Life Application Bible

I'm sure you've heard of this one. It comes in a variety of modes. The best known is likely the NIV version, but you can find a chronological one (in the New Living version), as an app for your iPhone, and even a 17-Volume software version for the Logos Bible Software system. Lots of them. Everywhere. Because, you see, applying Scripture to your life is crucial. Ask any of the current seminaries and Bible schools and they'll tell you that there's nothing more important than applying God's Word to your life.

"What, Stan, are you disagreeing? Do I detect sarcasm?" Well, no, not really. But, yes. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Recognizing how God's Word affects my life is important. I mean, when God commands "A", I'd better "A". But we don't really mean anything that simple, do we? In fact, we don't often find anything that simple in the Bible. Usually it's more like "Jesus said 'What God has joined together let no man separate', so we shouldn't leave our spouses ... except when there are really, really good reasons." Or something like that. More often than that we get something like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Now what do we do with that? "Well, okay, so Christ is God; therefore, I should ...?"

I think we're operating off of some bad assumptions that are deeply ingrained and need to be examined.

In the Tom Hanks movie, Turner and Hooch, the Hanks character takes this massive junkyard dog around his neat house and tells him, "This is not your room." I think, perhaps, we need someone to take us through the pages of Scripture and understand, "This not your book." What do I mean? The Bible is not about us. The primary character in the pages of Scripture is Christ. He first appears on page one with "In the beginning, God ..." (Compare with John 1:3 if you doubt me.) He shows up in Genesis 3 as the seed of the woman (Gen 3:14-15), the answer to the problem of sin. He shows up as lamb to replace Isaac as the sacrifice (Gen 22:8), the Passover lamb (Exo 12:1-11), the scapegoat (Lev 16:8-10). He is the Promised Messiah, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Alpha and Omega. The Scriptures are His story. "This is not your book." Now, certainly humans play a role in the books of the Bible and certainly the Bible edifies us and directs us and informs us, but that's just not the point -- He is. And obviously a focus on Christ produces action (James 2:17-20). All true. But remember the point: Jesus.

The second deeply ingrained assumption we seem to hold is that actions are more important than thoughts. Look, what's more important? Is it more important to act correctly or more important to know the truth? It's the longstanding conflict between orthopraxy (right practice) and orthodoxy (right thinking). Today's seminaries and schools tell pastors that right practice far outweighs right thinking. Oh, sure, work on both, but never ever preach a sermon without an application. "This is what it says, so you should ..." Because doing is more important than knowing. But is that true?

Consider this. How much of the Bible is constructed of commands? They tell me that the Old Testament contains some 613 commands. That is, of the over 23,000 verses in the Old Testament, we find only 613 commands. The rest? Information. Instruction. History. Wisdom. Explanation. Prediction. Lots and lots of stuff besides commands. If "do" is more important than "know", why such a lopsided text? And the New Testament fares only slightly better. There are something on the order of 1050 New Testament commands in amongst the more than 7,900 verses. Perhaps a better ratio, but still not a balance if you're going to argue that "do" is more important than "know".

The other problem with preaching application or a "life application Bible" concept is that it is generic. As an obvious example, we are commanded (Old and New Testament) to "love your neighbor". So, what does that look like? I suspect that it will vary from person to person and circumstance to circumstance, and telling someone "You must then do x" would short circuit that variation of a common command. And that's just with commands. How a doctrine affects me will often be different from how it affects you. It's not the preacher or the printer's job to tell me how it should affect me. That's God's job, isn't it?

But if we admit that the Bible is God's Word, that it is focused singularly on Jesus Christ, and that this is the primary point of the Bible and not simply "doing", then what? Well, apparently the "thing" we're supposed to know above all else is Christ. That's the point. We need to "come to know God, or rather to be known by God" (Gal 4:6). It is a "both-and" concept. We need to know Christ and we need Christ to know us (compare Matt 7:23).

Ultimately, of course, it looks similar, and that is part of our problem. We are "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). This is partly accomplished by "the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2). It is a product of "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). And, indeed, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). But this is a product, the result of being justified in Christ, renewed in the Spirit. We work out our salvation not by our own hard work, but because "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). So what do I do with a John 1:1? I don't grapple for a tip on what I should do today. I bow before Christ, the primary point of Scripture, and say, "Now I know you a little better." Because the better we know Him, the more we reflect Him, and that is the point -- always Him.

Father's Day, 2013

I've written about my father on Father's Day, as it turns out, more than a few times. If you've ever wondered "Given what I see of Stan on this blog, what must his father be like?" you can find out in those places. What you cannot miss, however, is that God gave me a great dad. Really, among the best. And for that I'm grateful, deeply grateful. But it begs the question. What makes a great dad? What does the Bible tell us dads should be? So, not in any real order, this is what I find.

1. Teacher/Trainer.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4; see also Col 3:21).

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it (Prov 22:6).

Fathers are tasked by God with bringing up their children "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord". "No, no, you must be mistaken," some might counter. "Everyone knows that women make the best teachers of children." Well, apparently not everyone. Our culture has come to that, but it isn't biblical. More importantly, though, fathers aren't necessarily tasked with doing all the "discipline and instruction", but they are tasked with the responsibility of seeing that it is done and done right.

So, what are fathers supposed to teach their kids?

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD YOUR God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged" (Deut 6:1-2).

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise" (Deut 6:4-7).

First and foremost, God expects fathers to teach their children ... about God. Fathers are supposed to teach their kids to fear God. Yes, reverence Him, but beyond that to fear Him. We are supposed to teach "the commandment, the statutes and the judgments" of God. Nor are we supposed to do this merely in a classroom atmosphere. Church is fine as an aid, but we are supposed to "teach them diligently". Teach them what? "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (As opposed to the popular cries about "Don't poison your children with your religion. Let them figure it out for themselves.") How? Walking, talking, lying down, getting up every day in every way without fail or pause.

What else are we to teach? Fathers are supposed to teach their children to praise God.

One generation shall commend Your works to another, and shall declare Your mighty acts (Psa 145:4).

Not just facts but a genuine love for God.

2. Disciplinarian

One of the primary teaching methods that the Bible expects from fathers is the dreaded "d-word" -- discipline.

Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death (Prov 19:18).

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (Heb 12:7-11).

Did you get that? It isn't expected that godly fathers will be nice, easygoing, "can't-we-just-get-along" fathers. They are expected to administer "painful rather than pleasant" discipline "as it seemed best to them". We do our best. We don't withhold discipline. As a product of love, fathers are expected to be the disciplinarians in the home. This doesn't rule out mothers; it simply, again, places the overall responsibility on fathers.

3. Role model

The much more acceptable, but perhaps more difficult method of teaching that the Bible expects of fathers is the method of living it out.

The righteous man who walks in his integrity -- blessed are his children after him (Prov 20:7).

Fathers are not supposed to say, "Do as I say, not as I do", unless it is to say, "Learn from my mistakes." It's what Paul did: "Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us" (Phil 3:17). It's what Jesus did: "I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you" (John 13:15). We are to be imitators of God (Eph 5:1) and imitators of godly men (1 Thess 1:6; Heb 6:12).

And here's one place that all fathers should start as a role model:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling (1 Tim 2:8).

Pray about what? "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). You know, an easy starting point, since I'm pretty sure all of us fathers are already prayer warriors in this regard, right?

4. Provider

Okay, here's a tough one in today's culture. "Really, Stan? You're going to go with that old 'male role' concept?" Well, actually, no. I'm going to go with that old biblical concept.

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8).

Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him (Matt 7:9-11).

Scripture -- you know, God's Word -- anticipates that fathers will be the providers. To fail to provide for your own household makes one "worse than an unbeliever". Now, I understand that there are exceptions here. Obviously a disabled father, for instance, may actually be unable to "bring home the bacon". But, again, God places the responsibility of provision squarely on the back of the father. How he accomplishes this may vary. That he is expected to does not.

5. Not the momma

I had to throw this one in simply in defiance to modern feminism and egalitarianism. Men are not women. The commands to fathers are not generic, genderless commands; they are commands to fathers. God designed families with a mother and a father for a reason. Children need both. Girls need fathers and boys need fathers. So while mothers will nurture and care for their children -- absolutely necessary -- fathers have a different role. They are commissioned by God to provide the training, the discipline, the role model for a man (for both sons and daughters), the sustenance. Over and over the Bible uses the term "Father" in reference to God not because God sires children, but because the good human father is a prime illustration of our Heavenly Father. Even those who did not have a good father know what a good father looks like.

Fathers are on the decline these days. Modern society has taken its toll. They're told to "get in touch with your feminine side" because males are bad. Radical feminism has demeaned males. Hollywood has diminished them. The decay of marriage has undercut them. Even the church too often doesn't hold them to what God expects. But to those men who want to be what God commands, who want to imitate Christ, who want to follow the Master, this is a quick list of what a good father looks like from the Bible's point of view. And if you hold the Bible as God's Word, then it would be a good idea to consider this as a good definition of a good father. And, of course, Father's Day just seems like a good day to think it over.

Oh, and to my father, happy Father's Day. Thanks for illustrating these principles for me.

The Right to Privacy

I will not be the most popular person in the country for this, but I'm going to express some thoughts all the same.

Let's see. What are some of the latest "rights-related" incidents in the news? Well, there are all sorts of events bubbling over (largely because of the healthcare bill) about freedom of religion. Does your religion forbid the use of abortifacients? Well, too bad! You have a company; you pay. That sort of thing. And, of course, the whole rise of gay rights and redefinition of marriage in various states carries similar backlash. You're free to hold your religious views; you're just not free to exercise them. Oh, and then there's the recent gun law hoopla. The president wanted something done and done now. Lots of people were up in arms (little joke there) about it on both sides. "We need to control guns!" "We need to have absolute freedom!" That sort of thing. And "America" (as if such a real person exists) was disappointed/elated that the changes didn't pass. And now there's this whole invasion-of-privacy thing going on. The government is listening. Your emails aren't private. The government accessed a variety of private entities for the sake of national security. Privacy has been violated and we're upset about it.

But, wait. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution begins with, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution assures us that we can not only hold our religious views, but exercise them freely. Any attempt by the government to rule against that is a violation of that document.

And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, it can and will and certainly should be argued what constitutes infringement. This amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms of any caliber or capability ...", for instance. And the reason for the amendment is important -- "a well-regulated militia". What weaponry should the citizen-defenders of our country be allowed to bear? (I mean, if the government is threatening to hit American citizens with, say, Predator drones, wouldn't we potentially need anti-aircraft weaponry, just as a silly example?) Important questions. But the fundamental right is guaranteed and some voices would like to remove it.

And now we look at the whole privacy issue. You know, it's an odd thing, but when I search the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, and all the Amendments, I can't seem to find anything saying "the right of privacy". Odd, that, eh? I mean, we know that can't be true, right? The Supreme Court in 1973 largely legalized abortion on the basis of the woman's right to privacy. And the ruling by the court this last week on taking DNA question was an question of the right to privacy. We know we have a constitutional right to privacy, don't we? And, as it turns out, no such right exists in our Constitution or its amendments. You can get some sense of it in the Fourth Amendment when you read, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." That's ... close. But not explicit. And no one is saying that the NSA came into their persons or homes to get the data. And, look, how many times have you heard that Facebook and email and, oh, just about anything you might choose to do online is not private? While we understand that we have a right to privacy, we don't actually have said right listed anywhere.

So, why is it that our right to the free exercise of religion and our right to bear arms are not too seriously defended, but violating our right to privacy is an outrage? We already succumbed to many restrictions in the name of security and safety. Why would this one be outlandish? Note that I'm not suggesting it is right for the government to do this stuff. I'm just wondering about the disparity between our guaranteed rights versus our implied rights and the opposite responses to these two sorts of violations. If the right to the free exercise of religion is impinged, explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of rights, shouldn't that produce a stronger response than if our right to privacy is impinged, only potentially implied in the Bill of Rights? It seems like we're getting things turned upside down here. I'm just asking.

And, lest I leave this as a purely political question and nothing beyond constitutional rights to contemplate, remember that the Bible is not unclear on this particular point:

For a man's ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and He ponders all his paths (Prov 5:21).

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Prov 15:3).

Worried about the government reading your emails? You have bigger concerns than that, because God recognizes no right to privacy and all your ways are in His sight. Fear the NSA? Perhaps. But you'd do well to fear God first.

Missing the Truth

One of the most startling biblical stories to me is the story of the escape of Israel from slavery in Egypt.

You remember that one. It has been done even in the movies. (Who can picture Moses today without imagining Charlton Heston?) Moses kills an Egyptian in defense of a kinsman and ends up on the run in the desert for 40 years. There he encounters ... God. The burning bush that didn't burn sends him back to Pharaoh to tell him to "Let My people go." And Pharaoh -- shock of shocks -- says, "No." What follows is a display of power never before or after equalled.

Moses and Aaron visit Pharaoh and demand he allow Israel to go into the desert to make sacrifices. He refuses and they turn water into blood. The Bible lists this so matter-of-factly, like, "Yeah, sure, I did that just the other day." And it's almost that way, since Pharaoh's magicians duplicate it. Pharaoh denies their petition. No go. So Moses brings up frogs. And so do the magicians. But there's a little catch. They can't get rid of them. So to show that Jehovah is God, Moses does. Pharaoh relents, then changes his mind. So Moses turns sand into lice. And the magicians of Pharaoh are out of their league. Interestingly, the text indicates that all this bad stuff is happening to the Egyptians but not to the Israelites. They just get to see it without suffering from it. But this "relent-and-repent" sequence continues. It continues through swarms of flies, diseases, and boils. Moses calls down hail so heavy that it kills every man and animal caught out in it. Then came locusts that ate whatever produce the hail missed. Then came three days of absolute darkness, "a darkness to be felt" (Exo 10:21), a palpable darkness. Really, really scary stuff. All of this, however, fails to ultimately make Pharaoh let them go (which, by the way, God attributes to Himself -- see Exo 11:10; Rom 9:17). So we get the final blow, the very Angel of Death. No TV movie, this. This is the real thing. Israel celebrates their first "Passover" because by obeying God and slaying a lamb with marks on the four posts of their doors, the Angel of Death passes over them and kills "all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock" (Exo 12:29). Every single one.

Now, enriched by the Egyptians, they run to the Red Sea. God again hardens Pharaoh's heart and he pursues them. Protected by God overnight, they wait while the Red Sea opens and they cross on dry land. When Pharaoh and his army try to follow, the sea closes and drowns them all. And the text reads, "Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in His servant Moses" (Exo 14:31). That's right. Chapter 15 is the Song of Moses rejoicing in God's marvelous work. And then we get to Chapter 16. "They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness (Exo 16:1-2).

Now, wait a minute! Consider the evidence before you. We have ten, count 'em, ten, unexplainable events, clear acts of God. They are directed, hitting Egyptians without harming Israelis. They are intense, ending up in the deaths of every firstborn in the land. They are miraculous, unavoidable signs of God at work. Follow these with a splitting of the sea, a crossing on dry land, and the complete annihilation of Pharaoh and his army before their very eyes, and you have a pretty powerful case for theism. So, they walk a little way across the desert, settle in for the evening, and complain. Complain! Complain?

You would think that those who saw the mighty and miraculous hand of God at work in clear view wouldn't soon forget. You would think that this kind of direct contact with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (you know, the man later named Israel) would have a profound effect on your worldview. You would think that there would be an indisoluble sense of "If God is for us, who can be against us?" beyond anything anyone else has ever experienced. Not these recently and miraculously freed slaves. They ... forgot.

Of course, there is nothing really remarkable about these people. We do the same thing. All the time. God gives us employment and we worry when our job is threatened as if God is no longer paying attention. God gives us a family and we worry when there are problems in that family as if God can only do it once and "Sorry, guys, now you're on your own." We enjoy God's hand on our health and then assume He has withdrawn it when we have a medical scare. We are ungrateful and forgetful people.

Don't be that guy. Don't be the ones that Paul talks about when he writes, "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). Notice these are those who knew God, not ignorant ones. Note that the primary error was/is not honoring God or giving thanks to Him. Notice that their primary response to their primary error is substituting, in the place of God, the Creation. You know, like we do so very frequently. Don't be that guy.

My recommendation? Honor God and give thanks to Him. Just a suggestion.

What's the Difference?

Pay attention to standard media sources and you'll find that "Christian" and "Catholic" are essentially synonymous. Most clergy in movies and TV are priests. The "go to" minister will likely be a father or a padre. In fact, it seems as if the only time a Protestant (as in "non-Catholic") minister is used is when they are portrayed as fighting the Catholic priest of the town. Now, this is an oversimplification and really not the point. The point is that most Protestants have blurred the lines. While a couple of centuries ago there was literal war between the two and even up into the 20th century Protestant zeal was measured by hatred for Catholicism, we've pretty much laid down our arms. Catholics, Protestants, who cares? We're all alike. We're all Christians and we need to stand together. The ECT says so. Modern "tolerance" says so. Political correctness says so. Let's just get along, okay?

The question has to be asked, then, "So ... what is the difference?" You see, to simply lay down the conflict and embrace the "enemy" is somewhat foolhardy if the conflict hasn't been resolved. Has it? What are the differences between the Protestants and the Catholics? "Oh, I know, I know! Pick me!" No, it's not praying to the saints or the worship of Mary. Those are merely symptoms. We have bigger differences than that.

Authority

To the Protestant point of view, Scripture is our authority. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral includes Tradition, Reason, Experience. The problem with this "equation" is its misuse. Listing it as a "quadrilateral" suggests four equal sides. In fact, the intent was four hierarchical steps. Scripture is the first. In a four-sided shape with equal authority, it is thoroughly possible (and, in fact, has happened) that experience or reason would override Scripture and/or tradition. This is not the aim, nor is it the Protestant position. Scripture is the authority. Where Scripture is not fundamentally clear, the historical position of the Church can help. Where this isn't certain, reason might clear things up. When all three do not provide a sure answer, experience can assist. But always these secondary sources are used to understand Scripture, not to overrule it. The fundamental position of Protestant theology is sola scriptura. Scripture alone is the authority on matters of faith and practice.

To the Roman Catholic Church, the structure of authority is Scripture - Tradition - Church. In the Roman Catholic, Scripture is an authority. Tradition carries just as much weight. And the rulings of the Church, especially the pope, are just as authoritative as Scripture or Tradition. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the laity do not have the capacity to understand Scripture. This is why the Church holds such authority. They are the interpreters of Scripture. They hold that "no one, relying on his own skill, shall ... presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." Thus, to the common Christian, the practical structure of authority in matters of faith and practice is Church, Tradition, and Scripture.

Justification

To the Protestant, we are justified by faith apart from works.

To the Roman Catholic Church, we are justified by faith and works wrought by faith.

Notice that in both cases we are justified. Good. Agreement. The difference is in the method. One side works for it and, ultimately, ends up spending some time in Purgatory. Get it? Purge-atory. Because no one is simply justified. Justification in Roman Catholic theology is first and foremost achieved by baptism (which, in opposition to the Baptists, does not require immersion ... or even personal faith). But in the Protestant doctrine of justification we find faith alone as the method. Both agree that we are saved by grace through Christ. But Protestant justification is called "forensic justification". We are declared righteous by God, a substitution of our sin for Christ's righteousness, apart from works. So these are not the same thing.

These are the two primary areas of disagreement. A lot of others dance around the periphery. We do not, for instance, worship Mary or pray to saints. Beyond that, there are a lot of individual differences. Many believe that God is Sovereign in everything, including salvation. That would mean that some will surely be saved (a claim that Rome anathematizes). Many believe that God is able to sustain His own until the end (another claim anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church). Many argue that 1 John 5:13 holds that you may know that you have eternal life and the Catholic Church says that's a damnable heresy. But these areas (and many more) are debated even among Protestants.

No, those first two are the big issues. Where is the authority located? The Catholic Church says in them, their traditions, and the Scriptures. The Protestants say in Scripture alone, to which experience, reason, tradition, and the Church must be submitted for approval. And by what means are we justified? Are we justified by baptism and works of faith as the Catholics claim or are we justified by faith apart from works? No small issue. Some would argue that Catholic justification is "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). The Catholic Church has declared that justification by faith alone is a heresy and those who hold it are damned. No small issue indeed.

One last point to keep in mind. I am discussing, here, the differences in key doctrinal points between the Roman Catholic Church and those outside the Roman Catholic Church. Please be careful not to extend it beyond "the Roman Catholic Church", because in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant realm, there are many people who sit in their midsts without actually holding their doctrines. If, indeed, Roman Catholic doctrine on the means of justification is, for instance, "another gospel" -- declared by Paul to be anathema -- it would be unwise to attribute this view to all Roman Catholics blindly. I'm talking about the doctrines, not the spiritual conditions of those within. Being a Protestant doesn't make you saved. Being a Roman Catholic doesn't make you damned. It's what you believe that will determine that issue.

The Least of These

The "social justice" types who are urgently attempting to make Christianity into a "do-gooder" society and Jesus into our chief "do-gooder" will quickly point you over to Matthew 25:31-46, the "Sheep and the Goats" passage, as a quick prooftext. There we read,

"I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me." Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger and welcome You, or naked and clothe You? And when did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me" (Matt 25:35-40).

There you have it. Clearly, our marching command as Christians is to feed the hungry, welcome the strangers, clothe the poor, help the sick, and visit the prisoners. These are "the least of these", and doing so is the same as doing so to Christ Himself. How much clearer do you need it to be?

As it turns out, I have to agree. How much clearer do you need it to be? Because, you see, that's not what the text says. So let's be clear what the text says as we seek to follow the words of Christ.

The text does not refer to the generic "hungry", "stranger", "poor", "sick", or "prisoner". That's what the "social justice" advocates would have you believe. That's what they would beg you to classify as "the least of these". But that's something worse that eisegesis -- reading something into Scripture. That's simply ignoring the text. Who does Jesus say He is referring to? Read His words: "the least of these My brothers." And while there are those who would like to argue that Jesus considered all humans as His brothers, He says otherwise. "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21).

All of human life is constructed of groups. There are Jews and Gentiles, males and females, Americans and Europeans (and a host of other accompanying groups in that category). Lots of groups, depending on the context. We group people and things as a means of distinguishing them from other groups of people and things. The Bible is no exception. Groups. One group prevalent in Scripture is "brethren". This would be a group of people distinct from other groups. Jesus classified this group as "those who hear the word of God and do it". That is, this group in Matthew 25 is not "all people" or it would be a meaningless group. It is, in fact, the group of His "brothers", the same group referred to in other biblical books as "the elect" or "the chosen ones". It is believers.

Who, then, are "the least of these" believers? Well, Jesus often uses the concept of "little ones" as "the least". So, for instance, in Matthew 10 He says, "The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward" (Matt 10:41-42). There you see Jesus's heirarchy of the "most" and the "least". The higher echelon would be "a prophet". The lower would be "these little ones." The nondescript, the unknown, the servants of Christ who first belong to Christ but are not the "prophets". Your everyday Christians who hear the word of God and do it.

As it turns out, the Bible in general and Jesus in particular show a higher regard for these "brethren" than for mankind in general. He prayed for His disciples and pointedly not for everyone else (John 17:9). He told His disciples, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). That "one another" isn't "all human beings". Yes, we are commanded to love our neighbor which Jesus clearly explains is whoever is in your circle of influence. But Jesus says here that "all people" (one group) will know that His disciples (a subgroup) are His disciples by their love for one another (that same subgroup). He did not say it would be by their love for everyone.

Okay, so where do we end up? I would contend that Jesus told His disciples that they need to take care of "the least of these My brothers." His command was not to take care of everyone. We should care for people, meet needs as we see them, love our neighbors. All true. But Jesus commands that we should be showing special attention to those who belong to Christ. "Oh, good," someone might say, "so we're not required to be giving to everyone; just Christians in need." As if that's easier? Or, let me ask it this way: Are you doing it? Because whoever does not do it to the least of the believers is failing to do it to Christ.

The Coming Apocalypse

You can hardly go anywhere these days without some reference to zombies. The CDC has a page on "Zombie Preparedness". The Bristol City Council (U.K.) detailed specific plans on how to prepare for a zombie apocalypse. The security company, HALO Corp., has started training personnel from the military, police, medical, and federal workers on dealing with zombies. Even the Department of Homeland Security declared "The zombies are coming!" Yada, yada, yada.

So, I ask myself, what is a zombie? "Oh, that's easy," the well-informed suburbanite tells me. "It's a drink made from rum, citrus juice, and apricot liqueur." Now, come on. What is a zombie? As it turns out, the concept of a zombie was not originally that of a dead person alive. It was a snake god worshiped in West Indian and Brazilian religious practices of African origin. On a website called Zombiesdefined there is a page on zombie origins. (Thanks, guys.) That page traces the evolution from Haitian African-American Voodoo (okay, to be accurate, they assure us that it's more correctly "Vodou") to modern day flesh-eating fiends. The original "zombies" from Haiti were drug-induced. It was believed that witchdoctors applied neurotoxins that imitated death and then brought them back later to own their souls. The University of Michigan has an interesting history on the subject primarily from movies (because, let's face it, that's the only place you're going to get any information on this concept). The first movie on the topic was the 1932 White Zombie. Of course, that one had a much less malevolent version. Zombies from Haiti were mindless folk who did what their masters commanded. No eating of brains. No "horde" or even "apocalypse". In fact, prior to 1960 zombies never really left Haiti. In 1961 they started becoming more sinister with titles like I Eat Your Skin, but it was Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968) that put it over the top. Now zombies were mindless dead cannibals who spread their disease by biting their victims ... you know, like vampires or werewolves. Oh, wait ... so we've managed to combine them all now? By now they're insatiable, unthinking, reanimated dead people (who, ironically, can be killed) bent solely on eating those who are not insatiable, unthinking, reanimated dead people (because apparently the brains of zombies aren't as tasty and nutritious?). And they're getting faster! Romero had them as slow, shuffling things, but Dawn of the Dead and Zombieland fans can tell you that they're much quicker, much more aggressive, much more deadly than ever before.

Zombies, then, have evolved, but the concept has managed to touch on a host of human fears. They started with a loss of will and consciousness, robbing them of humanity while still in human form. A horrible form of slavery, where even death doesn't free you. They progressed to complete amorality, indulging purely in their singular desires without any regard for family, friend, or moral responsibility. They spread their disease by mixing body fluids (can you say, "STDs") inexoribly and without containment. Now there is the common concept of the "zombie apocalypse" -- including the new film, World War Z coming soon -- where the living dead overpower the few remaining humans and we're all in a heap of trouble for sure.

Of course, despite the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Bristol City Council (all of which, to be quite fair, are using the "zombie apocalypse" idea to simple preach emergency preparation and not that there are real zombies), we all know that it's a myth. There are no zombies. Look around you. I'm pretty sure you won't find hordes of living dead, people without minds intent only on satisfying their own cravings without regard to morality or family or other considerations and never actually finding satisfaction for their cravings, but always seeking to take more and more from those around them without any apparent will of their own, serving only the will of their masters, and infecting all those around them. It just doesn't happen. Or ... does it? Well, okay, maybe, but now you're scaring me.

As a postscript, I was researching famous quotes from really bad people and came across this gem:

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. - Adolph Hitler

From the mouth of a zombie master.

Struggling with Sin

The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.

What we need to do, of course, is shoot him . . . And if he doesn't stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, ‘til we’re home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God's plan.

What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God's pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy. (Source)

_____________
^{Note 1} I didn't actually name the source, but gave a link to it because some people might take offense at the source before ever considering the position.

^{Note 2} It is my conviction that there is no source that is unimpeachable. Even Jesus has His naysayers. How much more the humans who are not Jesus? And there are a sufficient number of "Discernment Ministry" types who "have the gift of discernment" sufficient to weed out every single evil person on the planet ... which, as it turns out, is every single person on the planet.

^{Note 3} The point? Read the thoughts. Examine the ideas. Evaluate the position. Don't worry about who said it. Who said it, in this instance, doesn't matter.

Generational Praise

¹ A Psalm of Praise, of David.
I will extol You, my God, O King,
And I will bless Your name forever and ever.
² Every day I will bless You,
And I will praise Your name forever and ever.
³ Great is the LORD, and highly to be praised,
And His greatness is unsearchable.
⁴ One generation shall praise Your works to another,
And shall declare Your mighty acts.
⁵ On the glorious splendor of Your majesty
And on Your wonderful works, I will meditate.
⁶ Men shall speak of the power of Your awesome acts,
And I will tell of Your greatness.
⁷ They shall eagerly utter the memory of Your abundant goodness
And will shout joyfully of Your righteousness.
⁸ The LORD is gracious and merciful;
Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.
⁹ The LORD is good to all,
And His mercies are over all His works.
¹⁰ All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD,
And Your godly ones shall bless You (Psa 145:1-10).

I like this psalm. All of it, actually. I like things like "The LORD sustains all who fall" (v 14) and "The LORD is near to all who call upon Him" (v 18). Good stuff. I was struck, though, with this particular portion: "One generation shall praise Your works to another, and shall declare Your mighty acts." Yes, God is good. Yes, He is "highly to be praised." Yes, His works declare His glory. But this notion of generational praise is fascinating.

We parents have a duty to teach our kids. It's important. And it's way too neglected today. Too many parents think they can hand their kids off to schools -- even good schools -- and Sunday School or church and get them educated. But the Bible doesn't list schools and churches as the primary party responsible for teaching kids. It's parents. In fact, it is, first, fathers.

Okay, okay, so we know we have to teach our kids. So we send them to church and school and we monitor it carefully and we see that they learn the necessary facts and we teach them to respect authority and honor their parents and reverence God and all this good stuff. But do we teach them to praise? Do we teach them, by open example and explicit effort, to worship God?

According to David, if "one generation shall praise Your works to another", the result is God's mighty acts are declared and "Men shall speak of the power of Your awesome acts." Word gets out. God's Name is proclaimed. God's people bless Him. It is contagious.

We're pretty good at teaching our kids to complain about the political mess or the state of the church or whatever other pet peeve we might have. Today, let's see if we can work on teaching our kids to praise God's works. Doing it yourself would be a good start. Doing it explicitly with your children is a good thing. God is certainly praiseworthy. This should be easy. It might even become a habit.

Serious Question

This is a serious question. I don't really know the answer. And I'm baffled.

They tell me that "I knew since I was five years old that I was attracted to people of the same sex as me." They tell me that "I knew when I was 8 (or 2 or 18 months) that I was a man/woman trapped in a woman's/man's body." They tell me they knew all this at a very young age.

Now, I have to be honest. I didn't know I was "attracted to people" at all of any sex until I was nearly a teenager. So on what basis do these people know at an age that would logically suggest is "pre-sexual" that they have sexual desires for ... anything? I really don't know.

And I've known effeminate males and tomboys of a variety of ages that never did know "I was a man/woman trapped in a woman's/man's body". They were just "prissy" guys or "tough" girls who went on to be normal folk. So what is it that tells a 2-year-old or an 8-year-old that they're in the "wrong body" and not just more feminine or masculine than some of their peers?

These are, basically, the same question. It appears that there is a group of people much earlier connected to sexuality than most humans. Children, in my experience, aren't much aware or concerned about sexual attraction or gender. Well, girls are pretty yucky to boys, perhaps, but sex is not an issue. So I'm baffled how it is that there is this apparent group of people who know at such an early age what didn't occur to me or the rest of us until much later. What is it that makes this so?

Jesus Never Said ...

Recently I wrote about When Jesus and Paul Disagree. I claimed, of course, that they didn't. In fact, I hold that if Jesus was God Incarnate and the Bible is God's Word, then the entire Bible is what Jesus would teach and they cannot disagree. Fine. Well, for many. In that piece, I mentioned the "red letter Christians", people who have decided that the really important verses are the ones that came from the lips of Christ (even though Jesus never said, "Now, John, when you write about this, and you will, make sure you write My words in red ink" -- the "red letter" version is an opinion, and a fairly modern one). There are those just off that fringe of "We only care about what Jesus actually said" who would argue "We interpret Scripture through Jesus's words." Subtle difference? Perhaps.

In these two camps you'll find those who argue "Jesus never said" and then proceed to tell you that He never talked about homosexual behavior, "gay marriage", premarital sex, or whatever other favorite hot topic is at hand. As if "Jesus never said" is proof that He had no opinion on the given topic. It's too easy to take that apart, of course, because I know of no Christian who would argue, "Jesus never said child molesting was wrong, so it's perfectly moral." Jesus never said a lot of things. He never said anything about rape, bestiality, polygamy, church polity ... all sorts of things. Not a good argument.

In this "We interpret Scripture through Jesus's words" mindset, though, a related realization occurred to me. You see, Jesus didn't talk about homosexual behavior (as an example) because that had already been covered (Lev 18; 20) and would be covered again (Rom 1; 1 Cor 6; 1 Tim 1). The question was not at hand, so He was not answering it. But if we're going to interpret Scripture through the lens of Christ's words, there will be one very serious gap in your Bible: grace.

Isn't that interesting? Jesus never once used the word. There is nothing from the lips of Christ about "saved by grace" or "justified by grace" or anything like it. John used the word in John 1:14-17 describing the origin of grace in Christ and Luke tells us that God's grace was on His Son in His childhood (Luke 2:40), but the word never comes out of Jesus's recorded words. Indeed, what was Jesus preaching? "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt 4:17; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:1-5).

What, then, are we to conclude? Well, if you are going to be true to "We interpret Scripture through Jesus's words", you're going to have to do something new and different with "grace". If you don't throw it out entirely, you're going to have to minimize it, since apparently Jesus did^*. We don't really get a full explanation of just what biblical grace is until Romans 11 where Paul explains that grace is God's favor apart from works (Rom 11:6). But if we're going to filter Scripture through Jesus's words as our guide, we're going to have a problem with the basic premise of the Gospel, that we are saved by grace through faith.

What Jesus said is important. No doubt. His words are key. But always remember that Jesus occupied four of the 66 books in our Bibles. On the other hand, if Scripture is God-breathed and Jesus is God, all Scripture is the Word of Christ and should be treated with diligence and respect. Of course, that makes the "We interpret Scripture through Jesus's words" concept a little redundant since all Scripture is Jesus's words. So, good start. Now, let's get to work understanding what He meant.
________
^* Note that since I don't ascribe to the "Jesus never said" or the like kind of view, I don't actually believe that Jesus minimized grace. I think there were very good reasons He didn't teach on it. I think that grace didn't come into play until He died and was resurrected. I think the Jews needed to hear more "repent" and less "grace". I think that Jesus came to fulfill the law and grace apart from the law would have detracted from it. And, of course, I believe that all of God's Word is Jesus's Word and, thus, it was a key part of the Gospel ... later.

Change is Coming

The Sexual Revolution of the '60's didn't change anyone's marriage, right? No one was told they had to engage in sex before marriage. If you believed you shouldn't, don't. It didn't affect you; only those who wanted something different. Today, of course, such a concept isn't odd -- it's crazy. Marry someone you haven't had sex with? How does that make any sense? How do you know if you're compatible? The Sexual Revolution didn't change marriage, at the outset, but it fed the natural tendency to engage in sexual sin whenever one so chose. It removed the stigma of society for such sin. As a result, in 1960 4% of single mothers had never been married; now 58% of first time mothers are not married. What is the correlation of sex and marriage? Nothing, really. Why do you ask? In a movie about a cohabiting couple planning to get married, the pastor going to marry them required premarital counseling. One of his instructions to the husband-to-be was "On your honeymoon, act surprised." Indeed. Oh, yes, the Sexual Revolution, despite the fact that it didn't need to change marriage, has certainly changed marriage. It removed the need for commitment and fed the human desire for self-gratification over a lifelong connection. And it fed the notion that marriage was about "compatibility". That, in turn, has altered the entire landscape for families, originally predicated on a mother and father that stay together and raise children. Now, not so much.

No-fault divorce didn't change anyone's marriage, right? I mean, it didn't require anyone to divorce, right? So what did it do? It fed the natural tendency to flight when times get tough. It approved the human desire to avoid the problem rather than the marriage demand that we figure it out. Did it change marriage? Absolutely! And together the Sexual Revolution and the no-fault divorce have worked to drop marriage rates to dangerously low levels. The age of first marriage is up. The rates of cohabitation without marriage is way up. Since marriage doesn't offer family, stability, or commitment, why bother? Oh, yes, marriage has changed.

In this vein, "gay marriage" is just the next step. The concept of "gay marriage" is certainly a new shift in definition. Argue it all you want, but facts are facts and anyone who is honest will admit it. "We're not changing it; we're just expanding it." As if expansion isn't a change. Will it change marriage for you and me? On the face, like the Sexual Revolution and no-fault divorce, no. But that is an extremely shortsighted view. And they know it. In The Atlantic, Liza Mundy assured us that marriage will change. We can learn from the "better" version found in homosexual unions. These unions help remove gender differences and gender stereotypes. The offer "genderless marriage". They erase the traditional roles of husband and wife, father and mother, wage-earner and homemaker. They reestablish the lines -- "yours and mine" rather than "our money" and the like. They free up that pesky "long slog 'til death" perception and make marriages more about fun (and impermanence). And that whole monogamy thing? Oh, that has to go. In one study, 15% of husbands admitted to adultery while 58% of gay males in civil unions and 61% of gay men in relationships admitted to sex outside the relationship. You know, if we could just do away with that whole "one marriage-one sex partner" concept, I bet we could combine the Sexual Revolution, the no-fault divorce effect, and the "gay marriage" redefinition to really make something "21st century" out of this thing we call "marriage". Look, if we're really careful here, I bet we could really make "marriage" into something completely new and different. No more monogamy. Complete sexual freedom. No more gender. No more kids. No more permanence. Why, we could ... define it away completely!

This isn't good. The truth is that the notion of "traditional marriage" is really no longer available. You may want to cling to a "husband and wife and children for life" concept, but you'd be a freak. The surrender and compromise and work such an existence would take is just not for the 21st century American. Or European, I suppose. Will the redefinition to "gay marriage" change marriage? Sure. It will change it to something much less resembling marriage than ever before. And down the road when you try to explain to your kids what marriage traditionally means, they'll see you as a loon. Like people do today when I argue that marriage always aimed at children. Crazy talk! Now if only we could erase all that "marriage" stuff from the Bible. Then it would be a non-issue, right? I mean, then who would care except, maybe, God and who really cares what His opinion is? I do. But I'm on the outside looking in. I just hope and pray that Christ in His union with His Bride doesn't choose to incorporate this fickle, self-serving, self-centered, non-sacrificial version of marriage.

So?

It's a question that no one seems to ask. While the debate continues about the definition of marriage and the morality of homosexual behavior, there doesn't seem to be anyone asking, "So ... what?" What does it matter? What difference will it make?

The argument continues, it seems, because one side believes it is something to be cherished and protected and the other believes it is an immoral behavior. Simple as that. But, for just a moment, let's consider. What if we were to decide, by divine fiat or popular vote or whatever, that the Bible is accurate and the behavior is, indeed, immoral. What then?

Well, I suppose there are those who fear that it would then be outlawed or something. You know, like how we all agreed that premarital sex was immoral 50 years ago and that was outlawed at the time, right? Oh, wait, no, that wasn't the case. Well, it was stigmatized, so no one did it. Debatable, but it is just as moral today as it was then and look at what's going on now. Indeed, if the belief is that those who argue that the behavior is immoral are aiming to outlaw it if they can, now I'm a bit frightened. The belief, then, would be that "We should outlaw those who we deem immoral." And since they believe that we who believe it is immoral are immoral, then should we anticipate that we will be outlawed?

Of course, I don't actually believe that. Nor am I aware of anyone who believes it is immoral who would actually like to make it illegal. Oh, I suppose there are those on the fringe of the "gay rights" side who would like to outlaw the Christian view just as there are those on the fringe of those who consider it immoral who could potentially wish to pass laws on the subject. But I don't know anyone. On either side.

So ... what? Why is there such a fight? Why is it that my position that the behavior is immoral is such an affront? I'm frankly having a hard time figuring that out. I don't rationally believe they think I want to outlaw them. I don't think it's reasonable for me to believe that they would think I would curtail their activities. I've never suggested any such thing. I will vote to protect marriage, but what does that matter when the tide of public opinion is in their favor? And I'm not much concerned about others who think my particular stance is immoral. That doesn't bother me. It's okay for them to be wrong. So why would they care if I continue to hold and express my view that this particular behavior is immoral?

I don't really have an answer. The possible responses all sound too much like a conspiracy theory or a de facto religious response. "They want to silence us!" or "God is nagging them that we're right." That kind of thing. I'm not saying these are wrong, but they just sound too much like ... too much. Believing as I do that homosexual behavior (for example) is a sin, indeed, an abomination to God, I have never suggested or even thought that the proper response was criminalization, censure, or death (or whatever other evils some might guess). I've always believed that sin is simply a product of a sin nature and that people need Christ. On the other hand, it is fairly common to hear about folk who receive death threats for stating the position I hold. The responses don't match. I would say, "Your behavior is sin and you need Jesus." They would say, "Your position is wrong and you need to die." Doesn't seem ... equal.

So ... what? What is it? What causes the furor? What is it about people like me holding and expressing my view that makes people want us dead? I really don't get it. I have my own theories, but I won't venture to guess. Maybe you have an idea.

Disagreeing Disagreeably

• Stupid
• Immature
• Selfish
• Arrogant
• Immoral
• Whiny
• Pathetic
• Fundamentalist
• Extremist

Welcome to the most recent set of descriptives offered regarding various Christian views. Well, a short list at least. (I won't print some of the more "colorful" terms.) These carefully honed "arguments" suggest that anyone who has these despised Christian views does not deserve to speak. By presenting these fine invectives without substantiation, support, evidence, or rationale it can be demonstrated that people who hold these views are, well, wrong. End of discussion.

Interestingly, it seems as if this type of response is often offered 1) without additional argumentation or evidence to support an alternative view and 2) comes from those who complain that people who do hold these Christian views are "mean-spirited" and "contentious". (Said with the '70's hippy voice) "Embrace grace, man!"

I would suggest that this kind of argument is not only a logical fallacy (ad hominem abusive), but not particularly helpful in discussions or dialogs. It is likely to terminate debate, but that doesn't prove anything, does it?

I really appreciated a conversation with someone recently in which we disagreed. He said, "You're wrong and here's why." I responded, "Well, I think I'm right and here's where I disagree with your arguments." We went back and for several times and, in the end, he had what I would consider to be a great response.

This last post of yours makes more sense to me. It's not one that I believe most Christians would be confortable with (which is why, as you pointed out, most will stick with the all-loving version of God), but I think as a part of a general morality/justice/etc it is at least cohesive; not contradictory as I had thought. Thanks for clarifying.

No, he didn't agree with me. No, I didn't sway him. But he had sufficient character to recognize that I wasn't stupid, immature, selfish, arrogant, immoral, or any of the rest. He just didn't agree. I appreciated that.

I've disagreed with people. (What a shock, eh?) I prefer the soft answer that turns away wrath, but I've disagreed strongly with people at times. But I'd much rather avoid character assassination. I've never suggested retaliation let alone carried it out, as have many detractors of those who agree with me. I've suggested that certain behaviors are sin, but I've never threatened those who do it, unlike many who have offered death threats to those who hold my view. This is disagreeable disagreement, unbecoming a human let alone one who calls him or herself a Christian.

Can't we all just get along? No, I suppose not. But I'm willing to discuss rationally and biblically and to disagree agreeably. Does that make me stupid or just arrogant?

Wisdom from C.S. Lewis

If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory.)

Are you "far too easily pleased"?

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

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

With that David reflects on God's intimate connection with his very being from the womb to every day. "In Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them" (Psa 139:16).

It's in moments like these that science is a real friend. We see the ordinary, but science delves into the remarkable. Science tells us that your heart keeps beating and lungs keep breathing automatically because your brain does it involuntarily. It tells us that the heart pumps blood utilizing complex systems of respiration, circulation, and filtration to provide the necessary components throughout the body. An intelligent and microscopic immune system knows "self" and "not self" and remembers how to deal with various "not self" conditions. Cells work as complicated factories complete with shipping and receiving, production, and transportation of highly specialized operations. And the brain ... the brain is still beyond real comprehension. The human body is a supremely balanced, masterfully designed machine -- fearfully and wonderfully made.

When you woke up this morning, did you thank God for your body? David thought it was an excellent launch platform for praise to the Maker. From either the mirror or the microscope, I would agree.

I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

Unbiased

I'm still reading Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (Give me a break. This is a 7-volume book.) In the process of trying to follow it (because it is so much book), I've been accessing other sources. I tried out Wikipedia for a synopsis.

According to Wikipedia, "Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire."

Now, that's odd. I mean, sure, I'm only on Volume 05 and all, but the Roman Empire has fallen (West) and I read something like that ... but not quite. It didn't seem to say what Wikipedia said.

According to Gibbon, "As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire."

Are these two the same thing? Or is there a difference between "Christianity" and "the abuse of Christianity"?

You would like to think that there are unbiased sources. You would like to think that something like Wikipedia would, as a mixing pot of a variety of sources, offer just such a source. But clearly the two are not the same and it seems obvious that the author of the Wikipedia article is presenting a personal, anti-Christian bias in this text. Because the two are not the same. Wikipedia says it was caused by Christianity and Gibbon says it was caused by an abuse of Christianity. You know, not the same at all.

Just keep in mind that everyone has biases. I do. So do you. Don't fall for that "unbiased" suggestion. In fact, it has its own biases, doesn't it?

When Jesus and Paul Disagree

In a recent dialog on this blog it was suggested, perhaps indirectly, that Paul and Jesus might have disagreed on something that is part of our Bible. The topic (not relevant to this discussion -- just for clarification) was whether or not it was possible to be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. The post cited Paul (among others). A commenter cited Jesus. Ergo, it would appear that Jesus and Paul disagreed on the topic of capital punishment, with Paul falling on the "pro" side and Jesus clearly standing opposed.

What to do when Jesus and Paul (or any other Scripture) disagree? How do we decide which was right? Well, that's easy, isn't it? The Son of God would be right and anyone who disagrees with Him would be wrong. Problem solved. Or is it?

Have you heard of "red letter Christians"? That's a cute way of indicating those people who classify themselves as Christians by taking those red-letter texts -- you know, the ones that Jesus said -- as absolutely true and setting the rest aside as questionable at best. Those who think like that are fine with my decision-making process above.

So who would not be fine with it? Well, Paul, for starters. He's the one who wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). So if Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1:1-3), then all Scripture is, technically, the words of Jesus. (Remember, John refers to Him as "the Logos", the Word, the actual expression of God.) Even Paul's. Peter held that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So if all Scripture is God-breathed, then what Paul wrote is just as much Jesus's words as what the red letter versions put up as Jesus's words. And, of course, Jesus held the Old Testament as Scripture, so that would be just as much Jesus's words as anything in the New Testament.

What do I do when Jesus and Paul disagree? Nothing, really. Because, well, they don't. So the problem isn't them. The problem is me. That's when I back up and figure out where I made the wrong turn. And, as it turns out, I usually find it pretty easily. But pitting Scripture against Scripture -- even Jesus against Paul or Peter or anyone else -- is a bad option if you're going to take Scripture seriously. Countering a Scripture with a Scripture is all well and good as long as you plan to make them agree. Proving that Scripture contradicts someone's point of view is just fine. Arguing that Scripture contradicts Scripture -- that Jesus contradicts Paul -- proves something that won't help you at all.

When Worlds Collide

A lot of the intramural debate in Christianity focuses on the word "world". The word, they tell me, is found some 187 times in the New Testament. You will find it in a variety of places. You will find that God "so loved the world" (John 3:16). You will learn that Jesus "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). We are warned not to "love the world or the things in the world" (1 John 2:15), and that "all that is in the world ... is not from the Father" (1 John 2:16). We should not be surprised "that the world hates you" (1 John 3:13). Yet, we find that Christ did not come "into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:17). (That was three times in one sentence.) And that's just a sampling. Oddly enough, the New Testament almost never uses the word "world" to mean the Earth. It means something else. But that's okay. We all know what it is. It's ... what? "World means world," they tell me. I'm not so sure it's that easy, and I'm not trying to be difficult here.

Look at some examples. Take, for instance, John 1:10. Speaking of Christ, John says, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him." So, "world means world," right? So does it mean "the earth" or "all people" or perhaps "the sinful world system"? Because all of those can be meanings intended in Scripture and none of them fit in all three places.

"He was on the earth, and the earth was made through Him, yet the earth did not know Him." Well, yes, He was on the earth and the earth was made by Him, but there is no sense in which "the earth" can actually know anyone, so that doesn't work.

"He was amongst all people, and all people were made through Him, yet all people did not know Him." Well, He was sort of amongst "all people", except for all of us and, oh, I don't know, anyone outside of Palestine at the time or any other time. Sure, all people were made through Him, but it is not true that all people did not know Him. I mean, there are some who get saved, right?

"He was in the sinful world system, and the sinful world system was made through Him, yet the sinful world system did not know Him." The first and last clause, perhaps, work, but not that middle one. (I don't really like the first one, either.) The Incarnate Son of God did not make the sinful world system. That was our doing.

Nope, those don't work. Somewhere along the way each of those fails to fit.

How about John 3:17? "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him."

"For God did not send His Son into the earth to condemn the earth, but in order that the earth might be saved through Him." No, the earth was not condemnable (No, I didn't just make that word up) because the earth is inanimate. Nor is the earth to be saved.

"For God did not send His Son to all people to condemn all people, but in order that all people might be saved through Him." That was working pretty well right up until "all people might be saved through Him" ... since not all people are saved through Him.

"For God did not send His Son into the sinful world system to condemn the sinful world system, but in order that the sinful world system might be saved through Him." Indeed, the sinful world system is condemned, and it is not going to be saved.

Here, consider this problem. In Rom 5:12 we learn that "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned." See? There was no death prior to Adam's sin. But wait! In 2 Peter 3:5-6 we read, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." Well, there it is, plain as day. Since "world means world", the "world" referred to in Romans 5 is not the same one as the one referred to in 2 Peter 3. The latter says there was a previous world ("the world that then existed") and that one was wiped out to make a new world, the world we now know. See? Easy answers for Evolutionists and against Young-Earthers! Never heard that one before, did you? But there it is in the pages of your Bible, so it must be true. That is, if you're willing to simply argue that "world means world".

As it turns out, there are multiple uses of the Greek term, kosmos, and while they are almost always translated "world", there is no sense in which you can claim "world means world". The word itself refers to any orderly system and may mean the universe, the Earth, the sinful world system, humans (sometimes as a whole, sometimes humans minus believers, sometimes a lot of humans but not all), the elect, the non-elect, Jews and Gentiles (in contrast to just Jews), or even the general public (as opposed to private individuals or groups). How is that for starters? So do your due diligence. Examine the text, the context, the sense of it. How does it correlate to the rest of Scripture? (It has to correlate, not contradict. Don't let your "worlds" collide.) Do your homework. As people of the Word, we owe it to God to properly understand His Word. And don't fall for that simplistic "world means world" idea as if "We're taking it literally; what are you doing?" The aim is to take it as written, and that's not always immediately obvious. Do the work. It's worth it.

Chasing the Laser Dot

Anyone who has ever had a cat or has access to the Internet has likely seen any number of times that a cat will chase a laser dot. You know how it goes. That shiny spot drives them crazy. Everything else goes away and they must catch the dot ... which doesn't actually exist except as a single image. It's not a "thing". It's not like it has some substance they can use or that there is something they will gain by catching it. We use it with our cat to lure her out of the bedroom at night. It is a great way to distract any cat any time.

Or a Christian.

Consider, for instance, the abortion question. Our position is simple -- human life is valuable. It is worth protecting and saving. We are in favor of human life. In comes the laser dot. "Oh? Well, what about cases of rape?" Do you see how that is not part of the question? Do you see how it does not address the issue? And if you can answer, however you answer, you will not have gained anything of substance. "What about a woman's right to choose???" Another laser dot. Not the point. Not at issue. "So you don't care about women's health issues??!!" Still not the point. Still a distraction intended to offer you something where you think if you can meet their requirements you can gain a foothold without realizing you're chasing a laser dot.

Or how about the whole homosexuality question? We'll take our stand on Scripture. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans, Corinthians, Timothy -- it is abundantly clear to anyone who wishes to read it that the Bible has a singular stand on the subject, and it's not favorable. That particular behavior is a sin, something that God considers abominable, depraved, worthy of damnation. And in comes the laser dot to lure you off subject. "But if they're born that way, doesn't that mean that God made them that way and it's good?" The premise is questionable and the question is horrible and we still chase it down as if it's something, as if it is substantive, as if we can gain something by answering it. Or, perhaps just as popular these days, "My son/daughter/aunt/nephew is gay." As if the fact that it's a relative will alter Scripture or God's opinion. "Oh, well," God booms from heaven, "I never thought about it in those terms. Thanks for clearing that up for Me. I've changed My mind. It's not abominable." But we'll chase the dot anyway, trying to satisfy the objections of people intent only on distracting us from the starting point.

Close behind that is the whole "gay marriage" lunacy. It's lunacy because it is now in the Supreme Court and part of the laws of some of our states and it doesn't exist. All biblical references to marriage are in terms of male and female. No biblical references to marriage include same-sex couples. All biblical references to same-sex sexual relations indicate that it is morally abhorrent. No biblical reference offers a positive statement. Beyond that, all of human history and all of Church history has held that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as the fundamental component of any society. So what is the laser dot being thrown our way? "Marriage equity." It's even on church signs. "Marriage equality is for everyone." What? In what world does that make sense? No one actually believes that. But instead of standing your ground on the standard, universal, historical, biblical definition of marriage, we're required to chase down this new laser dot and explain why we're opposed to equal protection and equity. No explanation will serve to satisfy that demand except to give up history, tradition, and Scripture. Any stance on history, tradition, and Scripture is labeled hateful and anti-something. But here we are, still chasing that dot.

Christianity itself is full of these distractions. Take a stand for Christianity and you will surely be thrown, for instance, the errors of Christians. "Oh, my parents were Christians and they did horrible things." "Oh, yeah? What about the whole Crusades thing? How do you defend Christianity for that?" "Really? You think Christianity is a good thing? How can you even associate yourself with those hateful Westboro Baptist folk and their hateful ways?" Everyone, even genuine Christians, it seems, has an anecdote of what Christians done them wrong. And it's a laser dot. A distraction. Something without substance which, when caught, evaporates in your hands without any aid to your cause. None of it detracts from Christianity and no answers can explain why things done counter to Christ should make people view Christianity in a positive light. Because it's not Christianity. And then there's that whole exclusivity thing. "How can you possibly say that yours is the only way???!!!" Okay, well, maybe that's not as much of a laser dot issue. I mean, it's a fact. And the only rational one. Still, the question isn't offered on the basis of genuine curiosity. It is offered as a distraction, a laser dot, to make you chase down another empty target while they lead you out of the Gospel and into a pointless debate.

Are there answers to these dots? Sure. Are there people who genuinely want answers? I suppose. A few. But you must realize that for the vast majority of the times you are asked to discuss these issues, you are being played. These are distractions, smoke screens, laser dots. You'll diligently and with all your might chase down this exciting new thing and, with both hands wrapped tightly around the point, find you've run out on the actual issue to pursue things without substance whose actual answers don't persuade anyone. Just like my cat ... who now finds herself locked out of the bedroom just before bed time. Sigh. Again.

Free Kate

Have you heard about this horrendous injustice wrought in Florida? Apparently Kaitlyn Hunt is an 18-year-old high school cheerleader who was charged with having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old high school classmate (female). She has been expelled for the behavior and is facing two counts in Florida of "lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12 to 16."

Can you imagine? What's wrong with these people in Florida? Apparently they're just haters. On their support website to "Free Kate" (to which I won't link as a courtesy) commenters are saying encouraging things like, "high school romance, and nothing more", "Its [sic] sad that this is what our world has come to." and "It might be time to ... hunt the religious extremists." Nice.

So, we've come to this. Morality is determined by "What I want to do" and not much else. The law is irrelevant. Age is not a factor. Gender may be a factor if a male is involved, I suppose, but if it is two girls involved in a case of "lewd and lascivious battery on a child", it ought to be legal and, hey, while we're at it, endorsed! Embrace grace, man! Embrace love! (Well, I suppose if we're talking about consensual sexual relations between a 40-year-old male and a 12-year-old male, that has to still be wrong, right? On what basis I'm not entirely sure, but, it is, isn't it?) Whatever the case, it's not about law and it's not about morality and it's not about right or wrong. We've arrived at the purest of dichotomies where we love and abhor the law. We love it when it gives us what we want (like "equal protection") and hate it when we don't (like "license for statutory rape"). And the primary method of getting what you want is to call those who refuse you "haters", "homophobes", or even (cover your ears, Mom) rightwing fundamentalist Christians. Now those ought to be shot.

Memorial Day, 2013

The celebration of Memorial Day began ... some time ago. It started out in individual cities recognizing those who gave their lives in our nation's service. It was in the South where women's groups decorated graves at the end of the Civil War. In May of 1868 General John Logan issued orders to official honor the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers. New York was the first state to recognize the holiday in 1873. And it kept spreading from there.

World War I brought a new set of honorees. Groups sprang up who used the occasion to raise money for needy servicemen and war orphans. Americans proudly honored our fallen soldiers, sailors, and Marines (and, later, airmen).

Today, Memorial Day is largely a celebration of the arrival of summer and barbecue season. If we remember those who have died in the defense of our freedom, we often do so with apathy at best and, too often, disdain. It seems as if giving your life for a noble cause is a bad thing in a society where getting is most highly prized.

So I'll make this short. Don't forget those who have given their lives so that you can enjoy the freedoms you enjoy. Don't forget the price of freedom. And don't forget to be grateful for the freedoms you have that were so dearly bought. Today would be a good day for that. Hey, maybe you could have a barbecue in honor of that remembrance? Just a thought.

Give Thanks to the LORD

Oh give thanks to the LORD, call upon His name;
Make known His deeds among the peoples.
Sing to Him, sing praises to Him;
Speak of all His wonders.
Glory in His holy name;
Let the heart of those who seek the LORD be glad.
Seek the LORD and His strength;
Seek His face continually.
Remember His wonders which He has done,
His marvels and the judgments uttered by His mouth (Psa 105:1-5)

Wait ... hold on ... I mean, I was following along just fine until you got to "Remember His wonders ... and the judgments uttered by His mouth." Are you sure you want to go there? I mean that's not a pleasant thing, is it?

The psalmist thinks it is. Ranked up there with His wonders and glories, His strength and His marvels, are His judgments. That's a good thing. It's a reason to give thanks, to rejoice, to sing, to speak, to glory in His name. I would recommend we side with Him on this.

Oh give thanks to the LORD. Today would be a good time. And don't forget to thank Him for His wonders and deeds, His marvels and strength, and, yes, His judgments. While you're at it, you can ask Him for some help getting that straight in your head because I'm sure we all need a little help with that. "I believe, Lord. Help Thou my unbelief."

A Baby Question

In my day it was never a question whether or not a married couple would have children. Oh, sure, there were a few rare ones, but it was not the norm to question whether or not to have children. Indeed, it was not even the question of when. When I was a kid, contraception was relatively new on the scene as an acceptable thing, so having children early in marriage was expected. And "Honey, the doctor says I'm pregnant" was typically not bad news.

Today? Not so much. Many still plan to have children "someday" (without an actual, definite definition of "someday"), but "We're focusing on our marriage right now." There are other things more important at the moment. Save for a house, finish school, pay off loans, establish a career, you know. "We want children eventually, but we can't afford them right now. Right now we're taking care of us." Very common. Very wise. At least in the popular perception. (But, of course, in the popular perception, "No, we don't ever want to have kids; too much demand" is equally wise.)

I started thinking about this. (It's an easy one for me. I have four kids.) Christians are (or should be) "pro-life". That is, we are convinced that we are made in the image of God and, as such, come into this world with nearly infinite worth just by being humans in the image of God. Further, Christians (any Christians who have bothered to read their Bibles) know that the Bible is uniformly positive on the topic of children. They are a blessing, a gift from God, a prime purpose for marriage, the next generation, and so on. There is not a hint in all of Scripture regarding anything like "You should wait to have children until you're ready, you know? Make sure you're financially secure and emotionally prepared." None of today's wisdom on the subject as far as holding off having kids is found in the pages of the Bible.

So, here's my "baby question". If the Bible is universally in favor of children for married people and if we believe that there is genuine and deep value in life, in human life, in the image of God found in people (including every single baby), then why would any couple wish to delay that event? In what sense is "We want to be more comfortable/capable/settled/whatever" a reasonable concept in delaying the blessing and value of children? That is, if children really are God's blessing and of such value, how could you not make every effort to have and afford them? Remember Jesus's treasure-in-the-field parable (Matt 13:44)?

Like I said, just a question. I wonder if our "We can't afford kids right now" concept isn't more of an indication of a serious problem of priorities rather than wise thinking. Sometimes it seems like we have imbibed too much of the world's "wisdom" which the Bible calls foolishness and I'm wondering if this isn't one of those times.

Pro-Life and the Death Penalty

In her 20 minutes in front of the jury of her peers to plead for her life, Jodi Arias made a variety of suggestions as to why she shouldn't be executed for the premeditated and brutal murder of her boyfriend. She was a nice person, you see. Why, she donated her hair to Locks of Love for wigs for cancer patients. She wanted to sell t-shirts and give the proceeds to organizations for battered women. She wanted to teach fellow inmates to speak Spanish. I mean, how could you execute such a good person? One of the more interesting arguments she made went something like this. "I'm going to spend the rest of my life in prison. It can be a long time or a short time. You decide if it's a short time. So the only ones that will suffer if it's a short time will be my family because I'll be dead. So I beg you not to hurt my family like that. I want the healing to begin for everyone." Sigh. It kind of makes you want to hug her and say, "Look, Jodi, we're sorry for convicting you of that heinous crime, and the fact that you're currently the most hated woman in America is all wrong." Kind of. Or not.

Jodi, however, raises the question. Really? Execution? How is that helpful? How is that just? How does that punish the guilty? And, more importantly, how can a pro-life person stand for it? I mean, look at the Gosnell case. We're pro-life and opposed to doing what he did -- killing babies -- and we're suggesting he ought to be killed for doing it. Oh, wait. Does that work? Does it? Indeed, statistically it appears that almost all pro-life folk in the question of abortion are also pro-death-penalty folk in the question of murder (and other similar crimes). Isn't that contradictory?

The first thing to consider comes from my own worldview. If it is true that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then I have to ask, "Is it biblical?" And, as it turns out, it clearly is. After the Flood, God told Noah, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). And, lest you think that was an "Old Testament thing, no longer applicable today", Paul told the Romans that God ordains governments and that they are right to carry out the death penalty on wrong-doers (Romans 13:1-5). Sorry, folks, that "Old Testament" argument won't stand up. It's for us as well.

The Bible makes it clear why God ordained the death penalty in cases of murder. It is a matter of justice. Not human justice. God's justice. It is a matter of value. Humans are made in the image of God. If you maliciously destroy that image, you owe a debt to God that cannot be paid with "life in prison" or any such thing. It requires a kind-for-kind payment. Justice is at issue here. Not revenge. Not payback. And not "suffering" like Arias suggested. Payment.

Another aspect is shown in Scripture as well. Paul wrote to Timothy, "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear" (1 Tim 5:19-20). The elder who persisted in sin was publicly rebuked "so that the rest may stand in fear." Deterrence. Now, some have argued that the death penalty for murder does not deter, but Solomon wisely wrote, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Eccl 8:11). Our modern failure to carry out a just sentence does not equate to the lack of deterrence. In truth, when there are known and rather unpleasant consequences for a crime, less people commit them.

Deterrence brings up, as it turns out, a key component of this line of thinking. If we are pro-life, we are in favor of protecting life. Deterring people from murdering would do just that. Thus, if "the sentence against an evil deed" (the death penalty in this case) is executed speedily, there would rationally be a reduction in murders. As a consequence, life would enjoy greater protection. As it is, murderers represent a threat to the innocent and to the harmony of society, and deterring people from remaining or becoming this threat is certainly pro-life.

One other key point: Pro-life specifically argues for the protection of innocent human life, consistent with Genesis 9:6. Otherwise, God has a real problem ... with Himself. "Look, God," the argument might go, "if You made man in Your own image and we are required to kill those who kill those made in Your image, aren't we killing those made in Your image?" Circular, you see? But God didn't think so. Thus, it is not simple killing in view when the death penalty is carried out. It is the execution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent. (Note that God instituted different punishments, for instance, in cases of accidental murder. A matter of guilty and innocent.)

In a discussion like this the objection will certainly be raised about the specifics. We know, for instance, that the poor have been executed far more often than the rich. (Exhibit A: O.J. Simpson.) And statistically race has played too much of a factor. And the news is full of too many times that people have been arrested and convicted and sometimes even executed only to discover that they were innocent. That's not good. But I need to point out that that's different argument. Can we justly and faithfully try people for murder, convict them, and execute them? Does practice meet principle? Being human, we have problems with justice. And we need, as far as we are able, to address those problems. The biblical standard was "two or three witnesses". We convict without any. And even with that standard we know that people lie. (See Jesus's trial with the Sanhedrin if you doubt it.) So much of a problem is this that the Roman Catholic Church has officially stated that capital punishment is wrong on this basis. We can't know, so don't do it.

I would argue that God disagrees (Gen 9:6; Rom 13:1-5). I would argue that God expects humans to carry out the death penalty in cases of murder. But more importantly, I would argue that the Bible, justice, the deterrence aspect, the protection of life that it would bring, and the distinction between innocent and guilty human life all combine to demonstrate the principle that the death penalty is pro-life and those who are followers of Christ and the Word of God should also be both pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. It is completely understandable that the latter might be a matter of concern given our unjust track record, but that wouldn't change the principle, would it? We would just have to work on the outworking of it. On the other hand, trying to correlate Scripture with an anti-death-penalty stance would seem to make God out to be evil, since He commanded it, so I'm going to have to stand on this side of the question. I'm pro-life, and I'm pro-death penalty.