The Problem of Apologetics

I've said it before. We are commanded to contend for the faith, to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. (The phrase in 1 Peter 3:15 -- "give an answer" -- is pros apologia in Greek. See that "apologia"? That's our origin of "Apologetics" in this context.) And so we, if we are to be obedient children, engage in the defense of the faith. The defense is a reasoned defense. Although we are defending faith, it is the mind that is doing the defending. Biblically, the two are interlinked. We are to learn, to examine, to understand, to renew the mind, to "think on these things". We are required to engage the brain in our walk with Christ, and we are required to engage the brain in our defense of the faith.

Therein, it seems, lies the problem. The Bible presents a pretty grim view of the thinking processes of Natural Man. I've already beat to death (perhaps) the claim that "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). That doesn't bode well for the logical discussion of the truth. And it only gets worse from there. Paul says "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor 4:4). That's Man's natural condition -- blinded minds. In his explanation of the Gospel, Paul tells the problem that the Gospel addresses: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). The "bad news" that the "good news" addresses is that Man is under wrath. Why? Because he has decided that unrighteousness is preferable to righteousness and, to maintain that unrighteousness, he must suppress the truth. The effect of this little piece of insanity is cumulative.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Rom 1:21-23).

Natural Man, then, is quite sure of his own wisdom ... but is quite futile in his thinking. That's God's evaluation, not mine.

You should see, then, the dilemma we face. We are commanded to make a rational defense of the faith. We are obligated to stand for the truth, to argue our case, to contend for the faith. And at the same time, we are absolutely assured that the ones to whom we are presenting our defense are blind, incapable of understanding, futile in their thinking. We are to present this reasonable argument to those who, when it comes to this particular topic, cannot be reasonable. That's the primary problem of Apologetics.

Is there no hope, then? Not at all! I gave you 2 Corinthians 4:4 a moment ago. Look at the rest of the passage.

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:4-6).

Do you see the solution? Yes, indeed, they are blinded in the mind. No doubt. They cannot see "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." But we're talking here about God at work now. Remember Him? He's the one who said, "Let there be light" and there was light.

We are faced with the impossible task of presenting a rational defense to an irrational audience. We do so because we are commanded to do so. God requires it of us. That's the problem. The good news is that while we are responsible to present the best possible defense, we are not responsible for the results. That is God's job. And while we might have no means of overcoming futile thinking and blinded minds, God isn't limited like we are. Thus, when we engage in this necessary practice of contending for the faith and making our defense, we are participating in the work of God with certainty that when God wills He cannot fail. When He chooses to turn the lights on, they will see ... and you get to participate.^*
________________
^* Little hint here. As it turns out, this is the way we all get to understand. Paul told Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7). See how that works? He says to think things over because in the process "the Lord will give you understanding". Just so you didn't think you figured it out all by yourself ... or that you don't need to think.

The Glory of God

What is glory? Glory is something that is a source of honor, fame, or admiration. When it comes to God, it is all that He is. When we glorify God, we aren't making Him out to be something new. We are appreciating Him for what He is. The glory of God is the sum of His nature.

So when we read about the Gospel, it is described this way: "the gospel of the glory of Christ." The good news isn't about salvation or prosperity or security or forgiveness. It is about all that Christ is. That, in fact, is what saving faith is. Saving faith is the embracing of all that Christ is. Faith is sometimes described with the illustration of a chair. You aren't actually placing your faith in that chair until you're sitting in it. This is true, but it's short of the whole picture. If that chair is ugly and uncomfortable and you'd rather sit anywhere at all except that you're pretty sure it's the only place you can be safe (or saved or forgiven or whatever benefit you might gain), that's not the picture of saving faith. Saving faith is an embracing of the glory of Christ. In terms of that chair, it isn't "a safe place to sit". It's the most beautiful, comfortable, best-seat-in-the-house chair. You're not placing your weight in it because it works. You are placing all your weight there because it is so ... glorious.

We often approach God with a pragmatic style. "What can you give me?" He can offer a lot, to be sure. But that's not the right approach. It is the overwhelming wonder of His glory, the beauty of His character, the awesomeness of His being that draws us. That is what it means to have saving faith. That is the abiding place of every true believer.

Bible-Saturated

I heard this term the other day and wondered about it. "Bible-saturated" refers to someone who has been immersed for a great deal of time in the entirety of Scripture. It doesn't mean someone who has memorized John 3:16 and can quote it without thinking about it. The term refers to a saturation of Scripture. It means "full immersion" Bible living, where one is exposed over a long period of time to all facets of the Word.

One of the key rules in interpreting the words of the Bible is that Scripture interprets Scripture. It is imperative, if we hold that the Bible is the Word of God, that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Of course, if all you see is a small piece of the Word, then it would be possible to hold to a false notion of that piece if you were not aware that another component of Scripture said something different. It is only in overlaying the two that you come to the right conclusion. So this idea of "Bible-saturated" becomes important.

There are various ways to become "Bible-saturated". The most obvious is to spend a great deal of time in the Bible. It is not a short-term, part time process. It takes dedication and commitment. It requires reading the book in its entirety, of covering entire books in the Bible and then examining words and meanings and pieces of the whole. The Bible itself recommends teachers. They would be indispensable. And, of course, we have the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to the meaning as well. All of this is done over time and with great care. Another method is to grow up that way. In this approach, a child becomes the beneficiary of a "Bible-saturated" home with godly parents who immerse their young in the Word. The Bible is inculcated into the person as they grow up. This is a marvelous time-saving process. The one who comes to Christ later in life has to play catch-up to this blessed individual who was injected with the Word in daily life. Parents, I highly recommend raising kids in a Bible-saturated home.

There are some wonderful advantages to being Bible saturated. Hebrews says, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil (Heb 5:12-14). The truth is that when you have been thoroughly immersed into the Word for awhile, this kind of thing becomes almost second nature. You will hear someone make some sort of claim and you may not even know what's wrong with it ... but you know there's something wrong. It's part of having your powers of discernment trained. Bible-saturated people are far less likely to fall into doctrinal error or stray to some new thing as if it is from God. And when you read your Bible, you're far better able to understand what you read because you have a whole catalog of Scripture stored in your mind assisting you, even unconsciously, as you read through the Word. It works like a translation guide to avoid errors and see straight.

Bible-saturated. It's a good thing. I would recommend it for everyone serious about being a follower of Christ.

The Right to Lie

So I'm driving to work just the other morning and I hear on the news the story about Xavier Alvarez. He's the guy who was running for a public office who made the claim that he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor ... which he hadn't. He was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act, the law that made it a crime to claim a military medal you didn't deserve. He appealed ... and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has come through again. The law is clearly unconstitutional. Yes, unconstitutional! What constitutional component does it violate? The right to free speech. Yes, folks, Mr. Alvarez got his conviction overturned on the basis of his right to lie. Remember my post on Do No Harm? That was exactly the reasoning. "Lying does no one any harm."

Now I'm stuck. Here I am, trying hard to work at maintaining the truth. I think truth is important. I think lies are not merely a bad choice, but harmful and dangerous. I don't even like to classify them as "white lies" or otherwise. The intent to deceive is harmful on every level. These days it is expected. And now it is a constitutional right!

I suppose they'll be repealing all those stupid "truth in advertising" laws and such, right? I mean, political ads are already exempt. Why should a company lose its freedom of speech just because you people feel you have the right to know the truth about their product? I mean, haven't we already got that whole "buyer beware" thing going? Is it really fair to devalue genuine valor on the basis of free speech and then say that companies can't have that same free speech? Politicians get the right to lie at will. Why shouldn't everyone else? And how about this whole stupid perjury thing? Isn't it a breech of that right to require someone to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Come on! Be reasonable!

Look, things like heroism, integrity, even confidence are all on their way out. We should just stop all this nonsense and give it up. Postmodernism tells us that the user makes up his own meaning anyway, so let's relax, give everyone their constitutional freedom of speech, and stop all this nonsense of trying to have morals ... at all.

Sorry, end of sarcastic rant. I just can't imagine what goes through the minds of the people we have as judges these days.

Who is Jesus?

Meet Jesus. He visits often and speaks to me. Sometimes I don't fully understand what he's saying, but that's my problem, not his. He's friendly, caring, and hard-working. He's my neighbor's Latino gardener.

Yeah, that's not quite right, is it? It's just a bit of humor. But when we start really asking the question, "Who is Jesus?", we can start to run into real problems if we're not careful.

Who is Jesus? Jesus is the Son of God, one of God's spirit children. He is brother to Lucifer, the brother who went bad. God, of course, is one of innumerable Gods, and it is only natural that He would have multiple children, including Jesus. Jesus's death on the cross was not sufficient to actually save completely, but His ultimate goal is to save us through that death and our good works so that we, too, can become gods by our own right. Now, I realize that this is not in accordance with everything you find in your Bible, but that's because your Bible has been influenced over the centuries to stray from the truth, so obviously this truth about who Jesus is will not align with the errors in your Bible. We believe in Jesus and trust Him for our salvation. How could you possibly say that Mormons are not saved?

Who is Jesus? Jesus is a man born over 2,000 years ago. He is the best man ever born. He is not only the son of God; he is a god himself. Now, be careful with that, because he also identified himself as the son of Man. The conclusion that he was God's son was not his own; other people said it. Some have claimed that he was God Himself, but that isn't true. He prayed to God, so he cannot be God and pray to God. He is at the right hand of God, so clearly he cannot be God. In John 1 it identifies him as "the Word" and says he was with God, so He can't be God. When the rich young ruler referred to him as "good", he denied that he was God by saying, "Only God is good." No, no, he was not God in the sense of "God Almighty". He was a god in the sense like Satan is called "the god of this world" or powerful people were referred to as "gods". Jesus was the best man ever born, a powerful man, blessed by God, and a god in that sense. We hold that salvation is possible only through Christ’s ransom sacrifice along with repentance and good works in the name of Jehovah. We believe in Jesus and trust Him for our salvation. How could you possibly say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not saved?

Who is Jesus? Jesus came to show us the way. He is our savior. He is the spiritual God who took on human flesh to show us true Christ Consciousness. Through this consciousness we are saved. Now, we know that you have this quaint story about Him "dying on the cross" and all, but since Jesus was actually God in the flesh, He couldn't actually die, now, could He? He simply released Himself from the lie of "death" as He did from the lie of sickness and all other sin-based errors. He didn't "die on the cross" to "pay for your sin" because sin is simply a false understanding of the Divine Mind (which Jesus came to correct) and doesn't actually exist. We believe in Jesus and trust Him for our salvation. How could you possibly say that Christian Scientists are not saved?

I could go on, but perhaps you're getting the point. It's actually fairly easy to say, "We believe in Jesus and trust Him for our salvation." It's fairly easy to even mean it wholeheartedly. And it's pretty easy to then claim "We believe what you believe; we're saved by grace through faith in Christ!" Of course, if you try to start asking questions like "What do you mean by 'grace'?" or "How would you define 'faith'?" or "Who is Jesus to you?" ... well, now you're just being narrow-minded and judgmental! In fact, you're probably one of those pharisaical fundies, aren't you? So, really, what makes you think you're saved, you're so smart?!

Conversely ...

Last week I wrote about another "unpardonable sin", the sin of questioning another person's salvation. It's just not done, you see. We're not allowed to ask. How dare you??!! In the conversation that ensued within and around that post, another question occurred to me. If someone was to question your salvation, how would you respond?

I'm not actually focusing on that question itself. Any criticism will do. When you're taking a salvo of corrective inputs, how do you respond? Most of us, I'm quite sure, respond with self-defense. It's the first thing we tend to pick up -- a shield. And a sword, likely. "Oh, yeah? Take that!" Fight or flight. That's the norm. But what we never seem to pick up first is ... a mirror. "Is this input accurate?"

I'm no super-saint. My typical first response to an attack is defense. Sometimes it's fight and sometimes it's flight, but it's not often, "Are they right?" I suppose my personality also tends me toward surrender. "Yeah, you're right ... I'm a loser." That's the first response ... but not necessarily what comes out. What comes out is, more and more, an attempt at reasoned response. Here's what I want my response to be. "Thanks for the input. I'll consider what you say. If it has merit, I'll benefit from the change. If not, thanks for caring enough to tell me." You see, I lose nothing in that response. If I am wrong, I gain correction. If I am right, I still have someone who cared enough to express a concern ... something hard to find these days.

Of course, in this I'm being generous. More often than not the volleys of attacks do not come from friends seeking my best interest. No. Too often, when you take up a position that isn't pleasant for others, the return fire isn't aimed at remedying your error, but in shooting you down. And, truth be told, that "Thanks for caring enough to share with me" response isn't quite appropriate in that case, is it? Because it wasn't care that made them share. It was animosity.

The trick, then, is telling the difference. And I have precious little wisdom to share on that angle. How do we tell the difference between the wounds of a friend and the assault of an enemy? Perhaps it's best to err on the side of charity? I don't know.

What I do conclude, though, is that I should take special care to be clear on which I am doing. If I am attacking because I am offended, I need to stop it. I am not the issue. If I am speaking harsh reality from the motivation of love, I need to express it that way. They are the issue. Although I can never control the response and never insure success, I should make it my goal to be, at a minimum, obedient to the command to love my neighbor and to speak the truth in love. I may not always be able to ascertain the motives of those who disagree with me, but at least guarding my own motivations is a good place to start.

Winning Isn't Everything

I am very interested in the process of Apologetics, the rational defense of the faith. The Bible commands it. Reason demands it. I'm in favor. There are a lot of areas in which I find myself engaged in this defense. There is the defense from without -- defending the faith against skeptical unbelievers. There is the defense from within -- defending orthodoxy against skeptical believers. On any given day I may have to explain why I believe there is a God at all or why I am quite certain that the Trinity is basic Christian doctrine. Beyond that, I find myself defending against other assaults, like this whole "same-sex marriage" concept. They are not, technically attacking my faith, but they are indeed making threats. (For a very good explanation of what the issues are and why we need to engage in that debate, see Prop 8: Why Engage the Issue? from Stand to Reason.) And so I find myself often engaged in debates with dissenters, friendly and hostile, over a wide range of positions and concerns. I believe that my positions are rational and biblically and rationally defensible. So I do it and even enjoy it.

This whole thing is not without its problems, however. When it comes to Atheists and liberal Christians and outliers like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or "gay" rights activists or any other group who may be hostile to the faith (as opposed to those with friendly disagreement), defending the faith has its down side. These types will have run into a host of others who have poorly represented both Christianity and good reasoning. They will have heard all sorts of things that I don't believe and experienced a variety of responses that I don't offer. They will arrive with preconceptions about their positions, to be sure, but also with preconceptions about mine. And most of the time I'll end up defending myself from positions I never have had. Guilty by association. "Oh, yeah," they'll think (or say), "I know your type. You believe _____" ... and I don't, but by now the entire conversation has derailed.

The other major problem is the animosity it creates. You see, the concept of a "debate" includes the concept of "win or lose". And now we're no longer comparing evidence and rationale; we're competing. In this situation, there are winners and losers, and no one wants to be the loser. Of course, there is no "set of rules", no judge who rules on the outcome -- "I declare this side the winner!" No, the judges are the individuals making the arguments and the observers listening to them, and their conclusions may not be based on merits of the arguments, but on the presumptions they brought in with them (especially in terms of the previous paragraph).

So we end up with a question. Of what value is it to defend the faith, to hold your ground against lies? You see, providing the best possible argument (typically the intent of the word "win") isn't the only concern. Are we representing Christ well? Is there the possibility of a good outcome (like someone might change their mind), or is it more likely that the whole thing will result in negativity regardless of the quality of the argument? Factor in the reality that many attacks are smoke screens, not actually thrown up to "win", but simply to avoid the question. Here, think about it through an example. It is abundantly clear that the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Scripture and human history undeniably affirm this. Beyond that, there is no doubt that the Bible considers homosexual activities as sin. The facts are indisputable. The arguments are seamless. The only problem is this: If you make those arguments, you will be perceived as a hater, a bigot, narrow-minded, a "fundamentalist" (which is intended as an insult). Prove that marriage is defined as an exclusively heterosexual relationship and homosexual relationships are sinful, and you won't be winning over the homosexual community; you'll be making enemies of them. Stand your ground on marriage and sin and then try to share Christ with a "gay" coworker and see how that goes. See the problem?

It is true. Winning isn't everything. I think, perhaps, it is in that win/lose mindset that we run into problems. The goal is not winning. We are commanded "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). The goal is not to win, but to "give an account". And there is, in this very command, another hint. We are to make a defense "with gentleness and reverence". You see, as in all things, the goal is love. From that perspective it is important, if we love God, to stand for what He stands for for His sake. It is important, if God knows what's best for His creation, to stand for what He stands for for the sake of His creation. Conversely, if we love God and others, failing to stand for the truth is failing God and failing others. Using a simple illustration, refusing to warn a loved one that they are about to swallow poison because they are enthusiastic about drinking it is not love, even if you will be perceived negatively. It's not about us. It's not about winning or losing. It's about God and our neighbors. We must stand for the truth. We must do it with gentleness and respect. We must do it for others. Because, indeed, winning isn't everything. In this situation, it actually isn't anything. Love is.

Counting the Cost

"Which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28)

Jesus's words. Count the cost. It's important. Do you know what His conclusion was in asking that question?

"So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:33).

As our society moves further and further away from anything resembling "a Christian nation", we are going to have to face new questions. "What does it cost?" Before the societal perceptions migrated, it was easy to say, "I believe adultery should be illegal" because society was pretty much in agreement. It didn't cost anything. Before this culture shift, it didn't cost anything to say, "I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin" because the culture agreed. Today, however, we find that the 35-and-under crowd thinks that "same-sex marriage" is no big deal. What's the question, anyway? The same is true on other matters of values, ethics, and morality. As society evolves away from Christian ethics and more toward secular, humanistic ethics, those who wish to continue with Christian ethics are going to have to ... count the cost.

What does it cost today to stand up and say, just as an example, "I believe homosexual behavior is a sin"? Come on! What can it cost? Today it means you are labeled a bigot, a narrow-minded, irrational "fundamentalist". It isn't morality for which you stand; it's hate. You are, in short, a homophobe. And that's the start. Last May a street preacher in the UK spent 7 hours in jail. "Dale McAlpine was charged with causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of 'sins' referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships." My point is not to argue the sin of homosexuality. My point is this. If you are convinced that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, you will need to count the cost when deciding to take that stand. You will be labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a hater, a throwback to an earlier era. You will be dismissed as irrational and discarded as evil. It is entirely possible -- voices are already being raised to this and laws being passed -- that you could be arrested for it. Count the cost.

Another example is this whole California Prop 8 thing. You may wish to stand your ground and claim to defend marriage. You may think that the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. You may argue that all of Scripture and all of history hold that marriage has always been defined as "the union of a man and a woman". But you will need to count the cost if you plan to hold that position. Like the prior example, you will be labeled a bigot, a dinosaur, a hater. Your stand on marriage is a throwback and only based, regardless of your actual arguments, on your homophobia. Are you entirely sure you don't secretly want to be a homosexual like all those others who hate homosexuals? Well, I'm sorry, but we just don't need your kind in our neighborhood, circle of friends, workplace. Yes, it could get there in the not-too-distant future. We already have a term for it: "hostile work environment." This concept, already accepted as valid, is based entirely on "how I feel about what you're doing" and "what you're saying is making me feel bad". So, the requirement, again, is this: If you want to hold that position, be sure to count the cost.

Some are suggesting that maybe, just maybe, it's time to withdraw. Maybe, to defend marriage, Christians should withdraw from the concept of "civil marriage" -- that which the government manages -- and return to marriages blessed by God without regard to the government. It's an idea that may have its merits, but you will need to count the cost. Start with the "hate" tag you'll get. That's fine. But the cost of that move will be much more substantial. Taxes, legal rights, financial considerations (credit, loans, etc.), estate planning, shared benefits (such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.), employment benefits such as shared insurance, bereavement leave, family leave, and so on, and on it goes. These are all part of the government's package on "marriage", and the cost of taking a stand against the redefinition of government-approved marriage. Count the cost.

It goes on and on. Do you favor enforcing immigration laws? You're just hateful, a racist, anti-family. Your arguments are irrelevant and you have no place in civilized society. Do you think that religion has a place in society? Clearly you're an outdated "fundy" that shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. Are you actually suggesting that the Bible is the "Word of God"? No one buys that one anymore. Go home. You're not wanted here. More and more, standing for what used to be a given among a Christian society is being dismissed and heading toward criminalized.

I don't think I'm very surprised that things are shifting like this. If I sound like I'm complaining, don't conclude that. I expect morality to decline. I expect Christian values to be on the outside, not the mainstream. I would say that the fact that America was so much of a "Christian nation" for so long was more surprising than that it is no longer so. No, I'm not longing for the good ol' days. I'm warning genuine Christians that it can and will likely get expensive. And I'm asking you to ask yourself the question. "What will it cost?" If you believe that it is too expensive for you to agree with God, then you will also need to ask yourself if you are actually a follower of Christ. A genuine evaluation is necessary. Hesitation is expected. But you can tell the true believers by their fruit, and if you're willing to jettison God's perspective in favor of greater comfort, well, that tells you who your real god is, doesn't it? We need to be counting the cost, because the way things are going it could get real expensive real fast and it's time to figure out what you really believe. Remember, "Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be My disciple."

The Work of God

In John 6 we read the story of the feeding of the 5,000 with five barley loaves and two fish. Great story. Good stuff. At the end of the story, the people decided to take Jesus by force and crown Him king, so Jesus headed off for some alone time and the disciples headed off across the Sea of Galilee. There is the classic story of Jesus walking on the water in there, and then they arrived at the other side. The next day, the crowd caught up with Jesus again. They were converts now. They wanted to know, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus, of course, wasn't fooled. He knew they were there to get fed, not to learn from Him. So He answered, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

It's a mind-boggling statement. We're all pretty sure that it is our effort of believing in God. Jesus says that belief is God's work. Think of that! Paul says that God has assigned to each of us a "measure of faith". That is, if you have faith, it's because it was given to you, not because you mustered it up. He told the Philippians that their believing in Christ was a gift granted to them. He tells young Pastor Timothy that he should correct opponents with gentleness because "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth."

I like to reflect on worship on Sundays. I like to examine reasons to ascribe worth to God, the basic definition of "worship" (actually the origin of the word). There are lots of reasons to see God as of extreme value, but I can think of none today more amazing than this single notion. I am saved because He saved me. I didn't supply the righteousness required. I didn't supply the payment for failing to provide the required righteousness. I didn't supply the effort, the will, even the faith required. I am forgiven because He did it all. Or, as Augustus Toplady put it, "Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to Thy cross I cling."

It may do damage to my pride, standing here helpless and all. But I'll agree with Paul on this. "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." That's "worth-ship".

Discrimination

It's a simple word, one we've all heard, and one we all associate with evil. It's wrong, wrong, wrong to discriminate! Or ... is it?

Discrimination is defined as "the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." That's how it is generally used. More generally it means "to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate".

Discrimination has to have a reference. You have to either express or at least imply what the discrimination is in terms of. For instance, there is "discrimination on the basis of age" or "discrimination on the basis of race" or "discrimination on the basis of money". That last one is probably not the first one that comes to mind, but when you're paying for something, you had better be able to distinguish between a ten dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill, or you won't know if the cashier gives you the proper change. That's a good thing.

Our employer just notified us that there are "new federal race and ethnicity categories". Both my employer and every employer my son (who is currently job-seeking) has come across has this very odd thing going on. But it was also in the Census, so you may have seen it as well. As it turns out, it's a federal requirement. There is the question of ethnicity, and what they want to know is "Are you Hispanic/Latino or Not Hispanic/Latino?" This baffles me and I can't figure out why the question is asked. But what I can tell you is that this is discrimination at its very basic level, surrounding one, single, solitary ethnicity.

Interestingly, while the definition specifies "making a distinction in favor of or against", that never seems to come up. For instance, affirmative action was explicitly discrimination. In affirmative action, the one making the distinction was required to discriminate on the basis of race in favor of minority races. Somehow that didn't seem to upset any minority races. I never heard, "Wait! That's discrimination!"

Discrimination is actually required every day. Yes, required. We applaud someone with "discriminating taste". That could mean that they were very classy, or, in the case of a food connoisseur, they had the ability to distinguish between flavors in a dish. "I detect a hint of nutmeg and ... is that cumin?" Impressive, not evil. You need to discriminate to wear proper attire to work or play. You need to determine if someone is a good friend or just a pretender. You ought to be able to discriminate between an email from a friend and a scam email. And, of course, it is important to be able to discriminate between the truth and lies.

Discrimination for the purpose of injuring another is a bad thing. Sometimes discrimination to give preferential treatment is a bad thing. But discrimination is not by definition a bad thing. It may be wrong to prevent entrance into the country based on race (discrimination), but it is not wrong to tell the difference (discrimination) between legal and illegal immigrants. It might be wrong to deny the rights of people based on "sexual orientation", but it's not wrong to be able to discriminate between meanings of words like marriage and "civil unions". There is discrimination that shouldn't occur, but don't let anyone tell you that discrimination is always bad. The claim itself is discriminatory, differentiating between "those who see things like I do" and "those who don't". It just suggests ignorance, not wisdom.

Do No Harm

Ready? Here's a new word (at least for me): "Nonmaleficence". Nice! Okay, you remember omnibenevolence, right? (Don't worry; we're not going there again.) Well, surely you can see the connection here ... right? Okay, maybe not. Nonmaleficence is the idea of doing no harm. It's a basic component of the Hippocratic Oath for doctors (as opposed to the Hypocratic Oath for others). (That last was a bit of humor.) Do no harm.

Seems to me that a lot of people see this concept as the key element in defining ethics, even if they don't know the word. They ask, "What harm does it do?" This idea is included in the notion of the "victimless crime". "What harm does it do?" The conclusion is "If it does no harm, it shouldn't be immoral." And, of course, that has its own name: Consequentialism. That is, the morality of the act is determined by the outcome (consequences) of the act. "What harm does it do?" If it has a good outcome, it's moral. If not, it's immoral. Simple as that. And, to be fair, if we are going to summarily dismiss religion from the public arena, then this is probably all we have left.

I have a tough time with this because it seems as if we are as incredibly bad at determining "harm" as we are at determining "good". Oh, some things are pretty obvious. Most of us would classify the murder of 6 million Jews as "bad" -- immoral. Child abuse: Bad. Giving to the poor: Good. Saving lives: Good. There, see? That's not so tough. But it's rarely as simple as that in real life.

Take, for instance, the issue of sex outside marriage. In determining the morality of such an act, a young person might ask, "What harm does it do?" And a conscientious parent will offer the standard problems. "It could result in pregnancy or STDs." Those are the big ones, after all, aren't they? Of course, if that's so, then we're at the mercy of the savvy teen who says, "Well, safe sex will prevent those!" and now you have to admit that there is no reason to say that sex outside marriage is immoral. I mean, "What harm does it do?" Well, God (you know, the One whose opinion counts) says that it is wrong (in God's case, "Because I said so" is sufficient) and God gives us a little insight we would surely have missed without His guidance. Paul says, "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor 6:16). The principle? Engaging in sex is somewhat of a mystery. It actually produces an unseen but very real union. Paul's proof of principle? "It is written, 'The two will become one flesh'." God is warning us about something that most parents don't tell their kids (because most parents don't know). Sex creates a union. That's good in marriage, but bad in life. (After all, you end up quite torn when you unite and disconnect from multiple people.) So you see, there is harm in sex outside marriage; you just didn't know it.

And, when you think about it, this idea isn't too hard to see outside of any special revelation from God. We know, for instance, about the law of unintended consequences. For anything you do in a complex system there will potentially be outcomes that are unanticipated and undesirable. We know that the long-term results of some choices are hard to anticipate. Do cell phones cause brain cancer? We don't know. Maybe. We haven't been using cell phones long enough to find out. Is it harmful to marriage in general if we allow no-fault divorce? Well, forty years after the fact, it looks like we can say it surely does.

With that last example, then, if the criterion for "moral" is "What harm does it do?", society would have been calling "moral" something that actually does harm and not knowing it. And therein lies the problem. We like the idea that "moral" is that which does no harm and "immoral" is that which does harm, but we don't seem to be able to tell what harm is until it's too late. What harm does it do if a child's father divorces his or her mother and leaves? For years we would have said, "None!", but the damage is done and it isn't trivial. What harm does it do if we engage in sex outside marriage? Since the '60's we've said, "None!", but the long term, unintended consequences have done serious damage to marriage, to individuals, to sex itself, and we're now left with a society bleeding from its sexual impulses and unaware that we're even in trouble. It seems as if what parents allow in moderation children indulge in excess, and we've reached "sexcess" as the norm.

These are just two examples. They are by no means the only examples. Both are explicitly condemned by God. Both appear to "do no harm". Both are doing extensive harm. I would suggest that, if we want to avoid the law of unintended consequences, it might be wiser to consult with the Maker of this complex system and see what He thinks is moral. He knows the construction. He knows the interactions. He knows what works and what doesn't. And ... He isn't shy about telling us. We seem to think that we're much smarter in today's society and we don't need to pay attention to what He has said. Even self-identified Christians suggest that. I would suggest choosing what's moral based on personal preference and our pitifully poor ability to determine what "good" and "harm" is foolish. This kind of arrogance will get us killed.

Unpardonable

Jesus said that there was one unpardonable sin. "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt 12:32). One: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In fact He said that every other sin can be forgiven. Only one was unpardonable.

Of course, that was then. This is now. Over time we've developed, and there are now new sins on the market that are equally unforgivable. Being boring is a sin that cannot be overlooked. People who are confident must be shunned as evil. And, of course, that whole exclusivity thing will never fly.

People hate it when someone claims "This way is the only way." They'll say foolish things like, "That is what caused the Holocaust." Never mind that there is nothing logically wrong with the claim that one religion is correct, or that when you have competing claims of exclusivity, logic demands that not all can be true. It's ironic that so many like the words of Jesus but reject His claim "No man comes to the Father but by Me." So being the only way is another unpardonable sin these days.

Related to the exclusivity error is the sin of questioning someone else's salvation. That, too, is unacceptable, it seems. You may be free to believe what you want, but never question whether someone else is saved. If he or she calls himself a Christian, then don't look a gift Christian in the mouth. It's not a social faux pas, like asking a woman her age. It's wrong.

That bothers me. You see, there are people I know, people I dearly love, whose eternal destiny is unclear to me. I don't know where they will go once they die. And since they are people I dearly love, that's important to me. But I'm told that if they tell me that they are saved, I'm supposed to back off and leave them alone. It's morally wrong to ask more questions. It's unkind and unwarranted and downright mean.

Here's the problem. The Bible is quite clear that the unsaved would mix in with the saved. Israel, God's chosen people, was full of folks under God's wrath. Jesus told more than one parable about the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, and so on. These are the look-alikes, those who are hard to distinguish from the real thing. But they're wrong. He warned of false prophets who appear to do miracles in Jesus's name. The source of John's so-called "antichrists" is the Church.

Children, ... many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us (1 John 2:18-19).

If Jesus felt it was such an important concern about false brethren in our midst that He repeated the warning over and over, shouldn't we be equally concerned? If the Bible is quite clear that many will think they are among the elect who are not, shouldn't we be concerned? If we care about the condition of others around us, shouldn't we care about this?

The problem, of course, is the test. How do you know? We aren't saved by perfect doctrine, so we can't (and it would be dangerous to do so) say, "Your doctrine is imperfect, so you might not be saved." People will protest when we suggest "essential Christian doctrines", doctrines the denial of which might suggest that someone isn't a believer, but perhaps that has some validity. Jesus suggested, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16), but people really hate it when you suggest that. And, let's be honest, it becomes very easy to become Pharisaical (or at least to sound Pharisaical) in this endeavor, as if we are determining who is in and who is not because we are the wise ones and the rest of you ... not so much.

So I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I don't want to be unnecessarily judgmental. I don't want to be passing judgment -- deciding "You're in and you're out". I'm not entirely clear on good tests for the question. But, as I said, when there are people about whom I care and their eternal destiny is in the balance, is it right for me to simply wink and nod and say, "Whatever you think is okay with me. If you're damned for it, it's not my concern."? Do I tempt this "unpardonable sin" of questioning the salvation of others, or do I keep my mouth shut and let them go to Hell without a word because it would be rude to do otherwise? Seems wrong to me somehow.

Marriage and Religion

"All you need is love." That's what they tell us. I did a search on the question of marrying someone of a different religion and found piles of commenters who assured us, "All you need is love." Really?

A guy I know is planning to get married, perhaps this year. She: A Roman Catholic. He: A "Hindu" who believes that religions are primarily a function of power and control and no religion is real. But she (and her mother) have stated categorically that she cannot marry him if he doesn't convert. His solution? Well, he loves her, so he'll go through the necessary Catholic steps to marry her. Does he believe any of that stuff? Don't be silly. What's belief got to do with it?

Earlier this year a couple hit the news because of a battle over religion. She was Jewish and he was Catholic, but they agreed when they got married to raise the kids Jewish. After the birth of their daughter, however, he became concerned that she wasn't baptized. He was worried. Naomi Riley of The Washington Post reported that he told her, "If, God forbid, something happened to her, she wouldn't be in heaven."

Come on, folks! All we need is love! Can't we all just get along? Maybe not. Between 1988 and 2006, the number of mixed-faith marriages went from 15% to 25%. The rest of the statistics are, well, frightening. We used to hear, "The family that prays together stays together." Turns out it's a truism. One study reported that "if members of two mainline Christian denominations marry, they have a one in five chance of being divorced in five years. A Catholic and a member of an evangelical denomination have a one in three chance. And a Jew and a Christian who marry have a greater than 40 percent chance of being divorced in five years." Mixed-faith marriages have a much higher chance of divorce than others. And that's a bad thing. Apparently love is not all we need.

What's all the hubbub about, bub? Well, I'm sure there are several issues. People who actually believe in their professed religion will actually believe in their professed religion. People who merely profess a religion but not actually believe it won't. So there's a factor. It seems that conservative Christian denominations have a more powerful draw on the belief system, giving them both a higher likelihood of remaining married if they are in agreement and a higher likelihood of divorce if they are not. So the strength of the faith is an issue. I would think, also, that questions of eternal condition, like the guy in the news item above, would have an impact. "We love each other so nothing else matters" may go okay for a while, but what about when there are children and their eternal condition is in question? That could be a problem.

The question that never seems to be asked in the question, "Is it okay to marry outside of ones faith?" is the question of truth. It appears as if the idea is that love trumps truth. If "all you need is love", then truth is irrelevant. You see, if there is a God and if there is valid religion, then there is truth here to be considered. The whole "all religions are valid" thing won't fly. Christianity at the least will be null and void if that is true because Christ (the root word for "Christianity") claimed "No man comes to the Father but by Me." Either He was right (nullifying all other religions) or He was wrong (affirming the exclusivity of Christianity). Beyond that, logic dictates that two or more claims to being the exclusive religion of truth cannot be valid. It may be that all such claims are wrong (and no religion is, therefore, right), but it cannot be that all (or more than one) are right. That just won't work.

To me the biggest question is the question of truth. "How we feel about each other" is only vaguely relevant because feelings change. "How we think about each other" may be more relevant, but it doesn't even come close to the issue of truth. "What does he/she see as true?" becomes vitally important in small ways and in large ways. If she believes that 2+2=4 and he believes that 2+2 is an unknown quantity that varies, he had better not be keeping the checkbook. That is a small thing that could quickly escalate to disaster. But the eternal condition of my spouse or my children ... that's a really big thing. Eternity matters. And no amount of "love" is going to alter that. No, the answer is not "All we need is love." The answer is "What do you believe is true?" If you cannot agree on basic truths about what constitutes morality and what determines where you spend eternity, there will be trouble. The larger the truth issue, the larger the trouble. And the truth about God and your relationship with Him is the largest truth to consider.

Monergism

It's an odd word, not one you'll likely find in your dictionary. Of course, who uses dictionaries anymore? So you can google it and come up with all sorts of information. Let me see if I can condense it. Monergism is a term used solely by theologians. It won't likely come into play anywhere else. It is used specifically in response to the concept of "synergism", but, as a theological term, it is a specific type of synergism -- synergistic regeneration. You see? I'm making this much simpler, right?

Okay, let's see if we can break this down. Synergy is defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual. The word comes from a combination of two Greek words -- sun (with) and ergon. Today we use "erg" as a measure of work. "Synergy", then, is work in combination -- to "work with". In contrast, "monergy" would substitute "mono" for "syn" ... "one" for "with". Synergy is two or more forces working together; monergy is one force at work.

But remember ... we're talking theology here. There is a specific concept in view: Regeneration. The question being asked is this. Does regeneration occur by the combined efforts of God and Man, or does God unilaterally regenerate? The predominant perspective is, of course, synergistic regeneration. "What? No! No, we don't say that!" Well, yes, most do. God does most of the work, but, well, that final trigger action is Man's. God makes salvation available, but Man is the ultimate chooser.

What is disturbing to me is ramifications of this position. There are a few serious conclusions if this synergistic regeneration concept is, in fact, true. First, what, exactly is God doing? You see, if God has only made salvation available, then He isn't actually in the business of saving anybody. He's just making them savable. When they concur, then together God and Man can produce something of value, but until they concur, God is stuck with a great plan and nowhere to go. Second, is salvation truly solely a work of God? Everyone would likely shout, "Yes!", but if God's work of salvation is dependent on ... well, anything at all ... then salvation is not solely a work of God. In fact, it is ... synergistic -- God and Man working together to produce something that God alone could not. Indeed, although God did all the work (almost), in the final analysis the final responsibility for salvation is ... you. God's work makes salvation possible; your choice makes it real.

Truly, the idea that it is my choice in the matter that determines whether or not I am saved has stark ramifications for God. He wants to save everyone ... but can't. He claims to be all-sufficient ... but isn't. He is called "Sovereign" ... but really isn't. If, on the other hand, God saves by regenerating people unilaterally who then are enabled to choose Him, then salvation becomes a work of God solely, not dependent upon Human Will. Interestingly, this is exactly what both John and Paul wrote.

But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, 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).

It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom 9:16).

So ... monergistic regeneration would be both a logical fact and a biblical one. How convenient!

He is not a Man

It feels like one of the stupidest lines ever written in Scripture. The prophet, Samuel, is telling King Saul that God was stripping him of his kingdom for his sin. In the midst of this, Samuel says of God, "The Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind" (1 Sam 15:29). While this is a clear statement of God's immutability, that little line in there, "He is not a man", just cracks me up. Like, "Wow, Samuel, thanks for clearing that up. We kinda thought God was just a guy over in the next valley, but you've sure straightened us out!" "He is not a man."

Oh, sure, it's all fun and jokes ... until it occurs to me that this isn't as outlandish as it first seems. Talking to people day in and day out, it looks to me like a lot of them don't seem to realize that God is not a man. Oh, sure, no one makes that mistake consciously, but turn the corner of consciousness and suddenly they're saying things that convince me that's exactly what they're thinking.

Take, for instance, the anthropocentrism so absolutely prevalent today, even in the Church. We tend to start with Man as the key issue ... as if God (who, if you recall, is not a man) is somehow beholden to Man, somehow obligated to Man, must somehow see Man in the same light that we see Man. We are told, for instance, that "Whoever sheds a man's blood, by Man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made Man" (Gen 9:6). So, see? God is not allowed to shed human blood because we're far too valuable, being made in the image of God. But, wait ... the Bible is full of God doing just that. So ... okay, hold on ... now I'm confused. Doesn't that make God immoral? Of course, if God is a man, then He must follow the same rules as Man. But ... God is not a man. So while humans are obligated to recognize in one another the image of God and respect life on that basis, God is not so obligated.

Consider the problem of self-centeredness. Among humans, it is both normal and a problem. We all suffer from it, and we all recognize that we shouldn't. Well, when faced with it we recognize it. You see, humans tend to see themselves (individually and as a whole) as the center of the universe. We are the important ones. Well, to be most precise, I am the important one, but you are all important as well. You know, more important than, say, animals or fish or bugs or trees. And God must see that as well, right? Of course, it is nonsense. We are not the center of the universe. And that kind of thinking spawns every form of evil you can think of, from discourtesy to murder. It starts with a simple error and ends up in all error. Who, then, is the center of the universe? Well, according to Paul, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). So, I guess it's reasonable to say that God is the center of all things. As such, if God was not self-centered, then He would be wrong. He would be an idolater, putting other things before the Creator. He would be insane, thinking of other things that are not the center of the universe as the center. He would not be God. You see, we should not be self-centered (both because it's incorrect and because it is immoral) and God must be self-centered (because it is both true and morally correct).

These are just a couple of examples. You'll find this running throughout our thinking processes. "God," we tend to think, "must conform to all the same rules that we do." It's not true, and you know it. You know, for instance, that He is omnipresent and we must be in only one place at any given time. ("Oh, sure, be obvious, Stan.") It's not true in other ways. We have a higher rule of morality and justice imposed on us to which we must conform. God is that higher rule, defining morality and justice by what He is and does. As Creator, He makes His own standards; as creature, we conform to His standards. And despite all of our protests, He doesn't actually have to conform to His own standards.

Now, before you get your knickers in a twist there, think about it. Parents make standards for their children. "You cannot drive before you're ___" (fill in the blank yourself because I've heard some parents tell their teenagers numbers like "16, "18", or "32", depending on the kid). "You have to be in bed by 8." "No, you're only 4; you can't cross the street by yourself." But ... parents drive, go to bed when they please, and cross the street all by themselves! Immoral, hypocritical parents! Right? No, of course not. "Parent" is a different order of being than "child". And what is true in small, human terms is much more true in God-versus-Man terms. So it is unreasonable to impose human rules on God.

God (unlike parents) will always do what is right. He is the standard. "Justice" is defined as "whatever God does". Be very careful not to confuse yourself with that. While it may sound somewhat silly, God is not a man. He doesn't conform to the same rules to which we are supposed to conform. He is God. Be careful not to trip yourself up with that. He is not a man.

Modern Magic

Who doesn't like music? Okay, I'm sure there are a few, but the love of music is almost universal. I would guess that most people can't actually give a reason for this. They just like music. Maybe it's because of the way it makes them feel. Maybe it's because "it moves me". There are other vague reasons, but I suspect that the real reason is much deeper. I think it's because music is magic.

I'm not trying to get fantastic here. I'm not actually suggesting genuine magic. But I believe that music has effects on us of which we aren't really aware. You get a hint of this in the Bible. Music is one of the early inventions mentioned in Scripture, even before the forgers of bronze and iron. One of the more interesting stories is the one about King Saul who was tormented by an evil spirit. He hired David to help him. "Whenever the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him" (1 Sam 16:23). King David was known for designing musical instruments. Solomon ordered the use of music in the Temple. Several places in Revelation speak of music in heaven. The entire book of Psalms is a hymn book. And Dr. Bruce Leafblad holds that, as much of the Old Testament books are written in poetry form, it follows that most of their messages were sung. Music is a part of the Bible.

Modern studies have much to suggest about the effects of music. According to eMedExpert.com, music can assist in pain management, blood pressure management, regulation of the heart, post-stroke recovery, headaches, the immune system, the IQ, memory, athletic performance, coordination, fatigue, productivity, sleep, and depression. (If you've never tried it, try putting Bible verses to music and see how easily you can memorize them. Really amazing.) Music is powerful stuff ... nearly magic. (For another interesting article on the amazing effects of music, try this one by Laurence O'Donnell.)

Think about it. Music has the ability to make your body move in ways that are not natural. I mean, when else do you tap your foot except to a lively beat in music? Certain rhythms seem to sneak in and make your body want to move even without you being conscious of it. Or how about the first time you heard the theme music from Jaws? Did you really need to know that there was something dangerous coming to feel the ominous danger just from that music? Music can directly bypass the brain and go directly to the emotions, lifting spirits or creating tension. William Congreve wrote, "Music has charms to soothe the savage breast." (Okay, he spelled it with a "k" -- musick -- and, indeed it was "savage breast", not "beast" like so many suppose, but you know you've heard it.) Mickey Hart, the well-known drummer from the Grateful Dead wrote that music has such a capacity to influence without conscious recognition that the musician has a solemn duty to use that tool with great care.

We tend these days to take music lightly. It's ... fun. It's entertainment. It's just fine. What's the big deal? But the Bible says something quite amazing about music: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God" (Col 3:16). Now when was the last time you heard anyone "teach and admonish" using music? When was the last time a worship leader in church used the music to teach? Have you ever heard anyone "reprove gently but earnestly" (the definition of "admonish") with song? You see, music really is, in a sense, magic. It has the capacity to engage your whole being. It can make you move. It can affect your heart rhythms and your blood pressure. It can slip into your emotions unawares and make you feel things. It can turn a crowd of carefree teenagers into an angry mob or turn an angry mob into a peaceful gathering. It can recall lost memories. It can also engage your brain to teach and admonish. This is the powerful device that God designed for us. He even commanded its use. In a world of materialism and humanism ruled by the god of science, wouldn't it be a wonderful idea to remember and engage this magical marvel called "music" as God intended -- to teach and admonish?

The Bauer Thesis

This was a new one to me. But it was enlightening.

Walter Bauer was a German theologian. He published a work in 1934 with a German title I won't bore you with. The 1971 translation called it Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. At that time, the predominant historians' view of Christianity was that orthodoxy had reigned in Christianity from the beginning. That is, there was a "standard" set of doctrine that was considered right, and that doctrine was always the center point. So, for instance, when the Council of Nicaea met in 325, they met to address existing error, not to establish new doctrine. They addressed the Arian heresy and other items. (The Arian heresy, for those asking, was the first challenge to the Doctrine of the Trinity.) In other words, the standard view was that the Trinity (in this example) was established doctrine and the Church got together to address the error, not establish the doctrine. Well, Bauer challenged that notion. Bauer argued that what orthodoxy calls "heresy" today was present, in Bauer's words, "early and strong" in various geographical locations of Christendom in the Early Church. These "heresies" were not considered heretical, but orthodox where they were located. It was only when the Church came to power that these heresies were declared heretical, and that was primarily on the basis of the notions of the leadership as opposed to some sort of agreed upon basis (such as biblical authority, etc.). So Bauer argued that the Early Church favored diversity rather than orthodoxy.

Now, Bauer's thesis has been addressed multiple times by multiple scholars regarding multiple problems. Bauer, for instance, ignores the New Testament entirely in his work. He didn't consider it of much value. Much of his argument is from silence (such as the lack of Early Church documentation). There is a lot of assuming in his work. He referred to the Apostle Paul as "the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age." But it is largely due to Bauer that you hear so often these days that "The Roman Catholic Church made those things up" and "There is no such thing as orthodoxy." Those who question orthodox Christianity do so largely on the basis of a faulty thesis from Bauer who started with the premise that the New Testament was largely fabricated by the Roman Catholic Church and that Paul was an arch-heretic. His "scholarship" ignored existing evidence and lacked (quite obviously) new evidence that contradicts his views. Still, you'll find voices of certainty that argue the Church has never been orthodox, that diversity has ruled Christian theology since the beginning, and that the only reason we have this "narrow view" of what is orthodox (including outlandish beliefs like the Resurrection, the Trinity, and such) is because the Roman Catholic Church came into power (thanks to Constantine) and there you have it.

Here, try this. The next time someone tells you that there is no such thing as orthodoxy, that the Church historically has had widely diverse views, that things like the Trinity were made up by a limited group that was in power (the Church, the Roman Catholics, or, even laughably, Constantine himself, as examples), ask them for sources. You'll most certainly find that all such sources are either nonexistent or all after Bauer's thesis because if you examine anything written in the centuries before Bauer, you'll find amazing concurrence that there is indeed orthodox Christian doctrine and always has been.

Mawage

Thanks to the ruling the other day, there are those who are afraid that the gays have stolen marriage. They've taken what has always been defined as "between a man and a woman" and twisted it to mean something different. I am here to calm your fears. The gays haven't stolen marriage; we gave it away.

No, that's not even accurate. It wasn't given away. It was tossed out, surrendered, discarded. It was abandoned by society in general and even by Christians in particular. I base this, first, on the ruling of the court. The judge outlined most of these changes. But it's not just his ruling. Consider the facts.

Marriage has been defined for all time in pretty simple terms. It is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of forming the basic societal structure, the family, which includes at its core, children. Not complicated. Not intricate. Not hard to understand. And no longer applicable.

It used to be that when a man and a woman married, the union was marked by the taking of names. That is, in the words of the ruling, marriage "traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s." This wasn't a hardship; it was a given. It was, you see, a union. The income earned wasn't "my money", it was "our money". There was one bank account, one income, one economic unity. She was no longer "miss", but "missus" (Mrs.), and he was no longer "master", but "mister" (Mr.). It was a fundamental change to their identity that united them ... because it was a union. Of course, we've thrown that out these days. We threw it out when the households went from "stay-at-home moms" to "two-income family". We threw it out when separate bank accounts became not only normal, but preferable. We threw it out when we shifted away from taking the family name and going first to a hyphenated version followed today, in some realms, in a version where she doesn't take his name at all.

It used to be that sex was recognized as the physical union of man and woman. It was reserved for that process. The "honeymoon", everyone knew, would be the first time that sexual relations would be part of their relationship. Sex was, in the sense of "special and set apart", sacred. It was understood that, while there were those who ignored this sacred union, they were "bad", not "normative". But we threw that out when the "free love" society got its hooks into us. Sex became recreational, a thing done for fun. It was a gradual process. It went from "only in marriage" to "only in love" to "only if we want to". Today there is "friendship with benefits", where no one even hints at commitment, love, or any such thing. It's entertainment.

It used to be that wives were expected to submit to their husbands. This wasn't intended nor required to be demeaning or devaluing. (Think about it, folks. Jesus submitted to the Father. Did that require that He was of less value? Not at all!) "Fortunately", women's lib came along and put an end to that "monstrosity". Women were no longer to be subject to their husbands! And the world bought it. Even the Christians! Never mind that the Bible says it should be so. Feminism was much wiser than any silly Bible verse could be. And we threw away that union of relationship which made for a uniform hierarchy and created a new one that made two, individual leaders.

It used to be that marriage was expected to be "for life". You know, all that painfully silly stuff like "'til death do us part" and all. Honor, integrity, self-sacrifice, all that nonsense. But it made for a particularly strong cohesive unit when two people, faced with no other options, decided that they would learn to be honorable, have integrity, and actually sacrifice their own preferences for the benefit of the family (the children and each other) because that was what they had to do. The bonds of love that were forged through that furnace were typically much more enduring than the "love" we see today that changes on a whim. But we tossed that one out when we decided that it was much more "reasonable" to allow for "no fault" divorce. Now it's a divorce on a whim, and the backlash from that ongoing disaster has actually scared many young people away from marriage at all.

It used to be that children were a given. If you didn't have kids, it was a sad thing, not a matter of wise thinking and careful planning. Some may argue that this isn't true, but doesn't nature itself prove that it is? Even the most hard-core feminists seem to have unexplainable inner urges to have a child. Every woman knows the phrase, "My biological clock is ticking." No matter how much modern women wish to decry any need for children, it appears to be a fundamental part of their nature. Science has gone to great efforts to be able to produce children for infertile couples. And, of course, it was the very first command from God: "Go forth and multiply." So there is that. Historically, women without children were pitied, not applauded. But the judge has ruled "Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license." True. We threw out procreation as a fundamental component of marriage when we decided that it was probably a good idea not to have kids sometimes. We threw it away when we -- even Christians -- agreed that it was wise to incorporate contraception into our daily lives. (Are you aware of how recent that decision is? For instance, in France, birth control was banned until 1965. That's how new this idea is.) When we made children first optional and then a disadvantage, we threw out that aspect of marriage.

This didn't happen "just the other day", folks. And it wasn't "the gays" that did it. Marriage has long been defined as "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of forming the basic societal structure, the family, which includes at its core, children". We dismantled that. We dismantled "children" as a core value when we embraced "family planning". We jettisoned "union" as a core component when we incorporated "gender equality", separate bank accounts, "equal rights", the "two-income family", "no fault" divorce, and sex for fun. So there we stood, all of our definitions dismantled, with only "between a man and a woman" remaining, and wondered how in the world "the gays" could steal marriage from us. They didn't. We -- the world, our society, even Christendom -- threw it out so long ago that many don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. "What? When did marriage mean that?" Marriage, to many today, is something of the humorous lines from The Princess Bride: "Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam ... And wuv, twu wuv, will fowow you foweva ... So tweasure your wuv." Yeah ... that's not it.

I have seen the enemy ... and it was us.

The End of an ERA

The verdict is in. The 138-page ruling is here. According to the court document, the plaintiffs, including "Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his official capacity as Governor of California" and "Edmund G. Brown Jr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California", have won and the defendants, including "protectmarriage.com" have lost. Judge Vaughn Walker, the U.S. Chief Judge for the Northern California district, has decided that the amendment to the California state constitution that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for which the people of the state voted is unconstitutional.

Okay ... now wait a minute ... did I read that right? The people of California legally voted to amend their own constitution to define marriage in the longstanding traditional manner as between a man and a woman ... and the governor and the state attorney general shot them down? Wait ... wait ... what happened to government "of the people"? Okay, okay, I'll move on, but if I were a Californian, I'd be moving to recall my governor and attorney general. I mean, if the best they can do is ignore us, then they have no reason to be there.

Okay, first ... now brace yourselves ... I'm going to post for the sake of clarity the entire text of the amendment to the California constitution. Are you ready? Take a deep breath ... here it comes. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If you blinked, you likely missed it. That's it. Hang onto that.

So, what was the original complaint? I'll paraphrase. "We wanted to get married and the only reason we couldn't was Prop 8." Seriously. Okay, they had to get more elaborate than that. So here was their basic case. Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution includes what is called the "equal protection" clause which says, in essence that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The claim is that it prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice, that such choice is sheltered by the 14th Amendment, and that "domestic partnership" is not the same thing as marriage.

Now, "due process" is a bit hard to define. The Magna Carta considers it a function of the law of the land and the legal judgment of peers. That, of course, can't be it because Prop 8 was the law of the land and it was done by the legal judgment of peers. So, of course, "due process" must be something else. What exactly it is isn't defined. Good luck with that. But I would guess that "due process" would need to be defined, to fit into this judgment, as "whatever we don't like" to the plaintiff. There, that fits nicely.

So what did the judge actually rule?

Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

There it is, folks. Clear as day. Or ... is it?

First, I'll let the concept of "the fundamental right to marry" go on by. I mean, seriously? But, okay, let's leave that alone. Let's all agree that everyone has the fundamental right to marry. So, what are the two issues, according to the plaintiffs and the judge? Agreeing with the longstanding traditional definition of "marriage" as a union of a man and a woman is a burden to the right to marry. In fact, it creates a classification ... okay, wait. What does that even mean? And, of course, is it true?

Let's see? What about that single 14-word sentence burdens marriage? Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, how does requiring a man and a woman to be involved burden marriage? In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the statement that prevents people who consider themselves homosexual from getting married. Oh, they will have to remain within the boundaries of the word, but nothing would prevent a gay man from marrying a lesbian if he so chose. So to stretch this to something that "burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry" requires first that you toss out the definition of "marriage". And, look, we're getting pretty good at that, aren't we? I mean, we've moved "gentleman" from a well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior to any male that leers at naked women. We've shifted "gay" from happy to homosexual. We've even decided that "Christian" doesn't actually need to include anything about Christ. Okay, so, yeah, I can see that. Since I'm defining "marriage" as my favorite ice cream flavor, I have to say that Prop 8 makes no sense. What does "man and woman" have to do with ice cream? And why can't I define the term however I want since they are?

And then there's this "irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation". Okay, now, go back and read that 14-word sentence again. Go slow. It's a lot to take in. Be careful. You don't want to miss the orientation test. Missed it? Come on! The judge says it's there! Don't you see where it says, "People who are homosexual are not allowed to eat my favorite ice cream"? (Okay, stupid, I know.) Can you find anything that says anything at all about the "sexual orientation" of anyone involved?

Seriously, folks, the thing is pitiful. Over on page 111 the judge goes into the question of whether they "seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right." Valid question. And where did the judge go to find out? The history of the United States. Reasonable. And yet, even though in the history of the United States there never was marriage defined as anything but the union of a man and a woman, that particular fact was irrelevant. The only concern is that "The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace." (Never mind that the entire concept of "stable households" is in jeopardy already from "no fault" divorce and under further threat by the disregard in the homosexual community for the concept of "monogamy".) The judge even states, "The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples." (I wanted to shout, "Yes!!! See???") But that doesn't matter. The only factors to be considered in "our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices" were the irrelevant ones.

So, the court has ruled. Marriage is dead; long live marriage. What is this new marriage? Very simple. Not tough at all. It is just two parties that consent to form a relationship to form a household. That's it. All done. Oh, you know what was key in his decision here? "Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality ..." so, because genders are no longer significant "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage." For those of you who assure me that the radical feminism that has continued to thrive until "gender equality" has arrived with the concept that gender no longer forms an essential part of our society, please, shut up. I think the judge made my point.

On what basis the government will now try to regulate the rest of the questions of "marriage" (which no longer has the same meaning as before) I cannot imagine. How can they possibly refuse polygamy? If she loves her cat and her cat does not protest, how can they possibly deny her under her right to life and liberty and the fundamental right to marry the right to marry her cat? Me? I think I'll look into joining with that ice cream I've been thinking about. It will be short-lived relationship, but a good one, for sure. For the rest of you ... well, the trouble has been brewing for decades, and this isn't the end of it. It only goes on from here. Do you detect some sarcasm on my part? It's only because I'm tired of beating the same drum. It isn't about "equal rights". It's about the meaning of marriage, the importance of gender, the value of values. And even though this ruling is touted as "equal rights", it appears that the people of California don't have the right to govern themselves anymore. And that, dear friends, is the least of your worries.

Omnibenevolence

Maybe you've heard this argument. There is no god. Proof? Evil exists in the world. Now, if there was a god, there would be no evil. You see, god is supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. So if there is evil, either he is unable to stop it (and not omnipotent) or he is unwilling to stop it (not omnibenevolent). Ipso facto -- no god.

Lots of people have taken on this argument. Lots have done a decent job. Some have questioned the actual existence of evil. Is it a thing, or is it the absence of good? If it is simply the absence of good, then it does not exist and the argument falls apart. Another approach is that there is a presumption in the argument that such a god would necessarily stop evil. What makes that true? That's a problem. In other words, the premise, "if there was a god, there would be no evil", is faulty, and the argument collapses. But I'm wondering about this whole "omnibenevolent" thing. So I had to go look it up.

Dictionary.com defines "benevolence" as "desire to do good to others". Now, if you're a thinking person, that would have to be necessarily vague because "How, exactly, do you define 'good' in that definition?" By "good" do you mean "nice", "pleasant", "comfortable", or do you mean "moral", "right", that sort of thing? The Oxford English Dictionary defines "omnibenevolence" as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Wiktionary says that omnibenevolent refers to that which is "all-loving, or infinitely good". Again, I need a definition of "good" here. You see, "good" can be moral excellence, virtue, of satisfactory amounts, high quality, fitting, well-behaved, kind ... well, you see, it can get a bit difficult. You see, "good" is, by its nature, a relative term. It is in comparison to something. A "good dog" is not the same as a "good man". Further, it is defined by the user. A rainstorm might be considered "good" by the farmer whose crops were watered, but "bad" by the guy downstream who got the flash flood that resulted from it. And both would be accurate. My wife thinks spinach and liver are both good and I don't. Is one of us incorrect? Good is a relative concept.

So, when we're talking about God with an unlimited desire to do good to others, who gets to evaluate what He does to determine if it was indeed good? I mean, just as a bad example, when He ordered Israel to smite the Amalekites, I'd bet that the Israelites were good with that, but the Amalekites likely wouldn't have called it "good". Who gets to decide? Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man dies and ends up in Sheol, a place of fire and torment. Lazarus ends up in a place called Abraham's Bosom and he's quite comfortable. Now the rich man doesn't consider his condition a good thing, but Abraham doesn't seem to think it's a bad thing. Who gets to decide?

It begs the question. Is God actually omnibenevolent? I wonder if this isn't where part of the problem lies. We know that God is good all the time, but we also know that what God considers good isn't always what His creation considers good. We know that God defines love by His character, but it's really hard to see His love as "infinite" (as it is so often described) when you factor in the wrath that is throughout the biblical record. I really don't think that "omnibenevolent" is a good description.

Look, here's where it really boils down. If we claim there is a God, and God is omnipotent and good (despite our inability to recognize "good" all the time), then there are two possibilities. Either we are wrong about this God and no such being exists, or everyone who complains about evil is wrong and, in ways we may not fully understand, God uses that evil for good (since, if He does exist, we've already said that He is good). Interestingly, this is the claim of Scripture. God works all things together for good. But I still really doubt that "omnibenevolent" is an accurate description of God's character. I think it's a dodge intended to put God under our scrutiny to see if He measures up to our standards ... and He doesn't. Now that is arrogant.

Reading Books

Someone once asked a pastor about me, "How can Stan believe that stuff?" (He had recently discovered that I was -- gasp -- a "Calvinist".) The pastor told him, "If you had read the books that he reads, you'd believe it, too." I found that kind of sad. You see, it is true that I have come to the conclusions I've come to because of the books I read, but those books are the books of the Bible. I believe what I believe because it's the only conclusion I can reach from what I read in the Word.

This, of course, is the problem with tags. I'm tagged as a "Calvinist" because I believe things that "Calvinists" believe. But I don't believe them because of someone named John Calvin. I came to those beliefs long before I ever read Calvin (and I've only read the abridged version of his Institutes of the Christian Religion). I remember reading R.C. Sproul's The Holiness of God which does not (as far as I can recall) address the question at all. I told the pastor about it and he warned me, "You know, that Sproul is a dangerous guy. He's a Calvinist." I was frankly confused because (at the time) I had no hint of it.

No, it was the Bible that led me to this. When I read the biblical description of Natural Man, it seems we're a lot worse off than other theological perspectives will allow. We're only mostly dead, not actually dead (at least not in any discernible sense). Sure, we're hostile to God, but we can still choose His side. And all that stuff about being unable to comprehend spiritual things doesn't mean that we're not actually able to understand them, does it? Being inclined only to evil is a bad thing, but surely there are other inclinations as well, right? Sure, the flesh profits nothing, but at least it can produce the right choice, right? So I was forced to lay my theology next to this (and more) and come up with a rational way to explain how I could manufacture faith, overcome my natural hatred for God, and respond "from the grave". I was stuck.

Then I had to ask, "Well, if we're so bad off, on what basis does anyone get saved?" How does a slave to sin get freed from that slavery? And the Bible told me that we were chosen not on the basis of our own choice or action, but on the basis of His own purposes. Calvinists call that "unconditional election".

Still, if I'm so bad off and if I am intrinsically in conflict with God, on what possible basis can that change? Well, it would apparently take ... an act of God. Left to my own inclinations, I would (and had) resist God's efforts. It was a given. But I read in John that God draws people to Himself (and, as it turns out, that term is the same concept as "drawing water" ... not something that the water can resist), that "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." So apparently, despite all the resistance of which we are capable, when God so chooses He can overcome our objections and bring us to Himself. 1 John 5 told me that before I believed in Christ I was born again. It's what those crazy Calvinists call "Irresistible Grace".

At this point I was in trouble. My upbringing told me a different story. I was the one who chose God. It was my faith and my repentance and my choice that brought me to Christ. I had (incomprehensibly) responded as a spiritually dead Man and, because of that response, was made alive after I chose in faith. Now none of this made any sense. It appeared to me, from all I was reading, that it was the reverse. It looked as if the only possible conclusion was that God gave me new life before I came to Him, and that it was this new life complete with faith (which I originally thought I manufactured, but later found was a gift from God) that enabled me to respond. Apparently God didn't look down the corridor of time and figure out that I would choose Him. Apparently He chose me and did all that was necessary to make me His own. And I well knew that nothing within me deserved any such thing, so there was no sense of arrogance included in this package. Instead, it was awe. It was all God.

Well, from there it got easier. As I continued to pore through Scripture, the whole thing began to make sense. Verse built upon verse, passage upon passage, doctrine upon doctrine. Small things like the gift of faith instead of building my own and large concepts like the actual Sovereignty of God came into clear view. I found the entire set of doctrines in the Gospel of John alone, let alone the rest of Scripture. Once I described it to a friend like cogs in a machine. Until I got this in my brain, the cogs kept binding. Suddenly they were meshing perfectly and running smoothly. Everything was in alignment.

I don't believe that you have to agree with me to be a Christian. I don't believe that perfect theology makes a Christian. (Good thing, since I'm pretty sure I haven't arrived at "perfect theology".) But I've read through the Scriptures and I've thought through the ideas and I've examined it from both sides and this is where I fall. It's a very comfortable place to be. Some argue that doctrine isn't applicable. This is. So, if it is true that reading the books I read will lead you to the same conclusions I've reached, then I highly recommend it. The books are the books of the Bible, and ... trust me ... it's in there.

Inventors of Evil

CBS Sunday Morning had an interview with Hugh Hefner yesterday. They talked about his life, his relationships, his image. They touted how, despite a life of adversaries from the feminists to the conservative Christians, he had a part in racial equality, gay rights, changed drug laws, and even Roe v Wade. Of course, what most people know is, "We were there to ignite the flame that became the sexual revolution." Asked how he'd like to be remembered, he said, "I'd like to be remembered as someone who played an important part in changing the social-sexual values of my time."

There are always those voices that say "When I was young it was much different." It's generally "It was much better." There is always a hue and cry somewhere about the decline of morality in society and how things are going from bad to worse. And, along with these voices, there are the ones who are disagreeing. "You're making it up," they'll say. Or, "It may have changed, but it's much better now." But usually the position is, "It has always been this way; you just didn't know it." One side will point out that child molesters were few and far between in earlier days and their opponents will say, "No, they just weren't as well-known." Those in the homosexual community will argue that there has always been a larger percentage of homosexuals than we realized while those who lived "in the day" will disagree. Older people will say that pornography is on the rise and younger people will say, "No, it's just more visible." And there are always those who say, "Maybe there are more (child molesters, homosexuals, pornography, whatever is on the table), but it's a good thing." These will always throw in, "What do you want ... a return to enslaving blacks and subjugating women?" (That, by the way, is a classic "red herring" argument -- a logical fallacy.)

The other day my wife and I were watching a commercial for a series on AMC called Mad Men. It's about people in the advertising business in the '60's. My wife complained because, as far as you can tell from the commercials, the show is about people having sex with each other ... who occasionally deal with advertising (as opposed to other shows these days where people are having sex with each other ... and occasionally solve a crime or help a patient or present a legal defense or whatever other genre you might like). "It wasn't like that when we were growing up," she said. And for the most part I would agree. It wasn't. However, in the case of this show, I suggested an alternative theory. "Maybe it was. We weren't part of that segment of society. My theory is that Hollywood and the advertising world set out to mold American morality into their image via the powerful media that had been introduced called 'TV'. Maybe, just maybe, it was like that in the '60's in the advertising world and their goal was to bring the rest of society around to their morality (or lack thereof)." That's my theory.

You can argue all you want about whether or not things were better in earlier days. You can disagree that morality is on the decline. You may wish to argue that things are much better now that child molesting or homosexual behavior or pornography is out in the open. But I think it is foolhardy to argue that it wasn't done intentionally. Hugh Hefner claims it was. He's proud of it. In earlier times, the stigma of pedophilia or homosexual behavior or pornography or sex outside of marriage made it uncomfortable for people to do it and, as such, provided motivation to avoid it. But then came Playboy, touted as a "gentleman's magazine" (which effectively redefined "gentleman" from "a man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position" or "a well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior" to "a male") and now "gentlemen" were looking at nude women when it used to only be the "low-lifes" that did it. Child molesters either needed to control themselves or to hide ... until the Internet offered a wealth of sources and networks -- "Hey, I'm not alone! This must be normal!" And so it goes.

Multiply this effect. Hollywood removes "heroes" who are virtuous men and replaces them with reluctant bad guys forced into doing something right and virtue is no longer heroic. Show us that every one is having sex with everyone for whatever reason and sexual mores are removed -- sex is devalued. Tell us that "Greed is good" and we'll find it good to be greedy. Assure us that kids are the wise ones and we'll ignore the conventional, logical, proven concept that age and experience, not youth, typically produce wisdom. And they feed us this stuff almost intravenously, bypassing our filters and stripping off our defenses. So when someone says "Morality has declined since I was a kid" someone else will undoubtedly assure us that it has always been this way and that it's much better these days. Kind of like the "inventors of evil" that Paul talks about ... the ones who "not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them". Yeah, kind of like what the Bible says.

Worship

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24)

It's such a simple verse. You may even have it memorized. It's a "nice" verse. It feels warm. It simply says that worshiping God must be done "in spirit and truth". Not much to it, is there?

Of course, that's only if you don't consider the ramifications. We often tend to interpret passages in terms of how they feel. But what is this one saying? I suspect, if you think about it, this one gets a little sticky. I mean exactly what is meant by worshiping God "in spirit" and "in truth"?

What does it mean to worship God "in spirit"? Many will tell you that you have to be in the right "spirit" to worship God. That's the idea behind "in spirit", right? You have to be "moved", to have an emotional response, to "sense God", and on and on. Of course, the Bible doesn't use the term "spirit" in that sense, so that's off base somehow. No, the Bible uses the term either in reference to the Holy Spirit or in reference to the human spirit, that innermost part of us, almost indistinguishable from the soul. It is always distinct from "the flesh", that sin nature of ours.

So can we conclude from this? It would seem that the proper worship of God must originate in the Spirit of God and then proceed from our spirits as a proper response to the Spirit of God. It would seem obvious (although I suspect we often miss it) that true worship must avoid carnality. It must avoid an appeal to the flesh. It must avoid worldly perceptions of God, human-oriented worship approaches, and a focus on us. But, you see, isn't that so often exactly the focus? So often worship in church is aimed at producing feelings in the worshipers, to make us "feel warmly" toward God. It is a very subtle shift, but it is a shift nonetheless, to go from God as the aim of worship to how I feel about God as the aim of worship. The Bible says that we don't even know how to pray (Rom 8:26). It should be mandatory, then, that worship begin with God and end with God. He is the originator and the point.

What does it mean to worship God "in truth"? That seems less confusing, I suspect. It means that worship must be based on truth -- a true image of God. It should not be with hypocrisy. It should not be with insincerity. It should be in integrity. Worship for show, as an example, would not be worship "in truth". What else? Most Christians really like worshiping God. You know ... that upbeat, happy, warm reflection on God. Thinking about how wonderful He is. Good. But one of the key components of a relationship with God includes, as the Bible so often repeats, the truth about our condition. It is called repentance. It entails confession of sin. And as an accurate reflection of the holiness of God, it is a necessary component. How often is that part of our worship? Is it excluded because it doesn't make us feel good? Another aspect of worshiping God "in truth" is the accurate reflection on the nature of God. We're really good with the "love" and "grace" and "mercy" aspects. "Good, good! Keep it coming!" What about the wrath and displeasure He has toward sin? "No, no ... let's not go there." It is part of the accurate reflection on the nature of God, and the Bible expresses it as a valid, true, and praiseworthy aspect of His character.

God is spirit. Those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Worship, if it is to align with Jesus's teaching here, must originate from God and reflect back to God. It must have integrity, including both a valid representation of His character and an accurate admission of our flaws. Genuine worship must suit His character and concur with His will. This is true in singing, in the hearing of the Word, and in the everyday living sacrifice that is our true worship. Sundays make for good practice.