American government decided to pay the ransom against Ambassador Thomas Jefferson's recommendation. But the attacks kept coming and America kept paying. The ambassador asked Tripoli's envoy why they had such animosity toward the United States. He reported that their answer was as follows:

The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

What wisdom did Thomas Jefferson wish to glean from the Koran? He wanted to know the reasons for the fighting and animosity. He wanted to know the thinking of these people. And he wanted to know the source book of the ones he would declare war on when he became president in 1801 and sent the navy and Marines to put an end to the piracy.

I have to wonder which part of this Keith Ellison had in mind when he intentionally tossed out the traditional root of American government and replaced it with Jefferson's source book for what was wrong with Islam. Was it ignorance? Or did he simply expect that Americans don't really know their history? I am pretty sure that the latter is valid. So many Americans are still thinking of this whole thing in Iraq as a "police action" and can't figure out why we're not "getting the criminal Osama Bin Laden" instead of fighting a war on terrorism. If Americans can't remember yesterday's history, why would they have the slightest sense of the previous centuries? I'm fairly confident, however, that Ellison hasn't a clue that the book on which he swore his oath was intended to be a helpful tool for killing Muslims in the 1800's.

Right and Real Answers

Have you ever noticed that many times there is a "right answer" and a "real answer" to certain questions? It's interesting to me how often we lead people into a lie by asking these types of questions.

The first example of this that springs to mind is the horrible question wives ask their husbands: "Does this dress make me look fat?" The possible answers are diverse and range from flattering to potentially fatal. But no husband in his right mind would offer a truthful answer if the answer was "yes". That's the "real answer", but it's not the "right answer".

These questions abound. When there is a major connection of a person's feelings to the question, the likelihood of a divergence between "right" and "real" answers increases. A newlywed husband is tasting his young wife's first attempt at meatloaf, and it resembles sawdust. She looks at him with anticipation. "Well?" Will he offer the real answer or will he offer the right answer? You tell your son, "Take out the trash." He may respond with "No way" or "Yes!", but you don't know which is the real answer until he either acts on it or does not.

Our Christian circles also lend themselves to this problem. Ask a friend at church, "Do you know Jesus?" and they really have no choice but to answer in the affirmative. That's the "right answer". The truth may be that they're having doubts. The truth may be that they don't know Jesus very well or maybe not at all. The truth may be that they only know about Him and the truth may even be that they're painfully aware of the difference. But admitting that the truthful answer to the question is "No" would be too difficult. So we ask and receive an answer that we expect and think we've actually received the truth.

We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Somehow we need to learn how to 1) answer with the real answers rather than the expected ones and 2) encourage others to do the same. Perhaps we ought to ask better questions. Perhaps we need to convey love better, wherein we don't condition our love for others on their answers. And whatever else we do, we should keep in mind that sometimes you will get the right answer, and sometimes that's not the real answer.

Equally Abominable

Back on January 10, I wrote a piece on Abomination. A friend commented on it and asked for help evaluating further such "abominations". She sent me the "icon" in question. Here it is.







Let me spell it out so you can see the claims:

Equal abominations before the Lord:
1. Shaving Lev. 19:27
2. Shrimp Lev. 11:10
3. Tattoos Lev. 19:28
4. Work on Saturday Lev. 19:30
5. Polyester Lev. 19:19
6. Bunnies Lev. 11:6
7. Hamburger Lev. 17:10
8. Vegetable Gardens Lev. 19:19

Now, let's look at them individually:

1. Shaving is an abomination before the Lord. Proof -- "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." There you have it. God hates shaving. Wait! I'm looking, I'm looking ... no, nowhere do I see anything in this passage that says God detests ... anything. Leviticus 19 does not address abominations; it addresses laws. This, of course, will have a ripple effect on many of the following assertions. The claims regarding tattoos, working on Saturday, polyester, and vegetable gardens are all referenced to Leviticus 19 which does not once contain the term "abomination". Further, it is not "shaving" in reference here, but a particular look -- rounding off the hair at the temples or beard. This, according to many biblical scholars, is a reference to something we no longer understand. It is believed to have been a particular look intended as a worship to a particular idol of the day. It is suggested that Israel knew what it was because of their years of slavery in Egypt. Thus, it was idolatry that was forbidden and, by no stretch of the imagination, a blanket law against "shaving".

2. Shrimp is an abomination before the Lord. I will attempt to be fair and conclude that the intent was "eating shrimp" as opposed to merely "shrimp". First, it is true that Leviticus forbids Israel from eating shellfish. We'll all agree on that point. From there we spiral into a crash on this point. The "abomination" in Leviticus 11 is not "to the Lord", but to Israel. Israel should detest it, not God. And the New Testament declares all food clean, removing entirely the problem of "unclean food". And there it hits bottom. Throw this one from the train.

3. Tattoos are an abomination before the Lord. Referring back to Item 1, nowhere in Leviticus 19 do we find a reference to "abomination". Please delete this claim, then, from the list in your mind. Further, the notion of adorning oneself with tattoos was unknown at the time. Tattoos were performed as a ritual for idolatry, a body mark for worship. It is not general "tattoos" in mind here, but the acoutrements of idolatry being forbidden.

4. Working on Saturday is an abomination before the Lord. Again, the term "abomination" doesn't appear in this passage. Further, it is not "Saturday" in view, but "Sabbath". There is no doubt that God commands no work on the Sabbath, but there is nothing in the command that links it to an "abomination".

5. Polyester is an abomination before the Lord. I'm hoping that people are laughing at this, since polyester didn't exist at the time. Further, we're still in Lev. 19 which carries no reference to "abomination". And, finally, what was meant by the term "mixed material" is not really known. The original Hebrew word is obscure. The intent is equally obscure. Most believe it is a reference to a particular type of material that is showy, such as Joseph's "coat of many colors".

6. Bunnies are an abomination before the Lord. I like this. Bunnies are detestable to the Lord. Good stuff. Of course, I'm sure it's a reference, again, to eating bunnies, not bunnies themselves. And, of course, it's a lie. What does Leviticus 11:6 actually say? It says that eating rabbits is not to be done because they are among the "unclean" animals. Further, this, according to Lev. 11:10, is not a matter of being an abomination to the Lord, but something that Israel should detest. And, again, the New Testament declares all foods clean, so this requirement from the Old Testament was no longer in effect in the New, and the point is moot.

7. Hamburger is an abomination before the Lord. The prohibition of Lev. 17:10 is a rule against eating blood. I would guess that, providing the broadest amount of charity to the argument, the suggestion is that there is blood in hamburger. Now, since there is no more blood in hamburger than there is in any other meat, this seems ludicrous. God allowed, nay, commanded the priests to eat meat. It had to be cooked. So, we might allow the stretch of going so far as saying it is a sin to eat raw hamburger, but we should all agree that it's not only a sin -- it's stupid. But the claim here is that eating a hamburger is an abomination before the Lord. Odd thing ... I find no reference to any such thing. Eating blood is forbidden, but nothing in the passage says "abomination". Unless we simply conclude that all sin of all variety is an abomination to God, we would be wise to avoid making such claims on an individual topic recklessly.

8. Vegetable gardens are an abomination before the Lord. This argument belies the arguer's intent. The goal here is not to offer a valid argument. The goal here is to offer a foolish argument. It is intended to be an emotional argument, not a rational one. The real hope here is that no one actually looks at the claim, but simply reacts. To deny this is a violation, according to the argument, of "common sense". And with only the briefest of examinations, one sees that this claim is devoid of common sense. The prohibition here in Lev. 19:19 is not against vegetable gardens. The prohibition is against mixing seeds. Indeed, this is common sense. Trying to grow two different kinds of crops in the same field is foolishness. It is suggested by many that the entire context of the verse is not in reference to specifics, but the general idea that "My people will be set apart." They suggest that the intent of this prohibition is specific to Israel for the purpose of living lives that demonstrate purity, without mixture. Whatever the intent, there is, again, no mention in Leviticus 19 that any of this falls to the category of "abomination to the Lord".

In contrast to all of the above, we find Leviticus 20 with a series of rules about sexual sin. Adultery is punishable by death. Incest is punishable by death. Bestiality is punishable by death. There is a list of sexual sins they were commanded to avoid and the penalty for committing them. And then we get to Lev. 20:13 -- If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. None of the previous sexual sins in this passage are referred to as "an abomination". None of the sexual sins that follow it are referred to as "an abomination". Only this one. Why is that? Could it be that this one falls in a category of its own in God's perception?

The Interpreter

¹⁸ For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. ²⁴ For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

²⁶ And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; ²⁷ and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. ²⁸ And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; ³⁰ and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Rom. 8:18-30).

(I needed the whole passage for context.)

We all know this section. It's often a favorite among Christians. There's that wonderful part about "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God." It's even more wonderful to people who are willing to put a period (in principle) behind "good" and not limit God's goodness to "those who love God." Calvinists love this passage because of the unbroken chain from "predestined" to "glorified" with nothing in the middle about "what I do". One of the popular ideas from this passage is the notion of a "prayer language" in which the Spirit helps us to pray when we don't know how.

That's the one. Funny thing is ... I don't see it. Paul doesn't say, "When we don't know how to pray as we should." Paul says, "We do not know how to pray as we should." There doesn't appear to be any occasion to the statement. It doesn't appear to be "sometimes". Paul seems to say that we never really know how to pray as we ought to pray. According to this passage, all of our prayer is filtered through the Holy Spirit who operates on our behalf in a language too deep for words. It appears that, just as creation suffers from the Curse, we suffer from an inherent weakness -- the inability to know how to pray.

Imagine, then, how delightful, how marvelous it is to have the Holy Spirit as our eternal interpreter. We pray -- wrong -- and He intercedes perfectly. He knows what is on the mind of God and connects what we are praying with God's thinking. I picture it something like this. "Father, I know he asked for this, but what he really meant was that." Of course, that's way too simplified, since it's "too deep for words", but the idea that the Spirit is always interceding my behalf makes my prayers so much more effective even when I don't think a single one is heard or answered. I like that.

I Had A Dream

Following up on the post on Discipleship from the other day, I had a dream of possibility that was just fun to think about. I think I'll share it with you.

Imagine your pastor, Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob is in his late 40's and is a beloved pastor. So Pastor Bob reads my comments on discipleship and takes them to heart. He goes to the junior high group and asks who among them believe they might be led to be a pastor when they grow up. A few raise their hands. So he takes these under his wing.

Pastor Bob undertakes a serious discipleship project with these three guys. He spends time with them during the week. He teaches them the Word. When he goes to visit someone in the hospital, he always has at least one of them with him. When he officiates at a funeral or performs a wedding, at least one of them is on hand as well. He has them sit in on some of the less personal counseling sessions, such as premarital counseling and the like. He has them attend board meetings with him. He's serious about this project.

As they grow, they start doing their own teaching. As high schoolers, they help out with the younger kids. As they get to be seniors, they help out with junior high kids. They attend college locally for a couple of years and help out with the high school group. The church helps fund those who want to go to Bible School or seminary. Of course, of the original three, not all continue. Some drop out. But one, at least, continues forward. He comes back after seminary, is ordained in your church, and starts to work as an assistant pastor. He preached on occasion when he was in seminary, but now he preaches when Pastor Bob is away on vacation or out for other reasons. He is more involved in the ministry, being a pastor now. And when Pastor Bob decides it's time to retire, there is no need for a pastoral search committee. Everyone knows that our young pastor who has been discipled by their beloved Pastor Bob and been a part of the ministry all this time will be the next pastor. The change will be nearly seamless, since Pastor Bob has invested so much of who he is into this young man. His doctrines are the same. His goals and visions are the same. His love for the church is the same. And his love for discipleship is the same. He will perpetuate this approach. A perfect arrangement.

I know. It's a dream. But it isn't so far fetched, is it? And why wouldn't it work in other settings as well? Why can't an elder train young men to be elders? Why can't teachers teach others to be teachers? I know. It's a dream -- a wild one at that. But imagine a church where the leadership takes individuals under their wing to teach to be leaders, and where the older men teach the younger men how they ought to be, and where the older women teach the younger women how they ought to be ... oh, wait, that's biblical, isn't it? If it is a pipe dream, it's a biblical one.