What Truth

I've already mentioned John Shuck, a Presbyterian pastor in Tennessee. So please remember when you read this that it isn't about John Shuck, but the ideas in question.

He has decided to preach a sermon about how "Good Friday" was not good, and how the cross is not good news. In his article, Good Friday is Not Good, he gives this summary of the concept of substitutionary atonement:

Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the garden. In so doing they sinned. They committed the original sin. By sinning they dishonored God and could not be in God's presence. So they were cast from the garden. Not only that, but their sin was transmuted generation by generation. All humanity, by nature of its humanity, is in a state of sin. They owe a debt to God that they cannot pay. Humans owe the debt but only God can forgive the debt. But God just can't cancel it. So God becomes human. Because Jesus is born of a virgin, he is not tainted by human sin. Jesus, the God/human cancels the debt by dying on the cross taking the sin of the world onto himself. Jesus is substituted for us. All who believe in this story have their debt of sin cancelled. They get to go to heaven when they die. All who do not believe in this story are still in their sin. They get to go to hell.

We'll leave off the juvenile "believe in this story" approach. Any Christian knows it is not "believe in this story", but "faith in Christ" that saves. But we'll move on. He tells us how he came to the conclusion that this story is not valid:

I think ultimately, it was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that put this dogma in the museum of "fossilized beliefs that once were interesting." If humans evolved from lower life-forms and over billions of years of evolution, then the Adam and Eve story is obviously a myth.

We are fortunate to have science along now, the god of this age, to correct any foolish notions that religion might have had. Heaven and Hell, "in the image of God", and all that nonsense is fortunately available for discard, or, as he puts it "in the museum of 'fossilized beliefs that once were interesting'."

Finally, on the meaning of the cross, this is what he comes up with:

The cross symbolizes the meaninglessness of terror, cruelty, and violence for which there is no answer. If the cross is to mean anything for us today, it is that it represents the absence of goodness. It is the horror of humanity's crimes against humanity.

I know that Christians everywhere would like to respond with ire and Scripture. Don't bother. If Adam and Eve are myths, and the Resurrection is a myth, if essentially all those Bible stories are fabrications made simply to make a point, not to express truth, then arguing that the Gospel consists of Christ crucified and resurrected won't carry much weight. Save yourself the effort.

I don't seem to be able to gather the ire that perhaps I should. There is no outrage in me. I'm saddened that someone who calls himself a "Christian pastor" has decided to toss out everything that makes it "Christian." I'm disappointed that someone who associates himself with a major church organization like the PCUSA does so with complete disregard for what the PCUSA claims to believe. To me, the honest thing for people who disagree with the stated beliefs of an organization would be to leave that organization, not attempt to subvert its beliefs. And I'm confused with this position at all. If there is no need for atonement, by what means do we suppose that we can be right with God? If we just "want to" and God chooses to accept that, in what sense can He be called "just"? And if "science" is the determiner (by the way, most of science has discarded Darwin's theory of evolution because it just didn't work), how are we to determine anything at all? Science by definition is constantly in flux, finding, correcting, changing, discovering. How can we know anything if that which is our prime source is constantly shifting? It's all painted very nice, but it's all so confusing when you give it any thought.

I'm not angry with Pastor Shuck. I'm saddened by his position that eliminates anything "Christian" from Christianity. I'm disappointed by his dishonesty as a "Presbyterian" who disavows Presbyterian theology. And I'm confused by his ideas which seem to leave me with fewer answers than before. But I suspect that there would be no dialog in cases like these. I'll just be labeled "intolerant" or "narrow-minded" or some other name for believing that the Bible is actually the Word of God and science might be wrong and the discussion would end. It's sad. I know that "the truth shall set you free", but I can't figure out how this "truth" frees anybody.

Why I Am A Calvinist

Why am I a Calvinist? Many people would assume that I am a Calvinist as a product of bad teaching or poor upbringing. This would be a mistake in my case. I was raised in a good, standard, Dispensationalist, "Arminian" home. I put "Arminian" in quotes because I never thought of myself as an Arminian. I believed I was a Calvinist because those rotten Arminians believed you could lose your salvation, and I didn't. As it turned out, I was a 1-point Calvinist and a 4-point Arminian ... as I suspect a lot of you are. (And even that one point wasn't accurate.) So it wasn't upbringing or early teaching that got me here. No, it was much worse. Truth be told, I am a Calvinist for two reasons. First, I was dragged away from my original upbringing, kicking and screaming, by Scripture and evident reason. What could I do? But, second, I found that, once here, I didn't want to leave.

What Scripture and evident reason pushed me into this perspective? The easiest, clearest, first, and least surmountable was the declaration that Man is evil at his core. So insurmountable is this that most "Arminian" (I'm trying not to use the term in an insulting sense, but just as a denominator, so to speak.) statements of faith include it. It doesn't take a Calvinist to see that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Fine. We're all in agreement. The problem, unfortunately, is that we aren't. As I looked into this condition of Man, I found that very few viewpoints were taking it into account. I believed like most of you that the Holy Spirit "woos" unbelievers, "calls" to them, tries to win them over. I believed like most of you that we had to first place our faith in Christ ("Accept Him as your Savior" was the phrase) and then we would be born again. This faith was something that we came to, something that we found once we had received sufficient enlightenment to recognize our need and His sufficiency. Nice. But none of this took into account what the Bible had to say about our natural condition.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it (Jer. 17:9)?

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:9-12).

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:5-8).

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 (1 Cor. 2:14).

You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (Eph. 2:1-3).

And this is only a partial list. Let's face it, folks, the Bible paints a pretty bleak picture of Man in his natural condition. And yet, when I started looking into what I believed, I found that none of what I had been told took this condition into account. If the idea was that I could eventually become enlightened enough to the truth and place my faith in Him, how did that take into account that the only intention of my heart was evil, that my heart was deceitful and sick, that no one seeks for God or does good (Isn't accepting Jesus "doing good"?), that the flesh has no capacity to do anything that might please God, that natural man cannot understand spiritual matters? And, of course, there was the worst condition -- dead. I asked people. "What does Paul mean by 'dead'?" They told me, "Oh, that means spiritually dead." So, if we are, because of our sin, spiritually dead, by nature haters of God, what must occur to make us willing to lay down our arms against God and receive His gift of His Son?

"Oh," they told me, "'dead' doesn't mean 'dead-dead'." (Seriously ... that's what they told me.) "Just because you're dead in sin doesn't mean that there's anything actually dead." Yes, that's what I was told, and that's what I believed for a long time, but it became impossible to hold this bizarre position ("The Bible says 'dead' and we believe 'dead', but it doesn't mean 'dead'."). So I was forced to surrender to the weight of Scripture and conclude that natural Man is dead in sin, inclined only to evil, and completely without hope unless God first installs a new, living, spiritual nature in him.

Of course, the "evident reason" that went to work was that if the first point -- "the Total Depravity of Man" -- was as true as the Bible seems to say, then the rest must follow. God wouldn't choose to save dead people for any conditions in them; He must do it for His own good purposes (AKA Unconditional Election). He would insure that Christ's death actually accomplished the salvation of those whom He chose to save (AKA Limited Atonement). When God chose to save someone, there would be nothing that could withstand His decision (AKA Irresistible Grace). And those whom He chose to save and paid for in full would certainly be maintained to the end (AKA Perseverance of the Saints). I found that the logic was unavoidable, and that Scripture seemed to hold it up. So, I was convinced by Scripture and by evident reason to be a Calvinist against the "norm" and against my upbringing. I was dragged into this kicking and screaming, so to speak.

Then I found that I didn't want to leave. You see, nowhere in Christianity is the grace and sovereignty of God more emphasized than here. If Man is as bad as Scripture says he is and as much without hope as we believe he is, leaving him only with the option of being transformed to new life apart from any choice or any merit within himself, that is grace of a magnitude that I didn't previously comprehend or appreciate. And if it is God's choice, not Man's, that is a sovereignty I didn't see before. It is this grace and this sovereignty that I don't want to leave. To me, it's a scary world if we are the deciders. So many Christians see God as a "hands off" kind of God, letting us choose what we will and hoping (and, to be fair, working so) that we will come to Him. He's a "gentleman", almost but not quite a hostage to the sin that has beset His creation. He has a plan to overcome it in the end, but so few people are cooperating. Eventually He'll just end it all. That God terrifies me. I prefer the God who "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11), who accomplishes everything He intends (Job 42:2) -- the Absolute Sovereign. That's where I find my comfort in times of difficulty and doubt.

Why am I a Calvinist? I am a Calvinist because it's what I see in the Bible. I'm a Calvinist because it makes sense. I'm a Calvinist, finally, because it provides me with a bigger image of God, a smaller image of me, and the highest comfort in tough times. So ... what have you to offer?

Where Your Treasure Is

Jesus told us something that no one can really dispute. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt. 6:21). In other words, your passions and intentions will be aimed in the direction of those things you value most. Not a difficult or even particularly Christian concept. It's simply a truism.

It is a useful truism, however. We are not always clear on what we value most, but we can use this little truth to give us clues. Do you pursue those things that are best for people around you or for yourself? That should tell you about what you value more. Do you work hard at getting more stuff or do you work hard at giving more? That's a clue to what you value more. Are you primarily concerned about health and comfort or about doing what God wants of you regardless of your feelings about it? That's a giveaway as well. Look what Paul said:

⁷ Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. ⁸ Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith -- ¹⁰ that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, ¹¹ that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. ¹² Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own. ¹³ Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, ¹⁴ I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵ Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. ¹⁶ Only let us hold true to what we have attained (Phil. 3:7-16) (ESV).

(I told you we'd come back to this.)

The question I started with was "Where is your treasure? What do you value most?" Paul's answer is simple, yet stunning. The only thing that he counted as valuable was "knowing Christ Jesus" (3:8) All the things that Paul had -- breeding, education, connections, power, zeal -- he placed in the "liability" column of his life. The only thing in the "asset" column was "knowing Christ Jesus." The only thing that he could add to the "asset" column was knowing Him better. And it wasn't the joy or comfort of Christ that Paul sought to know better. He wanted to know the power of His resurrection (3:10), but for what end? Well, Paul really wanted to know Christ in His suffering (3:10). He wanted to "share His sufferings" and become "like Him in His death" (3:10). The reason Paul wanted to know the power of His resurrection was so that he could become perfect by dying to self and rising to Christ (3:10-12). Paul's ultimate value, his real treasure, was knowing the suffering of Christ and the power that would follow to make Paul not only righteous through faith (3:9), but righteous in action (3:16).

So we ask ourselves, "What do I treasure?" Paul treasured knowing Christ and His suffering. He lived it ... dying for it. He clearly demonstrated where his heart was. I suspect that our treasures aren't nearly as noble. I suspect that we suffer from selfish treasures. We want to be comfortable knowing that this life is "but a vapor" (James 4:14). Foolishness. We want to be healthy and wealthy, knowing that these things are temporal. Nonsense. We do not want to suffer at any cost, although we know that trials produce in us perfection (James 1:2-4). I suspect that Paul was speaking to too many of us when he wrote, "If in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you" (3:15). Perhaps we need to realign the things we treasure the most. Maybe then we'll see the realignment of the heart that we know we need.

Will He Find Faith?

I am loath to attribute the following statements to their maker. The duty to properly attribute statements to their proper source forces me to do so, but understand that the source is not the issue. When we make the source the issue, we miss the point. This is not intended as an attack on the source, but a discussion of the ideas and their ramifications.

On his blog, "Shuck and Jive", Pastor John Shuck of Tennessee asks the question, "What if we found the body of Jesus?" He concludes that it would be irrelevant to Christianity:

Critical study of the Bible and the study of comparative religions have combined to shatter the historicity of the resurrection. I would guess that many who call themselves Christian regard the resurrection symbolically. For many of us, the resurrection is a myth or a metaphor.

No question. No doubt. The resurrection is a myth, and any thinking person knows that. History proves it. The Bible says it. What are you thinking?

While I believe the gospel accounts of the resurrection are more in the realm of fiction rather than history, I find the risen Christ a valuable symbol or perhaps archetype.

The biblical concept of the resurrection of Christ is only a symbol, a metaphor. "He lives within my heart." There is no reason to believe He actually rose from the dead.

If resurrection simply referred to the resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus as a matter of history, then the resurrection would not be a matter of faith. I don't "believe" that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is a fact of history that be documented by evidence.

Indeed, if the Bible documents the physical resurrection of Christ and you believe it on that basis, it isn't faith. Documentation is "evidence" and things believed by "evidence" are not things believed by faith. Thus, the Resurrection would not be a matter of faith. Think, people, think!

This post is a product of an article I read from Jim Jordan over at Moral Science Club, but it's also a product of my thinking of late regarding our "improved Gospel", the question of a trivial resurrection, and the decline of the church in our time. I guess we've pretty much determined that we can say whatever we want about Christ and Christianity as long as it makes people more receptive to our message. The real issue isn't that God became flesh and dwelt among us, dying on the Cross on our behalf, and rising again. The real issue is to make nice people out of bad people. The real issue has nothing to do with "born again", "spiritual life", "a new creation". God is not in the business of making dead people into live people. He's in the business of making unhappy people into happy people and immoral people into more moral people. Don't get all bogged down in that Bible stuff. It's metaphor, myth, mystery, not Truth. All we really need to be concerned about is that people be nice to other people, and that people are happy and psychologically healthy. Oh, and give to the poor. That's important. This post is a product of the concern I share with Christ: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). Indeed.

Pastor Shuck, Bishop Sprong, and the like notwithstanding, it is not true that the Resurrection is a trivial issue, that the Resurrection was not physical, and that it doesn't matter. "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). Paul bases his position not on mere conjecture or pure, unsupported "faith". (In fact, "pure, unsupported faith" doesn't exist biblically.) He bases his position on facts.

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

Paul says, "This isn't minor. It is the essence of the Gospel: Christ died and was raised." He goes on to say, "Don't believe it just because I said it. Believe it because of the witnesses. Hey! Go ask them! There was Peter and the others. There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to His Resurrection! Yes, some of them are dead, but not all. Ask them! I saw the Risen Savior! Don't believe it without evidence. Believe it because of the evidence." John says the same sort of thing.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands ... (1 John 1:1).

"We're not telling you stuff we 'believe'. We're telling you stuff we've seen, heard, touched!"

You may choose to believe that the Resurrection is a metaphor, that it didn't actually happen physically. If you choose to do so, you choose to reject all the eyewitness accounts. You choose to call those who speak of touching Jesus after He rose again as liars. Their accounts of speaking with, hearing, touching, and eating with a Resurrected Savior are lies. They based their lives, their reputations, and the subsequent faith of all followers on lies. We can disagree on the exact content of Communion. We can disagree on the precise mode of Baptism. We can disagree on the sequence of events leading up to the Return of Christ. There is lots of room for discussion and valid disagreement. But denying the Resurrection of Christ, according to the Bible, is a denial of the Faith. It removes any reliable source for Christian belief and eliminates any reason to believe that Jesus actually conquered death on the cross. It makes Him a mere man, a feeble attempt at making an earthly government who failed miserably and died for his troubles. To all of this I would urge, "Let God be true though every one were a liar" (Rom. 3:4).

More Religious?

I recently heard a conservative radio talk show host argue with a caller that American is more religious today than it was in the 60's. He said that there are more Christians, more religious people than ever before. He said that Evangelicalism didn't even exist back then. Is it true that America is more religious now than it was in the 60's?

I'm not so sure, just from history. The term, "evangelical", as it refers to a body of people, was used first in the 1500's in reference to the Lutherans as opposed to the Calvinists. It was expanded to include all Protestants. In the 19th century it began to be used as it is today to differentiate between religious liberals and conservatives. The basic definition of "Evangelical" as a group included the belief that the Bible was reliable and was the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice (sola scriptura). It included an emphasis on a "born again" experience, encouraged missions work, and focused on the saving work of Christ on the cross. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) began in 1942 as part of a drive to counter the loss of influence of biblical Christianity as shown in, for instance, the Scopes Trial of 1925. The World Evangelical Alliance formed in 1951, joining believers from 21 different countries. So, historically, the fact is that Evangelicals have been around for much longer than the 1960's.

Iain Murray's book, Evangelicalism Divided, discusses the history of Evangelicalism for the latter part of the 20th century. His book details the decline of Evangelicalism. Replacing this original drive for sola scriptura and the doctrines that follow, neo-evangelicalism has taken hold in America and elsewhere. In an effort to be acceptable, the more conservative Christian groups have compromised their doctrine, as explained in Dr. Murray's book. So while there is, perhaps, a larger set of "religious people" today, they are the watered down version, the "acceptable" type.

The largest problem with the concept that America is more religious today than it was in the 60's is the Bible itself. Jesus made a stunning statement that is often overlooked in our drive for converts. "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt. 7:12-13). Both the gate and the way that leads to life, according to Christ, are narrow. While America enjoys "many Christians", Jesus's assessment was "There are few who find it." While 65-75% of Americans claim to have had a "born again" experience, Paul suggests that "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18).

Some think that Christians have more power and more numbers today than ever before. The Founder of Christianity says, "Few will find it". I am concerned that there are many who will face Christ on the Last Day, happily assure Him that they did much for Him, and hear, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt. 7:23). It is my goal to make sure that I am not one of them, not deceiving myself, and that you might be careful to check on yourself as well.

Intelligent Design

A while back I heard this brief outline of the argument for Intelligent Design. It went like this. If you are on a hike and you come across a rock, you think, "Oh, look, a rock." You hike on further and you find one rock on top of another. Do you think "Oh, look, what an interesting natural formation" or do you think someone put it there? How many rocks do you have to see piled on top of each other before you begin to think that someone is doing it?

The rock explanation was just an illustration when I heard it. In my recent travels, however, I actually found it. While the Earth has multiple places like this, we traveled through separate places that had rocks piled on top of each other in a way that was just staggering to behold. Going from San Diego to Arizona, you pass through a mountain range that I think is called the Laguna Mountains. A good part of these mountains are ... well ... bizarre. They look like some super giant race backed up some super giant dump trucks and poured out boulders that made mountains. These mountains look like huge debris piles of boulders. I can't find any logical explanation for it in science. And some of them are balanced so precariously that it looks like the tiniest breath of wind would bring them down. But they've been there for as long as history can record.

Okay, so we move on. Going on out I8 to I10, we come to a small Arizona town called Wilcox. Just outside Wilcox you come across this strange and extremely brief area with rocks sitting on rocks sitting on rocks. They too are balanced in impossible ways. There is no reason, it seems, for these massive boulders to still be sitting on top of each other ... unless Someone had done it on purpose.

I know, I know ... this isn't the best argument for Intelligent Design. I just found it amusing that I found in nature two real examples of the simplistic explanation that someone gave me a while back. I have a much harder time, looking at these huge rocks balancing precariously yet unmovingly on each other, saying, "Wow, what an interesting natural formation" than "Wow, tell me there is no Designer!" Indeed, I know the Artist.

Accusations of Politics in Washington

Okay, I'm confused. What is it that has the Bush haters in such an uproar now? I'm trying to figure out what went wrong here.

I'm sure you all know the story if you're following the news at all. Democrats want to subpoena high ranking people in the White House for a public interrogation on the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Congress is calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez, who had publicly admitted that the situation wasn't handled correctly. The accusation is that it was a political move.

So, I looked up a previous Attorney General, Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's Attorney General. Did you know that shortly after taking office in March, 1993, she fired all U.S. Attorneys? Some questioned the move. It looked a lot like partisan retaliation for investigations into friends of President Clinton. Oh, wait, that's what the accusation is regarding Paul Charlton, U.S. Attorney for Arizona ... except Charlton is one man, and Reno fired them all. Oh, you remember Reno. She deported Elián González, refused to investigate the campaign finance fiasco in 1996, and was the one in charge of the Branch Davidian disaster in Waco. Tell me again ... why wasn't she fired?

So, the Department of Justice fired 8 of their U.S. Attorneys. Apparently that is a criminal act or something. They don't get to fire attorneys. Certainly not for political reasons. It is nonsense to think that the people who work for the president's administration (whoever that president may be) should be "on board" with the president whom they serve. All presidents are required to keep on all U.S. Attorneys, regardless of their performance, persuasion, or politics. If it means that they scuttle administration, so be it. This is politics, people! Politics should have nothing to do with it! Oh, wait ... that makes no sense.

Is there any wonder why I'm confused here?

Choose a Gift

In the movie, Open Range, the doctor's sister wants to give the cowboy who is about to go out and get himself killed a token of her affection. She presses the locket into his hand, but he hands it back. "I can't take it." She makes a fascinating remark. "It's not your choice when it's a gift."

What a unique idea! You see, the common perspective is that we have to choose to receive a gift. But this simple character in this certainly secular movie begs to disagree. She believes that a gift given is a gift given, regardless of the choice of the person receiving it.

What gifts do I have in mind? Well, there are a few. First, there is the gift of Christ. Of Him, Isaiah says, "Unto us a Son is given" (Isa. 9:6). There is little doubt that Christ was a gift from the Father. Do we have the option of refusing that gift? I mean if we don't choose to accept Him, is He any less a gift to us? Okay, that one is hazy. How about this? Scripture speaks of faith as a gift. "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29). To the Romans Paul says, "God has allotted to each a measure of faith" (Rom. 12:3). These are just a couple of the places we find this. Peter writes his second epistle "to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). Faith is a gift. Now, while I would without a doubt argue that we choose what to do with this gift, I am asking if we get to choose whether or not to receive it.

Indeed, when we begin to think about it, the list gets long. Life, breath, family, friends, food, shelter ... just about anything you care to name is a gift from a gracious God. Do we get to reject them? We don't, for instance, actually have the power of life and death. That belongs to Christ (Rev. 1:18). We don't choose our families, and no matter what we choose to do with them, they don't stop being our families. We might choose to forego food or shelter for a time, but unless God is granting us death (another gift we cannot choose to refuse), only for a time. The Bible even calls suffering a gift to us, the will of God, His purpose, a product of His love for us. We don't get the option of refusing that one, although most of us would.

I don't know. Many people place a lot of emphasis on our choice of whether or not we receive the gift of salvation. But John says this:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

If, as most believe, that "received Him" is a product of our choice, then it's not entirely accurate to say, "nor of the will of man." On the other hand, "It's not your choice when it's a gift," perhaps we're giving Free Will too big a part in this equation.

Democracy for All

We're still in Iraq today because we're trying to stabilize the situation so democracy can take hold. However, there are questions about whether Iraq (or most other Middle East countries) can handle democracy. What does it take for democracy to work?

There are a couple of fundamental necessities for the successful operation of a democratic country. The essence of democracy is "one person, one vote", but there is, in that simple concept, a deeper implication. "One person, one vote" assumes that everyone will abide by that. It assumes that no one will override the outcome by force. It assumes that the people doing the voting are people who are willing to acquiesce to the will of the majority. In other words, for democracy to work, there has to be a willingness not to be selfish. This problem is only exacerbated when it comes to the real government we enjoy and are hoping for in Iraq -- a republic. In this form of democracy, the "one person, one vote" only goes so far as to elect representatives. The people then must be willing to bow to the results of that vote and to the choices of those limited representatives. Alan Coren said, "Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear." While that is a bit more cynical than I am trying to get across, you get the idea. For a country to operate as a republic, the people of that country must have an underlying morality that allows, even encourages them to surrender their desires to those of others. It requires a high level of trust and a low level of self and aggression.

America, when it was established, was a place ripe for such a government. And it has served us very, very well. When we came to be a nation, we were very Christian, and these requirements are very Christian. "Let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3-4). "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" (Rom. 13:1-2). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31). And this has been recognized for some time regarding the moral necessity in democracy. Karl Marx suggested that when people in a democracy discovered that they could vote themselves money, they would bankrupt their country. Bill Murchison wrote, "No morality, no democracy. It's as simple as that.

So the question for Iraq is do they have the moral values required to sustain a democratic government? It's hard for me to say from here. If we based our answer on what the media is telling us, the answer would be a resounding "No!" From all appearances they live in a purely dog-eat-dog, "looking out for number one" world. That kind of societal morality cannot support democracy. So it looks bleak for Iraq.

But the real question to me isn't there; it's here. We've watched a radical decline in our own morality in America. Part of the Puritan Work Ethic, for instance, was "What can I provide to help my neighbors?" Now it's "What can I do to make me more money?" Patriotism, high moral values, a sense of the divine, these things are all on the decline and all very necessary for democracy to function. Indeed, I'm not really sure if, were we to be trying to establish democracy in America today, we'd have the fundamental moral basis to sustain it. Once established, there is momentum, but how long do we have before the momentum is lost and the moral decline overrides it? Already loud voices are trying to shut up those who disagree. We've condoned as a nation the murder of millions of unborn babies because of the whim of mothers. (Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".) Minorities, illegal aliens, and the like all have protection, but Christians are considered open targets for insult and castigation. It won't be long (relatively speaking) before the moral system that established this country is outlawed by this country. Then where will we be?

I think it is a valid question whether or not Iraq can handle democracy. Do they have the moral core required for such a government? I am equally concerned about my own country. I'm not so sure that we are sustaining a sufficiently moral core to sustain our own democracy. Where will that lead us?

Missed Messages

Odd. Somehow, somewhere along the way, certain items became taboo in the Church. First is the mind. The popular Church has grown largely anti-intellectual. "Think not" would be their cry, it seems. Oh, they do it with words from the Bible. "Lean not on your own understanding," they say, "which means you're not supposed to use your brain." "We walk by faith, not by sight," they say, "and everyone knows that 'sight' refers to 'logic'." There is a rampant distrust of learning, scholars, higher education, or "too much thinking." I'm sure most of us have heard the phrase "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." That's the concept.

With the ejection of the mind comes the castigation of tradition. Now, the Roman Catholic Church regards tradition as equal to (or perhaps higher than) Scripture in authority, but Protestants have rejected tradition wholesale. With it goes Church History and anything else that smacks of "that was then." I was stunned, for instance, to read at Monday Morning Insight that the author was delighted that people who liked traditional church were completely repelled by his church, as if "traditional" was evil and "new" was good. Perhaps it's a late date backlash to Roman Catholicism's view of tradition as authoritative, but it's amazingly pervasive in the non-Catholic churches today.

There are more, mostly accompanying these two big ones, but these two are particularly disturbing to me. They are disturbing because they stand in stark disagreement with the Bible. On the use of the mind, for instance, the Bible is not vague. It is part of the Great Commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37). How, then, are we required to neglect the mind? After 11 masterful chapters from Paul on Christian doctrine to the Romans, he concludes that we should, in response, offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God. The first step in this process, he tells us, is "the renewing of the mind" (Rom. 12:2). How then are we to neglect the mind? Over and over Scripture calls for us to change how we think. God Himself offers to reason with us (Isa. 1:18). How, then, are we to neglect the mind?

As for tradition, despite the Roman Catholic over-stating of its importance, the Protestant removal of tradition is not a biblical position. While Scripture condemns "traditions of men" which clearly countermand biblical teachings, Paul says, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). It is not, then, "tradition" that is the problem, but the source of that tradition.

We are living in a post-modern society that holds to relativity. This relativity holds that there is no truth. Instead, what you feel is important. And, following with that, much of the Church has rejected thinking in favor of personal enlightenment. And while our American society worships youth and rejects tradition, it appears that, again, the Church is following closely with the world's perspective. Is it a good idea to reject thinking and tradition? Ask the older generation. You see, the Bible teaches that we get wise teaching from them. Maybe we should listen?

You Shall Be Holy

We have a good God. He has promised us peace that passes understanding, love that we cannot comprehend, joy that isn't of this world. He is the definition of good. So it isn't too surprising when we begin to think that it is His primary goal. God wants us to be happy, to be whole.

That thought, however, is shortsighted. The Bible says something different. We are only visitors on this planet, just passing through. We are ambassadors from another kingdom. And we have a calling: "You shall be holy for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45). Jesus repeats the demand in Matthew: "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Funny thing, though ... as much as we are eager for comfort and wholeness, we don't seem too eager to pursue holiness.

In a passage (that we will need to examine more fully later) in Philippians, Paul speaks of perfection:

¹² Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect , but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. ¹³ Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, ¹⁴ I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵ Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; ¹⁶ however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained (Phil. 3:12-16).

Isn't it interesting? Paul says that he hadn't attained perfection, but goes on to say "as many as are perfect, have this attitude."

There is a sense in which we have not arrived at perfection, and there is another sense in which we are perfect already. The "already" is a positional perfection, a judicial perfection. We have been declared righteous by God. Now, we know that we aren't practically perfect yet, and this is the perfection Paul says he hasn't attained.

In verse 16, Paul says "Let us live up to what we've already attained." In other words, "You've been declared holy, partakers of the divine nature, perfect in Christ; now live it!"

There is a sense in American Christianity that we are to move away from "works". It is a reaction to works-based salvation. Unfortunately, works are a primary message of the Scriptures. Fortunately, the works -- the practical holiness -- to which we are called are a product of changed lives. So be sure to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to do His good pleasure" (Phil. 1:12-13). Ask yourself, "Am I pursuing happiness ... or personal holiness?" If you're at all like me, I fear the answer will be convicting.

Traveling Mercies

It's not an uncommon phrase. "Let's ask God for traveling mercies on this trip." So I had to ask. What do we mean by "traveling mercies"? I mean, think about it. Mercy means justice suspended, so to speak. It is a punishment withheld. What does that have to do with traveling? Grace, on the other hand, is an undeserved kindness. "Traveling grace" makes sense. We would like God to protect us on the trip -- a kindness we don't deserve.

I have decided, in reflection, that my objection is to be rescinded. It is a product of a standard view we all carry around, whether or not we admit it, that we're basically good people. Christians especially think "I deserve ___" and fill in the blank with good things. After all, we're God's children, God's special chosen, God's adopted. What's "mercy" got to do with it?

The truth is simple. When Adam ate the fruit in the garden, had God terminated human life at that moment He would have been perfectly just. Ever since then, if God were to terminate anyone at any time, He would be perfectly just. We are sinners. Christians have been declared just by the work of Christ on the Cross, but we are sinners. We know this because none of us has yet arrived at perfection.

So if God were to kill me on a trip across country and give me eternal life on the other side of my death, it would be great mercy and grace. Real mercy, then, is when I survive another day. Real mercy is when I take another breath. And the fact that we returned from our trip safe and sound is indeed "traveling mercies".

Traveling Fool

So we just spent the last couple of weeks traveling. We did a road trip from southern California to Louisiana and back. You'd be surprised at the variations in landscape that occur in that limited space. Long roads through varied deserts (yes, deserts vary). Unique mountain structures. There are some mountains in southern California that look exactly like massive dump trucks offloaded piles of boulders and some in Arizona that have impossibly balanced rocks. Then there are the vast forests of eastern Texas and Louisiana, a radical change from the deserts of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and the rest of southern Texas. One is struck with the sheer size of the country and wonder how anyone could have predicted back in the 70's that the world would be overpopulated by the year 2000. Apparently those guys didn't get out much.

The more interesting variation was the people. Southern Californians tend to keep to themselves. They aren't hostile or anything, but neither do they tend to acknowledge your presence. Contrast that with the walk my wife and I took in an Alexandria, Louisiana neighborhood where the occupants of cars driving by waved a friendly greeting and one neighbor came out and invited to have us join him in a jog.

Going across this southern portion of the country, I got a glimpse of our Border Patrol dollars at work. We had to have gone through half a dozen Border Patrol inspection points. In only two (actually, only one, since we went through it twice) was there actual activity. In this one in Arizona (both times through), there was an agent with a dog randomly sniffing at cars and another making eye contact with each and every driver before waving them through. In the rest, it was ... nonsense. In most cases there was a stop, but no agents there. Instead they were all clustered off to the side someplace ignoring the vehicles passing through. In one it was actually appalling what we saw. An agent was there in the inspection booth, hand in the air with a "go ahead" motion swirling around. She never once looked up from the book she was reading. You could have passed through with a bus labeled "Illegal Aliens Bus Lines" and she wouldn't have seen it. She was intent on the romance she was reading or whatever. Now, I have a great deal of respect for the job that the Border Patrol does, but this didn't exactly inspire me.

And I have discovered the real money-making job to get into: road work. Everywhere we went there were roads under construction, destruction, repair, rerouting, something, all the time. The poor you always have with you, but road work will be an eternity of employment. But I am not actually complaining. Much of those that were not under repair should have been.

What was really remarkable was the people on this trip. We visited with Holly and her husband and the grandkids. That was nice. In the Dallas area we visited with cousins in Plano, third cousins twice removed in Flower Mound (yeah, we did the math on that one), old friends from California who had moved to McKinney. In Louisiana we got to spend several days with my grandfather and his wife. Now, as I get older, "old age" seems to move, but I think these two qualify no matter what at 90 and 88. I was reminded of my own mortality, realizing that one never knows from one day to the next who will be here tomorrow. But most of all it was the people on the trip itself. My wife and I enjoyed the traveling company of my parents. These are godly people, very generous and loving and a joy to be with. My mother and I enjoy a highly unusual relationship in that we share a passion for God. Many of our discussions were on Him and His Word. How many sons have that privilege with their mothers?

One other observation/question: What is up with gas prices? When I started this trip, I paid $2.29 a gallon for regular gas here in Arizona. Now, comparing apples to apples, my last fill up was $2.67 a gallon. That's a lot of change in a short time. Worse yet, in California it was $2.97 a gallon (at the cheapest spot). (Most places I saw were $3.19 a gallon or more.) So what's with this "cross the California line and save 30 cents a gallon"? Oh, wait, I get it. California pumps and processes their own oil. No, wait ... that should make it cheaper there than anywhere else. I'm telling you, folks, I just don't get it. This kind of stuff makes me lean toward the conspiracy theory approach.

Well, it was a good trip. I thank God for traveling mercies (a phrase my mom and I discussed at one point ... and you might hear about in the coming days). I thank God for family. I thank God for home. And it is a very nice country in which He had me be born. Thanks for that, too.

The God Box

It is my sneaking suspicion that many of us have shortchanged God. It's an easy, essentially human thing to do. We begin to think that, since we were made in His image, He must be like us. God had to warn people off that notion more than once. He used Balaam the prophet to tell Balak, "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). He used the prophet Samuel to tell King Saul the very same thing (1 Sam. 15:29). He tells the wicked, "You thought that I was just like you" (Psa. 50:21). It's an easy mistake, underestimating God. And my second suspicion is that this is a dangerous mistake. If idolatry is defined as "worshiping a false image of God", and our mental image of Him is a false one, are we committing idolatry? And it doesn't take a Bible scholar to figure out what God thinks of that particular sin.

The big item that occurs to me in this is the general perception that God is a "nice God". We tend to think that God's highest concern is our happiness and wholeness. We think that God doesn't do "mean" things, things that we would classify as harsh, painful, unpleasant. We put God in this "nice" box ... and then find that it is a contradiction of God's Word. He's not there.

When the evil of 9/11 occurred, Christians rose up to defend God. It was actually stated by prominent Christians, "God is a gentleman; He does not interfere." And we all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that God would never allow such a thing. It's evil Man's fault. That we can deal with. It's sin in the world, not some plan of God. So when a Hurricane Katrina strikes with devastation, not evil, they step in again. Now, your insurance policy calls such things "acts of God", but well-meaning Christians assure us that God didn't have anything to do with that either. No, no, it's just nature, not God.

Apparently no one bothered to ask God. He doesn't seem to mind at all taking credit for such a thing. He tells Israel, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7). Well-meaning Christians declare, "Natural disasters are just that -- natural" and God taps them on the shoulder and says, "No, I did that." And we've misjudged God. Well-meaning Christians point to the fallen towers and say, "God is a gentleman", but the Bible says, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4). Paul claims that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). And while we would agree that God doesn't cause evil, God is quick to caution us that He can use it if it accompllishes that which suits His will. "Oh," we say, "but surely God only wants us to be happy and comfortable." The idea doesn't play in reality or in Scripture. Instead we are told, "For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives" (Heb. 12:6). It's hard to fit that into our pleasant little "nice God" box.

There are things we know, and things we infer. We know that God is good, but we infer that this means that He does only "nice" things. God's idea of "good" is far more expansive than ours can be. What is "good" to God is not our normal thinking, and how God achieves it is not our normal thinking. As a result, we stand on the verge of being idolaters worshiping a false god that we think is the God of the Bible but is actually only a god of our incorrect inferences. We need to let God out of that box, to allow Him to be God. Instead of conforming Him to our image, we need to conform our thinking to His image. I suspect that when we do, we will find a God far greater than anything we had imagined.

Partakers of the Divine Nature

¹ Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

² Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; ³ seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. ⁴ For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

⁵ Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, ⁶ and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, ⁷ and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. ⁸ For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.

¹⁰ Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; ¹¹ for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you (2 Peter 1:1-11).

I'm just coming off Peter's epistles. (If you were paying attention, you might have noticed.) This passage is stunning, for multiple reasons. Look at it for a few moments. It's worth it.

I'd like to grab a phrase and examine the area around it to flesh it out. Now, you be good Bereans and check me, but I think this is correct. The first phrase is "partakers of the divine nature" (1:4). Now, before we get crazy and think, "Oh, we become little gods" (because some lunatics think that), let's not go there. The phrase is a reference to the amazing benefits all who "have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (1:1). It refers to the Spirit of God within each of us. It refers to the mind of Christ that we enjoy, the work of God in each of us "to will and to do His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12), the power of God at work in us (Eph. 3:20). It refers to His divine power that "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness" (1:3) But when we see the phrase "partakers of the divine nature", I think the impact should be sufficient to shake the popular but ridiculous notion of so many that it's possible to be a Christian and have no effect on your life. That's just not possible.

So, what is it that makes us "partakers of the divine nature"? Follow it closely, because the answer is astounding. According to Peter it is "through the true knowledge of Him" (1:3). That's it. No secret plan. No careful process. No "12 steps" or any such thing. When we truly know Him we become partakers of the divine nature. So when we have a relationship with Christ, that, alone, is all it takes to bring us under the divine influence, the power of God. It is not possible to avoid it. And it is not possible to come away from such a thing unchanged.

This is why ("For this reason") Peter tells the results of this fact -- a change in behavior. Our characters are changed. "Peter says "in your faith (the starting point) supply ...". Indeed, he says to be diligent about it. No, not merely diligent. In all diligence. Listen carefully. Peter is saying that because you are a partaker of the divine nature, you need to work. You need to work hard. Add to faith. Construct a whole list of character traits. Now, remember, you're doing it because (as a result of) you are a partaker in the divine nature. But be diligent to supply these traits in ever increasing amounts.

I think that's important. Don't anticipate perfection at the start. Be diligent to add these things in small amounts. Add a little at a time. The point is not instant perfection; the point is an ongoing process of working to add these.

The other phrase is in verse 11: "Entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." First, it is future tense. We understand that we "have been saved", but we most often forget that we "will be saved". How is it, though, that entrance will be supplied by Christ? This is assured if we are "diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (1:10). If you make that certain, then we will be supplied entrance into the kingdom. And how do we make certain? By being diligent to add these character traits. And on what basis do we add those traits? On the basis that we partake in the divine nature. And how do we partake in the divine nature? We partake in the divine nature by knowing Him. In other words, if you know Christ, He supplies everything pertaining to life and godliness ... right where we started.

It's a false belief that someone can know Christ and not be changed. It's a false belief that the Christian life is without demands. The demands of Scripture are not small, but the resources to those who know Christ are not small either. You must be diligent to add to your faith, but it occurs because we are partakers of the divine nature. It just doesn't get much better than that.

When Hope Seems Lost

There are times in my life when, examining the world around me, I get nigh unto despair. Sorry. I spent the last week in Louisiana. There are times when I approach the feeling of hopelessness. Look around. Mothers are leaving children. Fathers are leaving children. Marriage is in disrepair. Children are being abused. Families are dissolving. Divorce is on the rise. What hope is there?

Look around long enough and I begin to feel, "What's the use?" How will the families of tomorrow survive? How can kids raised in divorce, abandonment, abuse, and worse grow up to have healthy, happy families? Worse, how can people whose idea of "father" is "that guy who beat and humiliated and raped me all my life" come to a happy, proper relationship with our heavenly Father? It can all seem so hopeless.

And then I remember two things. The first is the construct of the human being. It seems, against all odds, that even though humans are desperately evil, there is encoded in their DNA the truth about such things. While children may be raised in horrendous situations, it seems that, under all the horror, they still know what a good parent looks like. They may not have experienced one or even seen one, but they still know what it looks like. A good parent listens, cares, loves, provides -- all the things that God does for us. And they know what they need to do to be that good parent. They may not do it, but they know it.

And the second is like unto the first ... likely because they're closely interrelated. The second is the biggest because it is the character of God. Knowing that God designed us, knowing that He is Sovereign, knowing that He is good and will always bring about the best, we can relax when things look hopeless. That's even bigger than the nature of the human being.

It's true in many cases. God is the answer. And when I start to feel like things cannot possibly work out, I am reminded once again that the Maker of the Universe causes all things to work together for good. Life gets bizarre, and is often unpredictable, but God will always do what is right. That's something on which to place my hope.

A Trivial Resurrection?

There is no small fervor over the reports that there is proof that Jesus outlived the Crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had children (a marginally popular anti-Christian story line that has surfaced multiple times in recent years, as in The DaVinci Code and others). Christians are upset. Anti-Christians are gleeful. And the "thinking" ones are saying, "What does it matter? It makes no difference to Christianity if Jesus actually rose from the dead or not." To which I reply, "What are you thinking???!!!"

The argument that someone has DNA evidence to prove their story is too ludicrous to imagine. If forensic experts have bones and no comparative source -- no reference -- the DNA from those bones will be unidentified. Since Jesus never provided a DNA sample, it is utter rubish to say, "Aha! We've found his DNA." So let's not get our knickers in a twist. No thinking forensics person would buy the story, let alone an archaeologist with any modicum of intelligence. It's a non-story.

What is a story is that there are people out there claiming to be "Christian" who deny the Resurrection, or at least marginalize it. "It's not important." Let's look at the steps one must make to get there.

First, let's be clear. Most of those who are claiming that Jesus was married with children are not claiming that He was a father, at the young age of 33, left a widow and child. They are claiming that he survived the crucifixion (if it ever actually happened at all), lived on, married, had kids, and died of at a ripe old age. This isn't a denial of the Resurrection. It's a denial that he died for us.

Beyond that, though, we have a ways to go to get to their position if we go with a real crucifixion and death. We have to believe that We are not saved by Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, it was His sacrifice on the cross that saved us. That sacrifice was sufficient. (Teaser question: On what do we base that conclusion?)

Now, Paul makes it clear that "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). So while we might agree that His sacrifice alone was sufficient, it would appear that 1) Paul (and the other New Testament writers) believed Jesus rose from the dead, and 2) it wasn't a minor issue.

"That's okay," they tell us. "Jesus simply rose spiritually. There need be no physical resurrection." That's a nice original approach, but we're it hasn't answered the problem. Paul and the other New Testament writers are not ambiguous. Jesus didn't rise spiritually; He rose physically. "That's okay," they tell us. "You see, they were simply confused. What actually happened to Jesus's body wasn't known."

Do you see how far we've come? What do we have now? Let's take stock. Well, those writers were understandably upset, so they couldn't be relied on to give accurate accounts. That means that your Bible shouldn't be trusted, which is fine with most of those who are going along with this.

But here's the rub. What did the physical resurrection of Christ prove? Paul says it foreshadowed our own resurrection. That's not trivial. But it also declared to the world that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient. If Christ did not rise, then it simply showed that he was a misguided soul who died for a cause. What a shame. If He rose from the dead, then it shows that the sacrifice was sufficient! "But, we don't need that," they would complain. "The Bible says that it was sufficient." But didn't you just tell us that the Bible shouldn't be trusted?

There is too much at stake to surrender the physical resurrection of Christ. It was declared in the Gospels, defended by Paul, and a key point since. It is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other religion. It goes to the core of Christianity and the reliability of its source book, the Bible. It is so important that I don't believe that a person can deny the Resurrection and still be considered a Christian.

Tough Read

John's first epistle is perhaps the hardest book in the Bible for me to read. Oh, there are difficult books. Wading through Leviticus isn't easy. Psalms is pretty easy, but very long. Hebrews takes some effort. But in terms of the "rake in the face" effect, 1 John is the toughest for me. You know the "rake in the face" effect. You're walking peacefully along, no worries, and then you step on that hidden rake in the grass that whacks you in the face. That, for me, is 1 John.

The epistle is full of "ifs". An "if" is a conditional statement. "If this, then that." There is a sense in which the book is a test. "If" you pass the test, you're in. If not ... well, you don't want to fail this test. But part of what makes this book so difficult to read is the apparent benevolence for which it is written.

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).

It doesn't get much better than that. John wrote this letter to believers so they would have assurance that eternal life was theirs. How nice! And then you begin to read by what measure John helps Christians be assured.

If you walk in the light (1 John 1:7).
If you confess your sins (1 John 1:9).
If you keep His commandments (1 John 2:3).
If you do not love the world or the things in the world (1 John 2:15).
If you do not practice sin (1 John 3:9).
If you have the world's goods and help your brother (1 John 3:17).

This is just a sampling. It is very "works" oriented. And the standard is very demanding. Now, none of this suggests that salvation is achieved by works, but it is quite clear that those who are born of God are radically altered, a change that is clearly reflected in how they live their lives. John flies in the face of the popular belief that one can come to Christ, be saved, and come away unchanged. It just doesn't work that way for John.

This epistle is a hard read. One needs to be careful when reading it. There are two probable errors of extremes. One extreme is to toss it, basically. "Oh, John's not saying anything of the kind. If you read it that way, you're reading it wrong." There's just no avoiding it. John is using the works of the person in question as an indicator of whether or not they actually have a functioning relationship with God. That ought to be a sobering thought in everyone's life. John's epistle should be hard to swallow, because the way is narrow.The other error is to take it to the other extreme. It's possible to overreach with this book. It's possible to demand perfection and perfection only. That is also a mistake. Be careful not to read that into 1 John, because it's simply not there.

I recommend the book with care. But I admit it's hard for me to read. I haven't arrived at perfection, and I'd like to. Not in this life, I suspect, but it would be nice -- the sooner the better.

Truth in Advertising

Advertisers are required by law to tell the truth about their products. Realtors are required by law to tell you the downside of the particular property you are looking at. Oh, they can tell you all the positives, but if they don't tell you that this brand new kitchen is a result of a nasty fire 3 years ago, they've violated the law. Yet, it seems, Christians aren't required to tell the truth about the gospel. Why is that?

We're quite good at "Come to Jesus and He'll solve your problems." We're heavy on "love, peace, joy." We're happy to tell people about how God can solve their marital difficulties and fix their financial problems and heal their physical infirmities. And while I suspect we might oversell these a bit, I still think we're basically being honest. However, in our glee to share all this happy information, we are careful to avoid certain promises from the mouth of God that don't "sell" too well.

Paul wrote, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29). How nice! We have the immense privilege of believing in Him! (Of course, many think it is their divine right, but we won't go there right now.) And not only do we have the immense privilege of believing in Him; we also have the immense privilege of suffering for His sake! Now, how often is that included in our altar calls?

Jesus said some marvelous things in John 15. He told us to abide in Him and bear fruit. He told us these things "that your joy may be made full" (John 15:11). He speaks of loving one another. He tells us we are His friends. He tells us He chose us. All such wonderful stuff. So why is it that we seem to close out the chapter in our messages just before He gets to the other promise?

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, `A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well" (John 15:18-24).

There's a grand promise. "They hated Me; they will hate you." It is followed by a more grand promise, the promise of the Holy Spirit, but we seem to miss this promise from Christ that we will be persecuted.

This recently came home to me in reading through 1 Peter. Peter is a fiend for suffering. He mentions it again and again. Don't be surprised. Expect it. We were called for this purpose. It is God's will. And I think, "Why don't we notice this?"

Sure, it's not a "selling point", but Jesus told His disciples that before they followed Him they should "count the cost". Shouldn't we be telling prospective disciples the same thing? Aren't we obligated to tell the truth? Sure, there is comfort beyond compare in our suffering, peace that passes understanding, the Spirit Himself within, but if we don't tell people it's coming, they are likely to be victims rather than disciples. Shouldn't be telling the truth in our advertising of the gospel?

The Medium and the Message

Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar, wrote, "The medium is the message." McLuhan believed that the content of the message wasn't nearly as important as the medium by which it is conveyed. I suspect there is more truth to McLuhan's perspective than we would immediately recognize.

According to recent studies, it is suspected that one of the leading causes of and major reasons for the radical increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) among children is television. Children's health organizations are now warning that children before the age of 3 ought not be subjected to any video screens whatsoever. Others are saying that it should be severely limited prior to the age of 5 years old. Why? It isn't the message. It's the medium. Children in their early years of development have brains that are also developing. Television short-circuits that development. The rapid flashing images, the completeness of the medium (that is, the sound and sight), and the multisensory overload causes these developing brains to be damaged and makes for a higher demand of stimulation as they get older. Thus ... ADD. There are multiple problems, all brought about by allowing young children to watch TV. And that's completely apart from the content of the viewing. But it's not just children. A recent study said that the adult brain is more active when you are asleep than when you are watching television. Why? Again, not the content, but the medium. The television provides almost no room for mental activity. You aren't filling in an blanks. With a book, for instance, you are drawing the pictures in your mind. But with television the medium fills in all the blanks. And, of course, there is the simple mathematics of time. If the average television time is 6 hours a day, what are they not doing during that time? What more constructive, more beneficial, more valuable things could be done in that spare time that is consumed instead by nearly useless sitting and staring? Without even considering the content, the medium of television is a problem. The medium is the message.

There is another medium that bears its own message. This medium has an almost magical capacity to bypass the thinking portions of the brain and go directly to the emotions. It can almost cause physical movement without conscious attention. It can alter moods, going from content to angry or from angry to calm, just be being present. The content of this medium isn't nearly as effective as the medium itself. That medium is music.

Music is an amazing invention of God. As early as Genesis 4 musicians are mentioned in Scripture. David's first claim to fame was the music he played that calmed King Saul's evil spirit. Music was part of the fabric of the first Temple, and music was part of God's plan to bring down the walls of Jericho. Music is an amazing invention of God. It is also a powerful tool. Tools, by their nature, can be used for various purposes based on the one using them. Music, too, can be used for various purposes. It can calm the savage beast or raise a riot. It can lead you to sublime peaks and plummet you to depression's deepest valleys. It can bring a tear to your eye or a smile to your lips. Music is a tool, and failing to recognize it is like playing with a running saw. It might do something good, but it's more likely going to hurt someone. And while very, very few people seem to realize it, rashly applied music is very capable of hurting someone.

I did a little research and was interested in what I found. According to wikipedia, rock and roll music originated in the late 40's. This is the period immediately following World War II -- the period immediately following the creation of the group of people known as "teenagers". And this type of music was a product of teenage angst. The undeniable underlying thought in the music was sex. Indeed, wikipedia says, "The term 'rock and roll', which was black slang for sexual intercourse." Everyone knows the phrase, "Sex and drugs and rock and roll." The music is designed to appeal to the appetites, and it does it well. It appealed to the rebellion in youth, and it did it well. When it lost its shock value, it morphed into new forms, with shock as their appeal. Punk, rap, hip-hop, "alternative", they were all designed to express largely the discontent and anger that the youth have toward society.

Now we carry this musical message into our churches. We borrow the back beats and rythms and scrape off the old words, substituting praise, but the medium hasn't changed its message. It still aims its appeal at the senses. And somehow we're fine with that. Sensual music is good. It helps us praise God. It lifts our spirits to Him. We are completely unaware, it seems, that this is definitely a case where the medium is the message ... and the message doesn't match the intent. Are we sure this is the route we want to go? Is this actually the kind of music that we believe God enjoys? There is a wide variety of choices out there. I'm just wondering ... is the world's sensual rebellion the best we have to offer God?

Like Father, Like Son

We visited with my daughter and son-in-law and those two darling grandkids. Did I say darling? I suppose it's because I'm a grandparent. These two youngsters are without much parental control. Oh, they're cute enough, and it doesn't take much for a loving grandparent to bring them into line. And, as all children, they seem to want that sense of "fences", of being cared for and contained rather than wild and free. So it's fairly easy at this age to make the visit a pleasant one.

But I thought it was my responsibility to sit the boy down and explain to him his responsibilities as husband to my daughter and father to my grandchildren. So we had "a talk". You know what I'm talking about. I explain to him the wisdom of the ages. He nods, agrees, of course, and goes on about his way. I thought it was interesting that he was so intent on being viewed as a whole, fully functioning, responsible adult instead of admitting to any shortcomings. His failure to see the problems, however, assure that there will be no change unless God intervenes.

All we can do, sometimes, is pass on information, and that was all I could do. I left it at that and left it in better Hands than my own.

Then we visited my grandfather. He's an old man. I'm sorry. No way around it. Ninety is old. And I found myself there, visiting with my grandfather and my father, and me, the youngster in the group, talking just like my unaware son-in-law was. I wanted to be viewed as a whole, fully functioning, responsible adult. I wanted to be viewed as just as wise as these two older men who were much wiser and certainly much more experienced than I.

It's not the youth of my son-in-law. It's human nature. We call it "pride", and it's prevalent in all of us. I suppose that there will be no change unless God intervenes. And, oh, I'm praying for that.

Connection

I'm always hesitant to refer to "the good old days", so I'll avoid it now, but it seems like times have changed, and not always for the better. I was discussing with my brother the differences between our day and our parents' day. When we celebrated their 50th anniversary a few years ago, we had to pare down the list of invitees so we could fit them in the large hall we rented. People came from around the country, friends for decades eager to celebrate these two people who have been part of their lives. The same was true for my wife's parents at their 50th anniversary, and for my brother's in-laws. Yet, we were bemoaning, the likelihood of us having any such a gathering is remote. Why?

I suspect it is because our culture has changed. In our parents' day there was more of a community, more of a sense of "us". There were connections, long-standing friendships, neighbors who lived in the same home for life, and so on. But things have changed. Why are we so disjointed? I will offer a few contributing factors that I see.

One is the change between a father who worked and a mother who stayed home to both parents work. In their day, neighborhoods were full of mothers and their children. These women formed friendships, community, connection. They were the social glue of society. Women, I think, are the socializers of the family. Men will sometimes do one on one, but women are more likely to arrange gatherings. Today, however, women are busier with business. They're at work helping support the family. Someone else is raising the kids because it's very difficult in very many places to support a family with one income. (Of course, much of the difficulty is because we are sold a bill of goods about what we "need" and where happiness comes from, but that's another issue.) So as families have split off to go to work, our communities have lost some of their coherence.

One of the culprits in the problem is air conditioning. Okay, that's an oversimplification. But think about it. In days gone by, there was no air conditioning. So the weather turns warm and where would families go? They would go you out on the porch. And across the way their neighbors were out on the porch. Since then, we've acquired air conditioning. Now when it gets hot, we shut the doors behind us and sit in the cool of the indoors. Now, I am clearly being simplistic, but you get the idea. We have TV and computers, microwaves and frozen dinners and everything we need to avoid interacting with our neighbors. We are self-contained and safely insulated from the world around us by our pleasant technology.

Beyond this, our culture is breeding separation. Prior generations were neighborhood driven. Today is "me" oriented. In the past a man had a career. Now he has a job that he holds until something better comes along. There were connections at work, connections at church, connections at home. It wasn't about "me" as much as it was about "us". Someone once said, "You come into a room in two ways: Either 'Here I am' or 'There you are!'" We've indulged and even glorified the shift from "you" to "me".

One of the leading problems is the failure of the family. Some of it is disintegrating families. There is more strife, less harmony. Our media today tells us that parents are stupid and kids are wise. Our sitcoms glorify loser husbands and lousy wives and cynical children. The mere suggestion of the Leave It To Beaver lifestyle as something good and wholesome is laughed off the planet. Some of it is simple distance. As our transportation and civilization expands, families lose coherency. Children no longer work in their father's shop. They're off to another town, another state, working at whatever job they think will give them the best return without regard for the ties of family. Parents retire and move to warmer climates, making time with children and grandchildren occasional rather than commonplace. The family is falling apart.

There are lots of reasons, I'm sure. There are more than I've suggested. My goal here is to bring it to our attention. Connections are vital. Family is core. Fellowship is essential. It is counter to our culture, but we need to work at a unity in neighborhoods, church, and family that is at the core of the things of value. It may cost us, but anything worth having usually does.

An Apple for the Teacher

Homeschooling is a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to public schooling. It is a way for parents to eliminate the garbage that is being passed off as "education" today and to connect to our children in ways that the more traditional "school house" approach can offer. It provides for highly individualized instruction, far better attention, and a much better approach to education at all. Further, studies have shown that homeschooled children are better equipped to face the world than their "traditional" counterparts. Their education is better. Their conduct is better. Every aspect seems to be a vast improvement over those who went to a classroom environment. Homeschooling is a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to the standard school approach.

There are those who would tell you, based on this information, that homeschooling is "the answer". This fails to take into account the pitfalls. In any plan one undertakes, it is important to consider all the variables. Or, as Christ put it, to "count the cost".

What kind of pitfalls are there in homeschooling? Well, there is obviously the time demand on the parent doing the schooling. They need to prepare as a teacher prepares ... along with all the other requirements of life. It is one of the general complaints of those doing the homeschooling that it takes so much more time than other schools require. Be prepared. Perhaps the most commonly named pitfall is socialization. Absolutely there are remedies for this one, but a parent contemplating homeschooling needs to take this danger into account.

I've seen one other pitfall for which I cannot fully account, but one that a parent contemplating homeschooling must consider. There is something about homeschooling that seems to attract bats. I don't mean winged rats. I mean those people who are prone to conspiracy theories and wild ideas. I can't fully explain it, but they seem to be drawn to homeschooling. Why is that? So in amongst the serious Christians who want their children to be trained up in the training and admonition of the Lord, you'll find those who believe that it is an abomination to use the word "October". "Those months are named after pagan gods, so you can only use Hebrew months." You'll find those who are confident that the government is trying to read their thoughts, so they teach their kids while they're all wearing foil hats. You'll find those who are sure that the unpardonable sin is sending kids to public school ... or, just as bad, Christian school.

Beware, parents. Homeschooling can be a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to the standard school approach. On the other hand, it can bring you into the realm of influences on you and your kids that can be devious, misleading, and even destructive. Along with the other pitfalls, be on your guard for that one. That apple might have a worm in it.

An Audience of One

Churches used to be a bastion of conservative. As churches climb on the "seeker-sensitive" bandwagon, there is a slide away from this trend. Older members are offended by the shift to "contemporary music". Many have been told, "If you don't like it, leave." One church I know of actually told their members, "If you don't like this music, you're just being selfish." The belief seems to be contemporary music is biblical and necessary and those who disagree are simply being disagreeable.

I have to disagree.

The primary reason we're shifting from "traditional" to "contemporary" is the perception of the audience. Churches believe if they make their music more contemporary, more "relevant", more like the world's music, then they'll attract more people to hear the gospel. And that, after all, is the point, isn't it?

Again, I have to disagree.

James wrote, "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4). That's pretty harsh language. James considers friendship with the world adultery against God and hostility toward God. And yet, our churches are moving rapidly toward friendship with the world as if it is a keystone for God's plan for evangelism. Instead, John says, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "Nor the things of the world." So, tell me ... does that include their musical stylings? Well, you decide.

The question to me is two-fold. First, who is the audience to whom we are playing at church? Second, what is the purpose of church? What are we trying to accomplish with that audience?

To the first question, I suspect the answer is much more elusive than we think because we're not paying attention. We would likely answer quickly, "Well, the people that attend, right?" It's certainly the popular answer, but, unfortunately, it's not the biblical one. The biblical answer (read "God's answer") is:

the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:12-13).

The job of the Church is the equipping of the saints. Part of the job of the saints is indeed evangelism, but that's not the job of the Church. The job of the Church is to build believers. When we shift from building believers to gathering converts, we end up with an "immature man", a "diversity of faith" -- weakness and confusion, just like we see in the Church today. Indeed, the author of Hebrews says this about the church:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:23-25).

Our goal in gathering together is the mutual worship of God, the mutual holding fast to the truth, and the mutual stimulation to love and good deeds. None of that includes "reaching the lost". I'm not saying the lost need not be reached. I'm saying that this isn't the primary thrust of the Church.

So here we are. We've decided that the people who attend church make up the audience. We've decided that the purpose of this gathering is to reach those who don't believe as we do. And we've decided to use the methods of the world -- that segment of society that is defined as being in opposition to God. Our "best effort" is put toward making people "feel good about God", even though Peter warns "Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:2). When our best worship is "feeling good toward God" and our best means is the tools of the enemies of God and our goals don't match God's goals for the Church, we're in trouble. When we forget that Church is primarily for God, our Audience of one, we're in serious trouble.

The Software Solution

I am a programmer. I design software used to run tests in the lab experiments. These are complicated and precise tests for complicated and precise processes. So my controls of these processes need to be precise. I will send a command to a power supply and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 volts" or to a frequency generator and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 MHz" or to a temperature controller and tell it, "Set yourself to 90 degrees C." That is normally all that is required. But, as I said, these are complicated and precise processes, so I don't leave it at that. As a matter of routine, my next step in the sequence is to immediately ask the question, "So ... what are you set for?" The power supply or the frequency generator or the temperature controller will tell me what it is set for and I can compare the result with my intended result. If it is not the same, I know that something interfered with our communications, and I can take steps to remedy the communication error. It's a very workable method providing consistent results.

I often wish I had the same thing in my normal interactions with people. I don't know how many times what I say is not what they hear. Sometimes it's a simple mistake. I say, "That's pretty smart" and they hear "That's pretty hard" and get defensive because I'm questioning something they suggested rather than the agreement that I intended. So, my "software" would say, "That's pretty smart" and then say, "What did you hear me say?" and they would answer, "That's pretty hard" and I'd be able to say, "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant to say. I meant to say that your solution is smart, not hard." And peace would reign.

More often the misunderstanding is "behind the scenes". A prime example comes from someone else's experience. The husband and wife were in a nice ice cream shop because he offered to buy her an ice cream. While they reviewed the choices, he commented, "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive." What she heard was, "Boy, you sure cost me a lot of money." It wasn't that she misunderstood his words. She simply understood his words to have another intent behind them. So my "software" would kick in here beautifully. "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive. Now ... what did you hear me say?" "I heard you say that I cost you a lot of money." So the "software" could begin the process of immediately correcting the mistake. "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant. I was wondering if this ice cream company had demonstrably more expensive ingredients, or if they had more expensive processes, or if perhaps they were more greedy and were charging more money because of their name. As for you, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for what you are worth to me. Every dime I spend comes far short of the immense worth you are to me. I will never be able to repay the value you have for me." And peace would reign.

Of course, that's all fantasy. No such software exists for human interaction. It would be nice, but it doesn't exist. And, of course, the second half of that equation is that he really may have meant that she cost him a lot of money, and peace wouldn't reign. Still, wouldn't it be nice if we really could communicate before we start fighting.

My wise mother taught me "Communication is tenuous at best." It is my suspicion that we are either not aware of that, or we forget it. It is also my suspicion that if we spent a little extra time listening rather than speaking, we might find communication improves. What did they really say? What did they really mean? Before I leap to conclusions there, I should find out. Oh, wait ... isn't that what James said? "Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). I would suppose that if God inspired it, it is a good idea.

The Better Gospel

The next time you're at your local Christian bookstore, pick up a hymnal and take a look in the back. There is almost always a Topical Index. Every hymnal I've ever seen has sections for things like "The Cross" or "Jesus, Crucifixion" or "The Blood", and sometimes multiple combinations thereof. And there is no shortage of listings for these topics. There are titles like "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed", "Beneath the Cross of Jesus", "In the Cross of Christ I Glory", "O, Sacred Head Now Wounded", and "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross". There are whole groups on the last week of Jesus's life, His crucifixion, the cross, and His resurrection. It is not a small topic in the classical hymns of yesterday.

Now pick up one of the more contemporary song books. They might also have a topical index. And when you look for the same topics ... you won't likely find them. For some reason, the number of contemporary praise songs that focus on the Crucifixion is pretty close to zero. There is precious little on the blood, crucifixion, and even resurrection of Christ. There is much on how much we love Him, but almost nothing on the suffering of the cross itself.

This is confusing to me. Holding this information in one hand, I compare it to Paul's statement in the other: "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). So while our modern praise songs have almost entirely neglected the topic, Paul considered it almost the exclusive topic of his interest. Indeed, when he explains his version of the gospel, he puts it this way:

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

The Crucifixion of Christ is core to the gospel. Is it possible, then, that we've managed, as illustrated by our modern song selections, to come up with a better gospel?

Perhaps it is necessary. Paul warned us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). All that "sin" thing is really offensive (read "judgmental") to many people. I mean, sure, Paul devoted the first 3 chapters of his letter to the Romans to drive home the problem with sin, but that was Paul. Maybe we've figured out that it doesn't have to be that way.

Instead, we've managed to shift the focus. We have something better to offer. We have a warm, friendly God with a loving Son who wants to solve our problems and salve our wounds. His primary concern is meeting our felt needs. What God is really concerned about is that we be happy. This, indeed, is good news. It's certainly a lot easier to take than that "blood of Christ", "death on the cross, or "die to self" stuff. Now, we don't need to go so far as the "health and wealth" group because, let's face it, the facts don't seem to support that extreme. But we really like the "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" gospel far better than the "You're a sinner and without the death of the perfect Son of God you're without hope" kind of gospel. If only the Apostles had been able to pick up on this "new and improved" gospel. No telling how far advanced the Church would be, being friendlier with the world than it was back then.

Have you noticed?

For some reason, we have this stereotype that says, "It's always the man's fault." More correctly, "men are evil." It occurred to me the other day. My wife and I were eating a meal in a public place when a man came in with three young girls. It didn't look like the girls were related. Instead, they all appeared to be about the same age. My wife said, "It's funny. When we were kids my dad would take us girls camping and no one thought anything about it. Today, the first thought when you see something like that is 'child molester'."

Now, I don't know if she was right, but I do know that perceptions have changed, and "men are evil". In days gone by, a father alone with his two sons would be "a good father spending time with his boys", but today it's "a lousy, divorced father trying to get his kids not to hate him by spending a meager weekend with them." And so it goes.

Here, try my little test. I'll give you some statistics. You draw your own conclusions. In 1980, for every wife that divorced her husband, 600 husbands divorced their wives. In 1990, for every husband that divorced his wife, 12 wives divorced their husbands. Your conclusion? Here's what I suspect. The majority of people today would conclude something like this. "Well, in days gone by men were dogs and left their wives for something younger or better. Now women have become empowered to leave their lousy husbands and move on with their lives." In other words, very few would conclude that the men were right in 1980 and wrong in 1990. Instead, in both cases the men were at fault.

It isn't just a guess. I have this same stereotype hanging about. A man (non-family) interested in a junior high boy is not interested in helping the kid out; he's likely interested in molesting him. Watch out! Men are the cause of nearly all divorces; they're just lousy people. Women tend to be good wives; men tend to be bad husbands. Women do all they can to save a marriage; men hardly lift a finger. These are my stereotypes -- I'm recognizing that they're wrong -- but I would guess that they are common stereotypes.

I don't think it's fair to characterize a group of people like this. I don't think it's fair of me. I know it's not fair of you. (Okay, going for a laugh, there.) I suspect that in 99% of all failed marriages, it is a mutual failure, not the man's fault alone. I suspect that there are actually men who want to be involved in their children's lives. It is my suspicion that some husbands are good husbands, that not all men with little girls in their company are child molesters, and that men are not worse than women in general. Maybe, if we start changing our stereotypes, people can start working in positive directions rather than fighting false negative perceptions. Just maybe.