Created for Glory

Why were we created? What was God's purpose in creation? Specifically, in creating us?

Here's what we know. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) In that process, God made Man. Here's what He said about that. "Then God said, "Let Us make man in our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen 1:26) Now, isn't that strange? I mean, doesn't the Creator have dominion over everything? Well, yes, indeed, He does. What He was doing here was subcontracting the job, so to speak. As a president of a company has department managers under him, God put us here as "Earth managers", so to speak. But He did it specifically by making us in His image. What does that mean? Well, it means that we have some points of commonality with the nature of God, especially in the soul, but it also means that, in the image of God, we are a reflection of God.

Creation, you see, had one singular purpose. We were created by Him for Him (Col 1:16) for a specific function. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1) "His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:20) God created ... everything ... for the purpose of declaring His glory. This is why we are commanded, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Why were we created? We were created to glorify God. And, as a result of this, God's intention was to glorify us (Psa 8:54; Rom 8:30).

For some reason we seem to miss this. Perhaps it's our natural enmity with God (Rom 8:7; James 4:4). Perhaps it's blindness (Jer 17:9; 2 Cor 4:4). But God spelled it out plainly. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23) Did you ever wonder about that last phrase? We have a two-fold problem. One is sin. The other is our failure to fulfill our purpose -- proclaim the glory of God. Perhaps it's the same thing, two sides of the same coin. But here we see that sin isn't "bad things" or, as some are happy to affirm, "mistakes". Sin is a failure of purpose.

Often, at the mention of "sin", people seem to go deaf. "Oh, no," they think, "we're about to get a lecture about how we need to be good and not do bad things." Often they're right. I'm not going there. I'm looking at purpose. Each of us has a purpose. Indeed, I don't think that any created thing can have any greater purpose than the purpose for which we were made. And yet we routinely and universally "fall short of the glory of God." We fail to fulfill our purpose. Is it any wonder that people are generally dissatisfied? They want more of this and more of that. Maybe it's money or power or "stuff" or friends or sex or work or love. It's just "more". Because what we have and are does not satisfy and we're trying to fill that hole. Except the only way to fill that hole is to fulfill the purpose for which we were made. I'm not talking here about people doing "bad things". I'm talking about a lack of fulfillment.

We were created for glory, both to give it to the One who deserves it and to receive it from the One best able to give it. Instead, we settle for a paltry human attempt at building for ourselves something we are not equipped to make and calling that "good enough". I hope for something better. I hope to glorify God in all that I do. I long to be a faithful reflection of His glory. And I expect to be fully satisfied with the glory He gives. It's His purpose for His creation in general and human beings in particular. It is true fulfillment. And I hope that for you.

Whose Side Are You On?

In Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth he had a variety of problems to address. He opens up with the first one here.

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
(1 Cor 1:12)

In my brief series on the tyranny of the Noble Sentiment, I wrote a piece on Sentiment on Atonement about how noble sentiments lead people to disbelieve that humans are in need of atonement for sin. You know, "God doesn't require a sacrifice for sin. He can just forgive." Very noble. Not very biblical. My first commenter disagreed. "Appeasing a wrathful God is not reading Scripture from a Jesus hermeneutic," he said. "Jesus said, I desire *mercy*, not *sacrifice*."

So what did Jesus say about the Gospel? We understand the Gospel to be something like "justified by grace through faith". Good stuff. You may be surprised to learn, then, that a word we never hear from the recorded words of Christ is the word "grace". Not once. We read that Jesus was "full of grace" (John 1:14) and that "of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace" (John 1:16), but both of those are things that John wrote, not that Jesus said.

It's interesting. The Pauline Dispensationalists are concerned because Jesus appeared to preach a works-based salvation. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) The "gospel of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23). The Pauline Dispensationalists pit Paul against Jesus and conclude that Paul was right and Jesus was wrong. Well, to be fair, He wasn't wrong; He was superseded. But if you're planning to get your "saved by grace through faith" gospel from Jesus, you'll be sorely disappointed.

"Well," the "Jesus hermeneutic" side will assure me, "Jesus never said anything about blood for salvation or payment for sin." Are you sure?

Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20:28) "Ransom for many" is not an empty payment. A ransom is a price paid to free someone. Jesus said He came to pay that price. Jesus said, "I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:15) That is not a mere "Christus Victor" concept. Jesus said He laid down His life for a purpose. "Okay, but not a blood sacrifice." In the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians 11 (1 Cor 11:23-26) we have the Lord's Supper.

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:19-20)

Jesus asked us to remember this ... on a regular basis. Remember what? "My body which is given for you" and the blood "poured out for you," what Jesus called "the new covenant in My blood." That is a blood sacrifice for salvation.

To the Pauline Dispensationalists I say you're mistaken. What Paul calls "my gospel" he also calls "the gospel of Christ". Indeed, Paul argues that even Abraham (and, therefore, by extension, everyone throughout the history of mankind) was saved by faith (Rom 4:1-5). Jesus didn't preach "another gospel" opposed to Paul's. (I argued here that He used the term "gospel" in a different way, but not that He preached a different Gospel than the "saved by grace" one.) To the "Jesus hermeneutic" crowd who would like to claim that Jesus did not preach a "saved by the blood of the Lamb", "gave His life as a ransom" gospel, but a purely "saved by faith without satisfying the justice of God" version, I say you're mistaken. Paul didn't oppose Jesus. Jesus didn't oppose Paul. And those of you, on either side, who argue that it's true simply lead to a fragmented (and, therefore, rather unreliable) Bible. Until you can arrive at a "the Bible agrees with the Bible" position on this, don't try to tell me about your great love for the Bible or for Christ (the Word). It would appear that neither Paul nor Jesus would agree with you.

Election

The presidential election is still more than a year away, so I'm not going to talk about that. Instead, I'm going to think about election as it is in the Bible. I know, I know, that might be a more volatile subject than the political version is, but I'm brave.

First, let's agree on something. Election is in the Bible. There can really be no disagreement on that point. In the ESV there are 8 references to "the elect" (including some from the lips of Christ), 3 references to "election", and 9 more to "elect" (in addition to the "the elect" list). Add "the called" and the like, and the list starts to get longer and longer. It cannot be disputed that election is in there. The question is not whether election is biblical; the question is how it works. That's where all the friction occurs. Good news! I'm not going there, either.

Here's one question that always comes up. Whether the elect are elect from the foundation of the world or are elect by virtue of making the right choice, how do you know if you're elect? You see, whenever the concept comes up, some are seriously uncomfortable. "If you're chosen by God, what makes you so special when others are not?" One person told me, "If that election thing is true, I'm going to join the KKK because it's not much different." Some are offended that you might claim to be among the elect. "Oh, yeah? How do you know?" Or the other side. "Yes, I see that the saved are the elect. How can I know if I'm one of the elect?" Not offended; just unsure. I get it. In fact, it's a reasonable question. Did you know it is a biblical question, too? Peter says, "Be diligent to make your calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10) In other words, you mustn't simply assume it; you need to be sure. On the other hand, John wrote his first epistle "that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13) So apparently you can know. So ... how?

Well, we'll all start with an agreement. We are saved by faith, not by works. All okay so far? No one is saved by working for it. "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9) So whatever we might do to make our election sure, it is not by working for salvation. Then how?

In Peter's version, he says that God's "divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness" through Christ who "called us to His own glory and excellence." Thus "you may become partakers of the divine nature" (If that doesn't give you pause, you aren't paying attention.) and have "escaped from the corruption that is in the world." Therefore, "make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love." (2 Peter 1:2-8) In this stack of "effort" (which is supposed to be yours and increasing in verse 8) Peter says in verse 10 that you can "confirm your calling and election." So, we know that works don't save, but we see also that works ("effort") are not insignificant. Works don't save, but they are evidence.

Is Peter alone in this? No, of course not. Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) We are His disciples by faith (not works); it can be demonstrated by love for one another (works). Jesus ran afoul of modern liberal Christians who urge us not to judge when He said, "You will recognize them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16). John wrote, "No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him." (1 John 3:6) He goes on to say, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9) We understand "abides in Him" produces a difference in behavior, but John says "born of God" produces that difference. Indeed, John says, "He cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." Not only is there a change of behavior; there is a change of nature.

How can you know if you are one of the elect? Being born of God produces a change of nature which carries a sure change in "fruit", in behavior. There is an indwelling of divine power, the participation in the divine nature, the escape from the corruption of this world, the new person. Those who are born of God (the elect) are born for a reason -- "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). No change = no new life. Simple as that. Matthew Henry said, "None can know their election but by their conformity to Christ; for all who are chosen are chosen to sanctification." That is the Bible's message on how you can know if you're one of the elect. Changed hearts make changed lives. That's the answer.

Circumcision and Baptism

Some Reformed circles have argued that circumcision and baptism are parallels. The Old Testament circumcision was the sign of being in the Old Covenant; New Testament baptism is the sign of being in the New Covenant. There is even Scripture for this. Using this line of thinking, some argue from one to the other. "Circumcision was done practically from birth and was not on the basis of professed faith, so baptism should be practically from birth and not on the basis of professed faith." Some argue that baptism saves. We'll skip that. But others argue that, like circumcision, baptism puts children of believers into the "sphere of influence", an unclear area where they are not quite saved (pending faith) but not quite lost (being in this covenant).

In response, many baptists argue against the correlation of circumcision and baptism. "No connection at all." "It's a different thing entirely." Unfortunately, they seem to glaze over the Scripture on the subject.

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

How safe it is, then, to dismiss this connection?

I would argue both that there is a tight correlation between circumcision and baptism and that baptism is for believers, not infants.

First, the text I gave seems to be unavoidable. Paul says we were "buried with Him in baptism" and considers that "a circumcision made without hands." In Romans he says, "Circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit." (Rom 2:29) So the real circumcision is not a physical one, but a spiritual one. But notice this. Speaking about Abraham being saved by grace before he was circumcised, Paul says,

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. (Rom 4:11)

Is that not straightforward enough? Circumcision was the seal of righteousness reckoned on the basis of faith. And so is baptism.

"Yeah, but what about that whole 'Babies were circumcised before coming to faith' thing?"

In answer to that, let me ask this. If Old Testament circumcision was the sign of being in the covenant, and that covenant was with Israel, when did one enter the covenant? When they were born. In the New Testament, if baptism is the sign of being in the covenant, and that covenant is with believers, when does one enter the new covenant? When they are born again.

I see the two as the same, except that they are for two separate agreements between God and Man. One is for Abraham and his physical bloodline. The other is for Abraham and his spiritual bloodline. Both are signs of being in the covenant. I see them as the same, each for its respective covenant. The former is a physical sign given when born into the physical covenant and the latter a spiritual sign given when born into the spiritual covenant. I don't see a problem here.

Futility

There are some, likely many, maybe even most who believe that sin is bad, but not that bad. It's the reason that people object to the notion of Hell. "Really? Eternal torment for a few mistakes here on earth? That doesn't seem fair." This, however, is a product of an error.

John describes sin as "lawlessness". (1 John 3:4) Sounds simple enough. But Jesus said that the whole law was contained in two commands: Love God with all you are, and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36-40). James says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10) So, the biblical definition of sin is ἀνομία -- anomia -- "no law". It is "God says ... but I won't." It is "I will make myself like the Most High." "Yes, I know You are God and, yes, I know You have the right to apply obligations, rules, requirements. I just don't care. I will do what I want to do." No law.

It is treason. "God rules, but I will replace Him."

It's not something small, minor, an infraction. Paul says, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom 8:7) That's not minor; that's war. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) (How young? David said, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." (Psa 58:3) How young? From birth.)

"Oh," they will still say, "it's not that bad. People are basically good." Yes, yes, I know that's popular. But it's wrong.

I was fascinated in my reading in Romans this week that Paul wrote this.

The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Rom 8:19-21)

"Sin isn't so bad." We'd like to think so. But this text argues that Man's sin subjected all creation to futility. Because of our sin, our world is in "bondage to corruption". Not so bad? No big deal? And that's just the effect on the creation.

Sin isn't minor. It's not like stealing a cookie or, worse, running a red light. It's not even like murder, something God says deserves death (Gen 9:6). It is lawlessness, an attempt at overthrowing the God of the universe in favor of our personal preferences. A single violation, James says, makes you guilty of all of it (which makes sense if sin is an attempt to overthrow God). And not one of us is a minor sinner. Our sins are many. On the up side, whoever is forgiven much loves much. "He who is forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7:47) Now, you may be a better person than I am, because I'm one in real need of a Redeemer. Guilty as charged. I am so pleased to have an Advocate who is the appeasement of God's wrath (1 John 2:1-2). I am so glad to know that the One who condemns is the One who died for me (Rom 8:33-39).

Bathroom Humor

It's Saturday. Purely meaningless humor today. If you don't care for "bathroom humor", stop reading and come back tomorrow.

There has been this sign in the men's room at work that has baffled me for awhile.

Please do not throw gum
in the men's urinals.
There is a trash can behind you
for these items.

It gnaws at me for a variety of reasons. First, do we really need this sign up here? I mean, come on, guys! Surely you know better than that. It's a sad commentary on mankind when we have to put up a sign to promote what should be common sense. RIP, common sense.

But, okay, I have a minute. What is the sign saying? You see, I happen to know that there is no trash can behind me. There are sinks. The trashcan is over there by the door. So are they saying that we should regard what is behind us as trash cans? And they don't want me to throw "these things" the urinal, but in the sinks?

Oh, wait! What are "these things"? I go back and look at the sentence structure to figure this out. "These things" is a plural phrase. In the previous sentence, what items are plural? Well, there is "gum", which is singular, and "urinals", which is plural. The only plural in that sentence is the latter. Are these the things for which the sinks should be used as trash cans?

Oh, it's all so confusing!

Or not.

Language Problems

There are a lot of times that we run into language problems. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. I use a word and mean it as x and you hear it as y. Worse, we read a word, say, in a book and it means x this time, but y another time. Very confusing. You read that the young man took his date to a date farm and you are completely confused. "They have farms that produce dates??" You hear that the woman got engaged while she was engaged in a new project and it all makes no sense. "She was engaged to two people?" The sign says "No right turn" and you're trying to figure out why they would make it illegal to make the correct turn.

You would think that by minimizing the scope of the language it would get easier. Say, for instance, we limit it to theology. No, better, Christian theology. Here we find standard words like "justified", "saved", and "gospel". Whew! We're all set. We're clear! No confusion. Or is there? Turns out that "justified" appears in the Bible with multiple meanings. We get the whole "justified by grace" thing. We are declared righteous (just) in God's eyes. Got it. But wait! In Psalms David says, "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be justified in Your words and blameless in Your judgment." (Psa 51:4) In what sense is God "justified" in the sense of "declared righteous in God's eyes"? Well, not at all. A different sense of "justified". Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified by her deeds." (Matt 11:19) Again, not "declared righteous in God's eyes". And with that problem in hand, you can only imagine the various senses in which "saved" appears in Scripture. Let me give you a hint. It is not always in the sense of "saved from the wrath of God."

So now we come across a sure thing, right? "Surely 'Gospel' means 'the Good News of salvation by grace through faith', right?" I'm actually a little surprised you would ask, given the plethora of previous counter-examples. No. It means "good news". That "good news" varies. Jesus first preached the Gospel in Matthew 4. Here was His Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Matthew 4:23 says that Jesus was "proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom." So this is not the Gospel that we think of, the good news that we are saved by grace through faith. This is the good news that the kingdom was at hand. In Matthew 24 the prediction is that "this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matt 24:14) Does that mean that Christ will not return until the "saved by grace" Gospel is proclaimed throughout the wole world? No. That's about the kingdom. Then in Revelation we hear of "an eternal gospel" proclaimed by an angel. This is a different set of good news. "Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.'" (Rev 14:6-7) Get that? This good news was that God's judgment was arriving and He would be glorified. Not the same gospel we think of when we think of the word. No, the gospel you and I think about is what is termed "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24). That gospel, in fact, wasn't known clearly until Paul brought it up (Gal 2:2). Now, it wasn't new to Paul -- Paul didn't originate it (Gal 3:8) -- but it wasn't known in that form. Paul calls it "my gospel" (e.g., Rom 2:16), "the gospel of God" (e.g., Rom 15:16), and "the gospel of Christ" (e.g., Rom 15:19).

Just a sampling. You would think it would be easier, but it's not. You have to pay attention. You have to listen to the words, the context, the whole thing. You know, like when you listen to everyday conversations. Now, if you pay close attention to someone that you want to listen to, what would you expect to do if it is God talking? I'd think you'd want to pay the utmost attention. But, hey, maybe that's just me.

It's Just Mere Covetousness

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. (Col 3:1-6)

I used to read this text and get to that phrase, "which is idolatry", and wonder "What in that list is idolatry?" Is Paul saying everything on that list is idolatry, or is he just saying that covetousness is idolatry? I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell until it dawned on me that the entire list was covetousness.

Think about it. What is covetousness? Primarily it is wrongful or inordinate desires, especially for that which does not belong to you. Okay so far. Now, what is sexual immorality all about? Is it not coveting sexual relations with someone you're not supposed to? Impurity? Coveting behaviors you are not supposed to do. Passion? The word primarily refers to lust, which is sexual covetousness. Do I need to go on? Isn't it clear that the answer to my question, "Is Paul saying everything on that list is idolatry, or is he just saying that covetousness is idolatry?", is "Yes!"?

But ... how is that "idolatry"? Well, Webster's dictionary defines "idolatry" as "immoderate attachment or devotion to something". It is anything that takes the place in our affection and devotion that rightly belongs to God. Covetousness is precisely that. It says, "God has not given me enough. The things I want are more important than the God who gives me what I need."

Here, think of it this way. Covetousness is wrongfully desiring something other than God. There are right desires -- desires for justice, for the best for those we love, for good things for others. But covetousness desires that to which it is not entitled. So if it is forbidden by God (such as sexual relations outside of marriage), it is idolatry, holding up as God that which is not. If it is not with gratitude, it is idolatry, replacing God with my rights. If it is selfish, with disregard for the welfare of others, it is idolatry, placing myself over God's commands.

Now, if I'm right and these things on this list all fall under the category of types of covetousness, and if Scripture is right and covetousness is idolatry, there are some conclusions to consider. First, now you can see both the primary source of sexual immorality (idolatrous coveting) as well as the seriousness of it (idolatry). Second, if these things, considered normal, acceptable, even approved today, are idolatry, there is no wonder why Paul says, "On account of these the wrath of God is coming." And that is no small deal.

Why Do People Leave the Faith?

There are a lot of things written about the question of people leaving the faith. Of particular concern are the kids who grow up in a Christian home, seem to be fully involved, and then leave for college and come back without faith. It happens a lot. And lots of people are trying to tell us why. For instance, research tells us that a lack of training in apologetics is a serious problem. Kids simply don't have the arguments to retain their faith. One author suggests that failed fathers is a key factor. Those who leave cite things like disillusionment and a lack of "Christian authenticity". They complain that there is no room for doubt or questions. They don't like what a lot of people don't like, things like the exclusivity of Christianity or the concept of Hell. I think it's clear, though, that the primary reason kids leave the faith is to pursue behaviors that are not compatible with Christian morals.

Suggested solutions are plentiful. Lifeway offers a list from a Fuller Theological Seminary book entitled Sticky Faith that includes things like being raised with an emphasis on relationship with Christ rather than an adherence to rules, an intergenerational faith community, and parents that walk alongside their kids. Others suggest that parents need to be authentic Christians. Clearly we need more apologetics. And let's make our churches more friendly, accepting, open. That sort of thing.

As for me, I have a problem ... with the question. "Why do people leave the faith?" The only answer I can find is "They don't." Why would I say that? It's what I read in my Bible. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:27-29) So if "no one is able to snatch them out of my hands", in what sense can someone -- anyone -- do it? John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12) and Paul referred multiple times to our "adoption as sons" by God (Rom 8:15; Rom 8:23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). How do you cease being a child of God, an adopted child? The condition of the saved person is "eternal life" (John 3:16). In what sense is it "eternal" if it comes and goes? Paul told the Philippian believers, "I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil 1:6) On what could Paul base such confidence? Jude praises "Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy." (Jude 1:24) Over and over again the Bible speaks of God's hand in our salvation. Sure, we come in faith. Sure, you "work out your salvation" (Phil 2:12). But God's hand in salvation is to keep us (1 Peter 1:5), to sustain us (Psa 37:17), to seal us (Eph 1:13). We have this amazing, unbreakable chain in Romans 8.

We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:28-30)

Predestined, called, justified, glorified. In that sequence we have no input. It is God's work. And it offers no deviations. "Predestined ... called ... justified ... oops! Lost."

J.I. Packer said, "Your faith will not fail while God sustains it; you are not strong enough to fall away while God is resolved to hold you." The truth is that those who belong to Christ will remain with Christ (1 John 2:19). Oh, sure, there may be rough patches. Wavering, doubt, a time of sin, even gross sin. But God's Word says that those who are in Christ at all are in Christ forever.

Perhaps this doesn't help ease your mind. You know people who "leave the faith". They seemed to be true believers. They appeared to be followers of Christ. But Jesus describes a group (He says "many") that appears more like believers than I think most of the ones you have in mind. These prophesy, cast out demons, and perform miracles. And Jesus tells them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matt 7:23) The real point, then, is not appearance. The point is an actual relationship with Christ (Gal 4:8-9). Outward appearance can be faked. But the fact is that those who are His cannot be lost and will not, in the end, go out from us. Perhaps our best efforts would be a focus on relationship and be drenched in prayer and the Word. It's that kind of a battle. It's not one of methods and arguments. They might bolster the spiritual war, but it is a spiritual war. It should, then, provide comfort to if you are concerned about others when you know that He will not lose one.

Identity Crisis

We humans here in the 21st century appear to be in the midst of an identity crisis. Now, to be fair, there are a lot of available identities. "Father", "mother", "family member" (as in "I'm one of the Joneses."), your job, and on and on. So why is it that so many of today's identity labels revolve around sex. These days a key self-identifier seems to be "gay" or "heterosexual", as if the gender with which we want to have sex identifies us. Is that really the best we can do? Is that really even signicant?

So we step up. "I'm an American" or the citizen of some other country. That's much more important. Because your geography and place of birth is significant. Or is it?

We were given some pretty impressive credentials from God. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27) In God's version, being what is derisively termed "binary gender" is an identity assigned by God -- male and female. More importantly, "in His own image" is an irrevocable identity. On this one God based His call for the death penalty for murder (Gen 9:6). "A divine image bearer" is a much higher identity than some meager "sexual orientation" or your particular citenzenship.

We like to think that our "higher" identity is "Christian". You know, "follower of Christ". Except that the term barely means that anymore ... and it originally appeared to be intended as an insult to "the followers of the Way." In our day, of course, it can refer to anyone from an ardent follower of Christ to someone who lives in the non-Muslim section of town. Can we do better?

I came across a new one. Or a very old one. Back in Genesis, God made Abraham a promise. God told him He would make his children as numerous as the stars (Gen 15:5). Further, through his offspring, "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 18:18). In Romans and in Galatians Paul refers to this promise. In Romans he says, "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." (Rom 9:6). Sounds like double talk, but he goes on to say, "It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." (Rom 9:8) In the Galatians passage (Gal 4:22-28) Paul uses the parallel of Sarah and Hagar. Sarah and Hagar both had a son, but Sarah was the free woman and Hagar was not. When God promised Abraham a son, He did not mean Hagar's son, Ishmael. He meant the promised son, Isaac. Paul goes on to say, "And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise." (Gal 4:28)

What a concept! "Children of the promise." Do you catch the implications? We are "children of God". We aren't these kind of children by human effort. We are His children because He promised it. It means that if you are a Christ-follower, a born-again believer, that when God promised Abraham that his descendants would number like the stars, He had you in mind. It means that genuine believers aren't random and aren't some accident. We are children of the promise. A sure thing. A promise from God before He even formed the chosen people, Israel. Now that is an identity!

The Atonement

One of the primary components of the Christian faith is the principle of atonement and the fact of the Atonement. The principle is that humans, by their sin, have created a gulf between themselves and God. The Bible says that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). We -- God and us -- are not at one. Thus, the need to atone, to make amends, to repair the injury. There is a problem that has to be made right. That's the principle of atonement. The fact of the Atonement is that Christ died for our sins in order to appease God and make us right with Him. In every other religion this "make it right" process is something you and I do. We work for it. Be good and live a righteous life and follow the rules and maybe, just maybe, the deity in view will find this acceptable. Christianity alone holds that this cannot happen. The rift is too deep, the debt too large. It took a perfect man, God Incarnate, to accomplish this. In the Old Testament atonement was accomplished by a sacrificial system that prefigured Christ. The lamb was sacrificed looking ahead to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). When Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac, he told his son, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." (Gen 22:8) That lamb provided by God for God would be Christ. (Note that in the Genesis 22 story, God did not provide a lamb for Himself; He provided a ram (Gen 22:13).) So when we speak of "the Atonement", we are speaking of Christ's sacrifice of Himself at the cross to make those who put their faith in Him "at one" with God. Thus, "at-one-ment".

You may not know this, but as it turns out there have been more than one theory regarding the Atonement. There have, in fact, been quite a few. Chronologically, they appear like this on the historical timeline:

The Ransom Theory

This is the earliest recorded theory on the topic. It holds that Christ died to pay a ransom for us. The Early Church Fathers were never quite in agreement regarding to whom the ransom was paid. Some said it was Satan, some God. (This is held by Eastern Orthodox chruches.)

The Recapitulation Theory

Introduced by Iranaeus (125-202 AD), this one played off Paul's version of Christ as the New Adam. In this version Christ undid what Adam did. Adam disobeyed; Christ was obedient. In this, Christ reversed the course of mankind. "Christ became what we are so we could become what He is." (Note: Iranaeus also subscribed to the Ransom Theory, so we don't need to go down the "The Church Fathers had an earlier view" line of argument.)

The Satisfaction Theory

This was Anselm's idea in the late 11th century. It holds that Jesus appeased God by sacrificing Himself. He satisfied God's just demands on our behalf. It is primarily viewed in a sort of financial transaction -- payment made for a debt owed. (This one is preferred by the Roman Catholic Church.)

The Moral Theory

Abelard in the 12th century suggested that Jesus's death is a moral example for the rest of humanity to emulate. The goal was to impress humanity with the extent of God's love to soften their hearts and lead them to repentance. The idea is "We should follow Christ's example of radical love, where He loved us even to His own death." This "atonement" specifically is not a sacrifice to satisfy an angry God, but the standard "God loves you so be good and you'll be okay." (This one is often preferred by liberal Christianity.)

The Acceptance Theory

A guy named Scotus circa 1300 AD offered this one. He simply held that God arbitrarily chose to remove the problem between God and Man. No payment. No rectifying the problem. God just chose. This one is popular among liberal Christianity, too.

The Penal or Penal-Substitution Theory

The Reformers in the early 16th century argued this theory as a correction to Anselm's Satisfaction Theory. That is, he didn't explain it well enough. Christ paid our penalty by dying on the cross on our behalf (penal substitution). As such, God's justice was satisfied and God's mercy replaces His wrath. (This is the leading theory for most conservative Christian groups.)

Christus Victor Theory

This one holds that Jesus voluntarily allowed Himself to be executed. This defeated the power of evil and released humanity from its sin. It was first explained in 1931 by Gustaf Aulén. He went back to the Ransom Theory and argued that the Atonement was actually the story of God in Christ triumphing over the powers of Satan and liberating humanity.

The Government Theory

In this version, God made Christ an example of suffering so that we could see that the moral government of God required wrath against sin. Christ's suffering toward that end was sufficient to God. This view was originally offered by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) but became a popular one for some like Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards Jr (called "the younger" -- not to be confused with the famous Jonathan Edwards of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" fame), and the Methodists.

The List Goes On

Modern, non-violent theories have also been suggested primarily by African-American and feminist theologians that I don't plan to examine. Additionally, there are modifications to these primary theories that don't much matter and even anti-Christian theories such as the Accident Theory that said Christ's death was an accident and the Martyr Theory that holds that Christ died for His principles and nothing more. I'll skip over these.

Conclusion

So which do I hold? The answer is a qualified "Yes." I believe in the Ransom Theory because Scripture says so (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5-6) but disagree with the part that says that the ransom was paid to Satan (making Satan the victor). Iranaeus's Recapitulation Theory works based on 2 Cor 5:21 -- "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." -- but not if it eliminates other versions. God was certainly satisfied with Christ's death on the cross, so I'm up for the Satisfaction Theory for as far as it goes. Christ "gave Himself for us to redeem us" (Titus 2:14), a reference to a price paid, a transaction made ... the essence of the Satisfaction Theory. I certainly agree that we are to be "like Christ" including His matchless love as suggested by the Moral Theory, as long as we don't use this one to jettison the rest. I'm sure that the Penal-Substitution Theory fills out the notion quite well -- perhaps better than most -- answering to important items biblical claims such as Christ as our propitiation (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). (In Rom 3:25 the propitiation is "by His blood".) Sin has a penalty (Rom 6:23) and justice demands that it be paid. Paul says that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." (Gal 3:13) That is "penal substitution". The Christus Victor Theory is certainly true. Christ was victorious (1 Cor 15:57). It just isn't the complete story. In other words, I don't think that any single theory covers the Atonement. Conversely, I think that most (not all) theories have something valid to say about the Atonement. My problem occurs when any given theory includes a "but everyone else is all wrong" clause. I suppose that's just me. I try to draw my conclusions on key issues like this from Scripture.

Have You Seen Jesus, My Lord?

When was the last time you saw the Lord?

Okay, unclear question. When was the last time you were really in the presence of God?

There are certain telltale signs to look for. Most likely you won't come away feeling "warm" or on some sort of spiritual high. In Scripture, every person who recognizes the presence of God has a universal response: terror. Why terror? Because every person who comes into the presence of the Holy recognizes immediately their own unholiness.

The first negative emotion in Scripture comes from Adam when he hears God in the garden and he was afraid (Gen. 3:10). Jacob had a dream about angels and responded in fear (Gen. 28:10-17). Moses found that a burning bush was actually the presence of God and was too afraid to look (Exo. 3:6). When God spoke to Israel, they were terrified (Deut. 5:4-5). Aaron and the Israelites were afraid of the mere reflection of God seen in Moses's face (Exo. 34:30). When Gideon figured out that he was actually in the midst of a conversation with the Divine, his response was the certainty that he would die (Judges 6:22). Isaiah, a prophet of God, responded to the presence of God with "Woe is me!" (Isa. 6:5). Habakkuk took God to task for not responding to Israel's sin, but when God responded, Habakkuk said, "I heard and my inward parts trembled; at the sound my lips quivered. Decay enters my bones, and in my place I tremble" (Hab. 3:16). In the New Testament, a storm on the Sea of Galilee was scary to the disciples, but when Jesus demonstrated His deity by calming that storm, "they became very much afraid" (Mark 4:41). When Peter pulled up fish at Jesus's command, he didn't show up with a contract; he begged Jesus to leave (Luke 5:8). If you have spent time in the presence of God, you have been made acutely aware of your own sin. It is the biblical hallmark of a human being in the presence of God.

I particularly like Isaiah's story. I think it captures all the primary points that someone will experience in the presence of the Lord.

In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven." Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" (Isa. 6:1-8).

The time was a time of crisis. King Uzziah was a godly king, but died a leper for assuming rights with God that He didn't have (2 Chron. 26). The nation was in moral decay. And Isaiah was God's man on the scene.

The image of God is majestic. Anyone who comes into His presence cannot come away feeling it was irrelevant or boring. And the primary focus of entire scene was God in His Holiness. Some see the repetition as a pointer to the Trinity. Others point out that a repetition is a strengthener, making God's Holiness the most important characteristic He has. Whatever it is, it is important ... not Isaiah or even the seraphim. Being in the presence of God calls attention to the majesty of God.

The response is universal. Isaiah's "woe is me" isn't light. It is a curse on himself. He is undone. He is coming apart. This man, God's man on the scene, already 5 chapters into speaking for God, comes to see that he suffers from "unclean lips" and lives "among a people of unclean lips". Isaiah was quite sure it was over for him. He deserved death ... and that would be merciful. Being in the presence of God requires a cleansing of self.

The necessary action is taken. Isn't it interesting that God doesn't say, "Don't worry, Isaiah, you're not that bad," nor does He say, "You're right, you worm -- writhe in My presence"? Instead, an angel from God brings the remedy. "You're right, Isaiah, you're a man of unclean lips; I can fix that." But immediately upon the pressing of the burning coal onto Isaiah's lips (No one ever said that the remedy to sin was pain-free.), there is a call for action. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" And Isaiah, the man whose lips were unclean but were now treated by God's treatment, cannot fail to respond. "Here am I. Send me!" Being in the presence of God requires an obedient response to serve Him.

Maybe this Sunday you felt like you were in the presence of God. Perhaps not. Did you have a feeling of warmth toward God? I see no biblical precedence that says that anyone responds this way to His presence. Did you have a real sense of your own sinfulness? Did you have a driving need to repent? Did you sense within yourself that you needed to do for God what God wants you to do? Then you were likely in the presence of God.

When was the last time you were really in the presence of God?

Full Disclosure

You know, I got to thinking the other day about some of the stuff I've written of late. Okay, perhaps a lot of it. Okay, perhaps more than just "of late". I got to thinking that it might be pretty easy to read this stuff and think, "Wow, this guy has it all together." Okay, not quite that. I mean, clearly there is a sizeable segment who would say I'm wrong. But the idea that what I write is who I am. Or, at least, who I claim to be. Whether or not you agree with me, you've might conclude that I believe I've got the question of "fair" down, that I'm a good Christian man and a good parent and good husband, that I am a committed church-goer and pretty good at properly interacting with people. Like "After he wrote that piece on the Great Commission and how we're all supposed to do it, he must be a missionary or something." At least in my own mind. That sort of thing. I mean, sure, you wouldn't think I was perfect or even right, but you'd be fairly sure that I've got all this stuff pretty clear in my head and in my life.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I would like to clear that whole notion up. Here's how it works. I read something in Scripture or hear it or read it from someone else or think about something and more often than not the Holy Spirit comes around and, while enlightening me on the idea, convicts me. It's not that I've figured it out. I'm not that smart. It's not that I've arrived at what I claim to be the right way. I'm not that good. So I just tell you what God is telling me on the off chance that you and I might walk together down this long path of becoming sanctified, of becoming "conformed to the image of His Son." A good part of the time that I'm telling you I think you need to work on something it's because I need to work on it and thought I'm not likely alone in that.

Just so you're clear on this. Like Paul, "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus." (Phil 3:12) Thought someone might need to know this.

Not My God

In my recent discussion on "the Noble Sentiment" a commenter complained, "Why follow the God of your interpretation? Why follow the God that causes blindness, muteness, and deafness? Why follow the God that causes calamity? Why follow the God that ordains evil?"

Welcome to a prime example of the Noble Sentiment. In this view, God is not like that. God doesn't do that. "That is not my God." The upshot, of course, is "My God is much better than that." By which we might conclude, "He conforms to my preferences in what a God should be."

This is a problem. It is a problem for me, of course. (That was the commenter's aim. "Why follow such a God?" was a rhetorical question, requiring a given answer: "Don't!") Why do it? Let me first say that it isn't quite accurate to call it "your interpretation" when I'm simply taking what is stated, applying no twists or turns, without overlaying my preferences or feelings, and coming away with what it says. I can't find anything that precludes it in Scripture. I can't see that it contradicts anything in Scripture. So I'm forced to conform my interpretation to the text (rather than the oh, so common alternative of interpreting Scripture to conform to my own views).

So, if Scripture is clear and consistent and actually says what I quoted it to say, then what are my options? I don't see very many. I can suggest that it's wrong and I'm right. "My God wouldn't do that." Or I can offer my interpretation that would change the straightforward meaning of the text so that I can end up with "My God wouldn't do that." I can, of course, simply decide, "The text is right and I don't want anything to do with a God like that." Or ...

I can say, "The Bible is God-breathed. It is God's self-revelation of who He is. Since God is not a man and is Holy ("other", not like me), I would expect that He would not conform to my simplistic perceptions. Therefore, I will choose to agree with what Scripture tells me and follow a God who is good even if He does not conform to my preferences or self-imposed interpretations." In this, of course, I would have to conclude that Christ, as God, would be the same as God, so falling back on the ever-popular "But Jesus wasn't like that!" only creates a contradiction.

That's the point of the whole "Tyranny of the Noble Sentiment" question. Am I going to go with what God says is true? Or am I going to side with the "Why follow a God like that?" perspective? Am I going to let God be true, though every man a liar, or am I going to construct my own view of God and bend Scripture to match? Why follow a God like that? Because He says He's like that and He says He's good and that's enough for me. Can I trust Him? He says I can and that's enough for me.

Now, of course, the other side will have to figure out its own problem. Why is your version of God better than the one presented in God's Word?

Another One

Unless you're living under a rock somewhere, you probably have heard about the videos that expose Planned Parenthood for selling body parts of aborted children. And now there's another one. The first, released in mid July, made the news. The YouTube video had nearly 3 million views, not including the flood of other outlets -- Facebook, blogs, and even the media. Pro-abortion folks were disgusted. Lawmakers called for an investigation. The director of Planned Parenthood apologized for "the tone" of the woman negotiating to sell dead babies.

The second was released a week later. Less on the news. Less than half the views. The producer, David Daleiden, director of The Center for Medical Progress, was interviewed by a couple of conservative hosts -- Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, those types. The Twitter universe exploded with #DefundPlannedParenthood and #PPSellsBabyParts and the like. While some were in favor of Planned Parenthood (#StandWithPP and #SketchySource and the such), the videos were having their impact.

More videos followed. I believe we're up to five now. While several states are looking at defunding Planned Parenthood, legislators in Washington aren't particularly keen on it. The Justice Department, in fact, was asked to investigate ... The Center for Medical Progress, not Planned Parenthood. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order against The Center for Medical Progress releasing any more videos. The news doesn't even mention the later releases.

What is the response, then? David Daleiden's videos trot out a compelling, documented, and repulsive argument. While a Planned Parenthood representative asks for a $200,000 car, the videos detail the death and dismemberment of what the people performing the procedures refer to as "a baby" and "a boy" for profit. Immoral and illegal activity is displayed for all to see. What is the response?

Well, of course, there is the "It's a woman's body; she has the right to choose" from individuals. (Do they not know that these babies have different brains, hearts, bodies, even fundamental DNA than the mothers?) Some say, "How is it different than harvesting organs from people who die?" (Do they not see that harvesting organs from people who die is not the same as killing people to harvest organs?) A few outlets (CNN and others) have called it "a hoax" (without evidence). But mostly the argument defending abortion in general and Planned Parenthood in particular is a withering ... silence. After the first video or so, the most compelling argument we have heard against the claims of these videos is the thundering sound of crickets. Apparently unable to explain, justify, or defend this practice and fearing the loss of this tool of killing unwanted children, the media and the legislators and even the bulk of our society have opted to activate their SEP fields. Don't know what that is? In Douglas Adam's comedic Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe series, he explains a particular invisibility field employed by some ships. The principle is this. Make the ship so ugly that your brain cannot deal with it. You just "turn it off" as Somebody Else's Problem -- SEP. "It's too hideous, so let's ignore it. If we ignore it, maybe it will go away." This is the response of the media. SKDKnickerbocker, Planned Parenthood's PR firm, is urging news outlets not to cover the videos. And since most people live off the media, it is the response of the majority. While many of us who know about these videos continued to be horrified and gin up hope that the public will see and turn, the elites ignore the problem hoping it will go away. And I suspect it will. (How did your senators vote?) No, we're on to really important things. Cecil, the lion¹, was murdered. So was his brother. Oh, wait, no he wasn't. But someone killed another lion somewhere. And now Beanie Babies has a new Cecil the Lion product. Oh, and they're planning to move the wild horses out of a portion of the Tonto National Forest. Horrors! Call your Congressman! Or woman! Or whatever. Because this just can't be!

What's my point? My point is that good arguments are good, but not the answer. My point is that evidence is important, but not the full story. My point is that "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Eph 6:12) When killing babies is defended by the government and the populace and those who blow the whistle on it are investigated and censured, you know we're beyond "bad information" and "mistaken ideas". We're operating in the realm of "the father of lies". This is a time for prayer.
________

¹ Interesting article in the New York Times of all places that comes from someone in Zimbabwe completely baffled about why lions are mourned and hunters vilified.

The Judgment of God

The Bible is clear that all humans face a final judgment at the end of time. Sure, there are temporal judgments. A drug addict faces the consequences of his or her choices in his or her body in this life. That kind of thing. But the actual judgment, the final judgment of human beings is yet to come. The same is not true for nations. Israel faced judgment in the Old Testament from their repeated idolatry. From the thousands killed over the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16) to the exiles into Assyria and Babylon, the nation of Israel encountered the clearly stated judgment of God in real time, not merely some future "final judgment". You see, since nations are not people, they don't face that final judgment. Their judgment is temporal.

I believe it was Ruth Graham who said, "If God doesn't judge America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Many genuine Christians nod at that. Maybe they don't agree fully, but we get the sentiment. America has not declined in its morality; it has plummeted. It didn't slough off Christian values; it jettisoned them. While slow decay could be seen from the early days of Puritan beginnings up into the 20th century, the precipitous collapse from the 1960's has been monumental. It would appear that the sentiment is right.

I have to ask, though, "What makes you think God is not judging America?" Perhaps it's the fact that America still stands when Sodom and Gomorrah got a literal fire and brimstone shower. We can't even be sure where those cities ever were. Or perhaps it's Israel's example. No one has come into our country and carted us off in chains like the Babylonians and Assyrians did to them. We're still here. So, you see? God hasn't judged America. And I suppose there is some truth to that view. But, as always, I'd like to put it to the Bible test. Does the Bible agree with that perspective?

In Romans 1 we read that Paul is not ashamed of the gospel, "for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16). Saved? From what? He tells us a couple of verses later. "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Rom 1:18) Oh, I see. The gospel is about salvation from the wrath of God. Got it. So, what do we know? First, God is angry about something. Second, that "something" is "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." And we know that this condition of men is highlighted by a common characteristic -- the suppression of the truth.

The chapter goes on from there to describe generally what truth is suppressed (Rom 1:19-20) and the consequences of covering this truth. The first consequence is futile thinking and foolish, darkened hearts (Rom 1:21). Notice what follows. For the rest of the chapter Paul describes a series of "God gave them up" events. Do you catch the connotation of this phrase? This is judgment. This is God giving progressive consequences to ungodly and unrighteous humans who suppress the truth by being unrighteous. God gives them up. To what? To impurity found in the lusts of their hearts (Rom 1:24). To worshiping the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). To dishonorable passions (Rom 1:26). Ultimately to "a debased mind" (Rom 1:28) which results in all manner of evil gleefully engaged and encouraged (Rom 1:29-32).

Now, look back at that chapter. Notice that one of the undeniable texts that classify male sexual relations with males and female sexual relations with females as sin is found there. "Shameless acts," the text says (Rom 1:27). And when some focus on "receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" and point and say, "See? AIDS is God's judgment on gays", they miss entirely the fact that this particular sin (along with the rest of the stuff mentioned in this chapter) is a judgment of God. Its proliferation is God giving them up.

I would suggest to those who wonder when America will be judged for her blatant embrace of sin that you may have already missed it. I think the Bible indicates that the moral climate in which we are currently living is precisely a judgment from God. It is God letting go. "You want this?" He seems to ask, "You got it. And more." So we bow out of biblical relationships and values and then wonder why we continue to fall away from biblical relationships and values. We wonder, like so many, "Why would God allow this to happen?" when we are the ones departing from God. We demonstrate the biblical "blessing" and "curse". The blessing is God's face turned toward us (Num 6:24-26). The curse is God turning away, letting us go. That is God's judgment. We have arrived.

There is a cure for judgment. It is repentance. A failure to repent, according to the Romans 1 pattern, is simply more of the same, a moral collapse until society calls evil good and good evil, where we indulge evil and encourage it (Rom 1:32). You will see increases in hatred towards God and inventors of evil, foolishness and faithlessness (Rom 1:30-31). Don't be surprised. It is God's judgment, His withdrawal of support. It will not end well. It won't be pleasant. It is not unjust. And, as has always been the case, God keeps His own in His hand.

Displacement Strategy

When we think about obeying God's commands, we often think in terms of loss. "I can't do that anymore" or "Now I'm going to have to do without this." You know, "Flee sexual immorality" means I'm going to have to give up sexual immorality (duh!). So now what do I do? There's an empty spot in my day. (Yeah, like "sexual immorality" is a single event in a person's day.) It's a loss, you see. So obedience means giving things up that you used to do. (Sure, it also means doing things that you didn't use to do, but that's not my point here.) That's what we sense when we see "Flee sexual immorality" (or whatever other sins we are to avoid). "Avoid it." Okay ... now what?

The image is popular. You know, the stoic, repressed puritanical person who can't have any fun and can't do anything because God said "NO!" That's what every good Christian looks like, right? I mean, if you're doing it right. And, yet, Jesus came to give us "more abundant" life, "that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full." (John 15:11) So ... now what?

Enter Displacement Strategy. The idea is not "Give up stuff." It is "Replace that stuff with something else." Indeed, "something better". Paul writes:

Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Eph 5:3-4)

That's Displacement Strategy. That's "Don't do this and this and that or the other, but do this instead." And what is it that Paul recommends instead? "Let there be thanksgiving."

Lest you think that thanksgiving is just a possibility, a suggestion, or a "one off" idea, look around. Note, first, that a lack of thanksgiving is a primary problem for humans (Rom 1:21). Beyond that, we are told, "In everything give thanks" followed by "for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." (1 Thess 5:18) In fact, it's all over the place. "Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; for His steadfast love endures forever!" (1 Chron 16:34) "I will give to the LORD the thanks due to His righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High." (Psa 7:17) "Sing praises to the LORD, O you His saints, and give thanks to His holy name." (Psa 30:4) (In fact, it would take too long to pull out the "give thanks to the Lord" passages in the Psalms.) We are to pray with thanksgiving (Phil 4:6; Col 4:2), replace sexual immorality and filthy talk with thanksgiving (Eph 5:4), give with thanksgiving (2 Cor 9:11), and receive anything from God with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4).

In Displacement Strategy, we don't merely give up things. We displace them with something better. The primary "better" listed in the Bible is gratitude toward God. It makes the "loss" a gain, gladdens the heart, repairs a lack in sinful humans, and redirects our hearts to a better treasure than the things we think we're giving up. I think it's a good strategy. But, then, I only think that because it's a biblical one.

What is Fair?

The complaint we hear quite often is "God is not fair." It can be applied in a variety of ways. He's not fair because there is evil in the world. He's not fair because the innocent native in Africa never heard of Christ and is damned because of it. He's not fair because He doesn't answer my prayers the way I want. Lots of ways. The same underlying premise. But it makes me wonder, what is fair?

The dictionary defines "fair" as "beauty" (as in "the lady fair"). Oh, wait, wrong "fair". How about "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice". Yes, that's more like it. Or something like "done properly under the rules". That's kind of what's in view here. Not a "fair wind" or "fair health" or "fair skies" or even "a county fair". We're looking at justice and equality.

So what is fair? What is God being accused of? Well, clearly, God is being accused of giving unequal treatment. He's accused of not operating under the rules. "God is not fair!" How is it fair ("equal treatment") to save some and not others? How is it fair to punish some and not others? (Oh, wait, I don't think they really ask that.) Still, the whole "Why me?" question. "Because, after all, I don't deserve this." And that makes it not fair -- unjust, according to the rules. Or "Why is He treating them better than He is treating me?" Because "fair" requires "equal treatment". Everyone knows that.

I'm really wondering if anyone actually believes that. Oh, I'm pretty sure they do, but to its logical conclusion? If it is true that "fair" is defined as "equality", then we would by definition want to eliminate competition, capitalism, individuality, even success. The requirement would be "the lowest common denominator" and anything else would be ... unfair. Oh, and, of course, there would be no salvation. Everyone would have to get the death their sin earned them (Rom 6:23). Are you sure that's the fair you want? Or is it "'Fair' as I mean it"? Which isn't ... fair.

So, if "fair" is defined as "following my sense of fair", God is not "fair". If "fair" is defined as "all people treated the same", then God is not "fair". If "fair" means "everyone gets what they deserve", God is not "fair". And in all these cases I am exceedingly glad. I couldn't stand a "fair" God who follows your rules (and would, then, not be God) or a "fair" God who treated everyone the same or gave everyone "what they deserve" (and would, then, require damnation of everyone). But if "fair" means "free from dishonesty or injustice", God is fair. If "fair" means "done properly according to the rules" (where "the rules" are defined by the Rule Giver), God is exceedingly fair. As Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Gen 18:25). Always. So apparently it is our concept of "fair" that needs to be shifted. And I would prefer "mercy" to "fair" in my case any day.

What's in a Greeting?

I don't know about you, but when I read the epistles, I tend to skip over the greetings. Oh, sure, I read them, but lightly. I mean, what can you find in a "From Paul to ..."? So you can imagine my surprise when I found something deep and serious in a greeting in one of Paul's epistles.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 1:1-7)

It is, in fact, a lengthy one, isn't it? "Paul". Yeah, yeah, we got that. "To all those in Rome." Okay, good. Can we move on? If you're ready to move on with that little intro, you missed something really big. Sure, sure, it is significant that Paul (you know, the "Super Apostle" who wrote a majority of the New Testament and such) classifies himself as a servant. A δοῦλος -- doulos -- is a bondslave. "I'm no slave!" I hear Christians complain. Well, perhaps, but Paul thought he was ... and he thought you are as well (Rom 6:16). But that's not the part I'm pointing to.

There is that interesting part about "obedience of faith". What's that? Aren't we free from obedience? Doesn't Pauline Dispensationalism say there's nothing we have to do? Haven't we settled that the Bible is not a book of rules? Apparently not. Apparently Paul thought "the obedience of faith" was critical. But that's not the part I'm pointing to.

Take a look at this. Paul says that Christ Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead." Now, we know that the Resurrection is important. It is a necessary component of the essential Gospel. "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Cor 15:3-4) Born, lived sinless, died for our sins, and rose again ... absolutely the bare minimum. Further, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Cor 15:14) No Resurrection, no Christianity. Why? Because in rising again He was "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor 15:20-21) His Resurrection, then, means we have a valid hope for resurrection. Important. Very important.

But in this greeting at the beginning of Paul's epistle to the saints in Rome, we see another critical importance of the Resurrection. Did you see it? According to Paul, the Resurrection of Christ declares Him to be "the Son of God in power." The Resurrection shows Him to be God, the Son. It is proof of deity. Notice that it didn't make Him the Son of God; it declared Him to be. He existed at the beginning (John 1:1-3) and always was God. But this event, His laying down of His life and taking it up again (John 10:17-18), was unique and uniquely God. It declares Him to be God.

There are those who deny the Resurrection. "Oh," they say, "it wasn't actual. Just spiritual, you know. Because everyone knows that no one actually comes back from the dead." Some go so far as to deny it altogether. "Never happened. Just a myth to make a point." (I can point to a pastor in good standing with his denomination who holds this.) To these I say, "You go with that ... but not as a Christian." Absolutely fundamental to Christianity itself is this particular component, the Resurrection of Christ. It is a key part of the Gospel. It is our reason to hope for our own resurrection, our own life after death. And it declares Jesus to be uniquely God Incarnate.

Something to consider on this Sunday, the Lord's Day, when we gather to specifically remember His Resurrection.

A Short Parable

I like science fiction. I particularly like Isaac Asimov's idea about science fiction. He held that the genre itself isn't of particular value, but it can be quite useful when used to get across an idea regarding the human condition, thinking, etc. Here's just such an attempt.

********************

Dr. Gimble was the sociologist officer aboard the starship. His job was to examine the social structures of the cultures the ship would discover on its trek to unexplored worlds. So when they actually discovered an alien culture on a planet in another solar system, Dr. Gimble was eager to go to work. Employing the powerful translation devices at hand, he set out to talk with the leaders of this alien world to discover how their society worked.

As it turned out, these beings were friendly and glad to share information. Dr. Gimble spent days discussing every topic he could imagine. Sex, religion, family, political structures, values, just about anything. Eventually he got around to their penal system. How did they enforce laws?

"Oh, we have a carefully defined justice system," they told him. "All laws include specific penalties for violation."

"What kinds of penalties?" he asked.

"We believe in a justice system, so the penalties match the violation. We have everything from fines to public service to incarceration ... in extreme cases for life."

"So, incarceration is the highest penalty?"

"Well, no, there is one higher. We have invented 'The Machine'."

The way they said it sounded ominous. "What is The Machine?"

"The Machine took us decades to devise and perfect. It is a device for inflicting continuous pain. A person placed in The Machine will be sustained for the duration of the experience; The Machine provides for all requirements of sustenance and everything. But for the duration of the experience The Machine also produces various degrees of constant torment, always changing so as not to allow the person to become accustomed to it, always varying in intensity and type so as to make the experience one of sheer and constant pain. The Machine can do this uninterrupted for up to a year."

"My, that sounds horrible!" Dr. Gimble observed. "What type of crime would earn that penalty?"

"What type of crime? Oh, no crime. We know of no violation that deserves that penalty. It might be possible that a violator might choose it, but it is not something we ever require."

"Wait ... a violator might choose it?"

"Sure. We allow free will."

"And you spent all that time and effort to create a system to provide a penalty for a crime that doesn't exist?"

"Sure, why not? Just shows how kind we are, right?"

********************

There are those who argue that Hell does not exist. Never did. Everyone goes to heaven. It was all a misunderstanding brought about by the Roman Catholic Church. Relax. We've figured it out now.

There are those who argue that Hell never existed. Not everyone goes to heaven. Some do, and the rest just cease to exist.

There are those who argue that Hell does exist. It is the eternal torment set aside for sinners. We have this good news called "Salvation" where the penalty for sin was taken by One who deserved no penalty on our behalf and if you trust in Him, you can be saved from the justly deserved wrath of God against sin.

There are those who believe what these aliens believe. Hell exists. Oh, it's not actually for anyone. It would be unjust of God to actually send anyone there because that penalty exceeds any crime. But if they want it, God won't prevent them from going.

In only one of these possible viewpoints do we find the biblical correspondence of text to the penalty for sin, of Scripture to the purpose of Christ's death, of God's Word as to the meaning of salvation. Anything else makes God out to be pretty nice, just not very wise or just. After all, He sent His Son to die for no real reason at all. And the last one? God is so unjust as to actually send people to Hell because they want to go even if it violates justice. Strange people, these aliens.

Sentiment on Atonement

Here are some questions that might be asked when considering the Atonement. Why did Jesus come? What was the point of the crucifixion? In what sense are we "saved by grace" and what are we saved from? Oh, and a really good question ... who is saved? Now, the Bible answers these kinds of questions, but what do we feel would be right? What noble sentiments would we expect?

"It's not about some blood sacrifice to magically save us from an impotent god who is powerlessly unable to forgive on his own." Good, good. Very noble. "A just God would not punish people for eternity for a white lie or even 'a lifetime of mistakes'." Very warm indeed. "A God who demands perfection is not a loving and just God." Popular feeling. "Jesus came teaching a way of Grace, not of rule following, not of blood sacrifices that the pagans relied upon, or to appease some angry deity." That just feels right. "A God who cannot forgive as we can forgive -- without some payment or payback or something -- is not a God at all." Noble sentiments, all. Except that they are in direct contradiction to what the Bible has to say.

Consider what the Bible says about blood.

Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Rom 5:9)

Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb 9:22)

Brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus. (Heb 10:19)

Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. (Heb 13:12)

That seems to say ("seems" as in "states absolutely clearly and irrefutably") that Christ's blood was essential to our salvation.

Consider what the Bible has to say about God's wrath.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom 1:18)

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph 5:6)

Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience. (Col 3:5-6)

God's wrath isn't a guess. It isn't the product of narrow minds, tricked (like all of historic Christian orthodoxy) into some messed up view of God. It is plainly (and repeatedly) stated in Scripture. Indeed, we have the clear statement that God's will is to make His power and wrath known on "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22).

In Romans Paul writes a comprehensive explanation of the problem (Rom 1:18-3:18). It's sin (Rom 1:18)¹. It's everywhere (Rom 3:23). It's fatal (Rom 6:23). Then he steps up to the good news (Rom 3:19-26). He speaks of our justification as a gift by God's grace "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." That word, "propitiation", isn't a friendly word. It refers to an angry God who requires appeasement. John says, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 2:2) Clearly sin requires propitiation, the appeasement of an angry deity. This, the Bible says, was accomplished by Christ. How? "In His blood." Now, am I saying that God was some bloodthirsty deity requiring some messy sacrifice? No. Consider it from this direction. We speak of the "precious blood of Christ." How precious? Just how much blood was required? If Jesus had pricked His finger on a thorn, would that have been a sufficient quantity? No, of course not. The question isn't blood. The point is in the premise, "The life of the flesh is in the blood ... for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." (Lev 17:11) Not blood, but life. Since "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), the payment required is death. So Christ didn't die as an example or to teach us something or to show humility. "Christ died for our sins." (1 Cor 15:3)

The Bible says that all of us have sinned. The Bible says that sin earns us death. The Bible clearly claims that God's justice demands satisfaction. And the Bible is clear that Christ died for our sins, providing the satisfaction of divine justice, so that "He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)² Now, noble sentiments might lead you to believe otherwise. But your noble sentiments would be wrong, a lie. And another thing the Bible is clear on is who the father of lies is. You can stick with your "warm feelings", your "improved understanding", your "higher version" and stand in direct opposition to all of Scripture as well as all of historic orthodox Christianity on this, or you can consider that we all suffer from wicked and deceitful hearts and if your feelings contradict God's Word, it is Man who is the liar, not God (Rom 3:4). So, go ahead. Substitute your feelings for God's stated truth. We'll let God sort that out.
________

¹ Note the infraction that incurs God's wrath. Suppression of truth. Not some "big sin". Not serial rape or mass murder or some such thing. This warrants wrath from God.

² In this phrase, Paul makes Christ's death on our behalf a matter of justice satisfied, making God both just and justifier. If it wasn't about justice, the phrase is meaningless.

That's Hard!

"If it was easy, everyone would be doing it." Ever hear that? It is meant to encourage you to do the hard thing. I mean to encourage you to do the hard thing.

What hard thing? Things like following Christ. Like doing the right thing. That kind of thing.

I talked to a pastor once about an idea "I came up with". "How about if your church went about making disciples? You know, where the congregation would learn to walk alongside others, teaching them and encouraging them and exhorting them to obey Christ. That kind of thing?" "Oh," he told me (he actually told me), "that's too much work." I would like to encourage you to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20) "That's hard!" Yes ... yes it is. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

The Bible is thick with exhortations against idolatry. Of course, most of it is in regards to those physical idols we think of carved out of stone or wood representing some false god or something. But it's anything at all that substitutes for God. And it is part of our everyday experience. Our idols today are pop singers or power or money or fame or "stuff" or popularity or appreciation or technology or ... it gets to be a long list that even we Christians find acceptable. Here, a little example. Given a choice between preaching the gospel in your neighborhood or keeping peace in your home (you know, "Honey, if you go out there and do that, they'll make our lives uncomfortable here."), which would you choose? If you opt for peace in the home over doing what God commands, you've just identified your idol. At least, one of them. "Little children," John writes, "keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21) "That's hard!" Yes ... yes it is. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Perhaps the most common sin addressed in Scripture, perhaps after this whole idolatry thing, is the sin of sexual immorality. It is everywhere in Scripture. The famed claim that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God (Lev 18:22) is found in a whole pile of commands against all manner of sexual immorality including incest, adultery, and bestiality (Lev 18:6-23). In the letters of Jesus addressed to the seven churches at the end, Thyatira is accused of tolerating a prophetess who is, among other things, "seducing My servants to practice sexual immorality." (Rev 2:20) It is everywhere. It is on the short list of the obvious things that prevents someone from entering the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10) (and on just about every other list of evils people do in Scripture). Fast forward to our time where sexual immorality is considered the norm, even recommended. Unmarried couples living together outside of marriage attend church without batting an eye. Many have bought the whole "It's better to try it out before marrying so you know if it's right" concept. And, of course, there's the whole homosexual sexual immorality thing going on where those who classify themselves as Christians applaud "loving, committed" sexually immoral relationships. Beyond that, it is impossible to turn on the television, drive down the street, or walk through a mall without being bombarded by sexual immorality in the presentations and advertisements of the world around us. Still, we are commanded, "Flee from sexual immorality." (1 Cor 6:18) Paul writes, "Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy." (Rom 13:13) "Really, Paul? I mean, that's most of what our world is about. Don't do that? That's hard!" Yes ... yes it is. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

We are exhorted to do things that are hard to do. If they were easy, everyone would be doing them. They're even classified by many as foolish. But we're commanded to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12) Yes, it's hard. That's why it's good to remember that "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) It's hard, but the alternative is worse. And if God is at work in you, the will and ability are provided by Him. That's why "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)

Sentiment on Sovereignty

I wrote before on the tyranny of the Noble Sentiment. I think the concept is so big that I should take some time (over time) to address it in its multiple applications because I'm pretty sure we suffer from wicked and deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9) and will often miss this idea and its connected truth because we're suffering from the tyranny of the Noble Sentiment.

Consider the subject of God's Sovereignty. I get a lot of flak from genuine Christians on that topic. "God doesn't do that" is very common in the discussion. Because "God doesn't do that" is a truly noble sentiment ... noble, but wrong when it violates what God says He does. Like the example I already used. So we know which is the noble sentiment, but which is true -- "God doesn't cause blindness" or "Who makes [men] mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"? Like "God doesn't cause unpleasant things to happen" over against, "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." (Isa 45:7) Or "God doesn't ordain evil" as opposed to "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). (Note, if you think it merely means God used it for good, look who Scripture says sent Joseph to Egypt in the first place - Psa 105:17.) Like "God doesn't kill anyone" on one hand and "The LORD kills and brings to life" (1 Sam 12:6) on the other. "Well, God certainly doesn't intervene in Man's free will" is a warm and friendly sentiment, but the Bible says, "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." (Prov 16:9) "God has no connection to wickedness" seems a given except that we find clearly stated in Scripture, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov 16:4) And that's all on just one topic.

The question remains. Will you be conformed to the world, driven by passions and desires, or will you be transformed by the renewing of your mind? (You know I didn't make anything up in that question, right?) I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but it's really up to you to look at what God says over against what feels right and see if you are lining up the two properly. Today's it's a question of God's Sovereignty. Tomorrow, a different reality obliterated by noble sentiment. Keep your eyes open for it. I'm sure you and I both carry these things around without knowing it.

Indoctrination

Have you ever noticed, in the evolution of the language, how some words start out as innocuous, even good, but end up negative? Take, for instance, "puritan". Originally it was a term applied to a group of 16th century Protestants who were known for simplified doctrine and worship and strict religious discipline. They were so called for their purity of doctrine and living. Now, of course, it refers to rigid people with upright morals and no joy. An insult. Or consider "Fundamentalism". That once meant merely those who held to the fundamentals of the faith. In a world where Christendom was straying off into all sorts of ideas -- many of which could no longer be called "Christian" -- the Fundamentalists called for a return to straightforward biblical Christianity. Not so bad, is it? Of course, today it is a term of contempt intended to suggest narrow-minded and perhaps even dangerous teaching. "Islamic Fundamentalists", for instance, is the term applied to those who call themselves "Muslims" and preach the killing of non-believers. Dangerous, see? And how is that any different from "Christian Fundamentalists"? It's a bad thing.

A couple of months ago I was talking to a mother whose high schooler was going to a Christian school. The student was talking about his concern that the school was indoctrinating them into the school's beliefs. And clearly that was a bad thing.

The dictionary says "indoctrinate" means "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc.", "to teach or inculcate", or "to imbue with learning." Yeah, that's pretty evil stuff. Of course, it has shifted since then. Now it includes the sense of "partisan or biased belief" and includes an implied sense of believing uncritically. Earlier synonyms for "indoctrinate" might have been "proselytize" or "persuade", but now it's more at "brainwash" and "propagandize". In its current use, at its most mild, it means to inculcate someone into a specific point of view. (Oh, and "inculcate" means to implant ideas by repetitious, persistent, and earnest teaching.) And that, dear readers, is evil.

Part of the problem with "indoctrination", I suppose, is with the root word, "doctrine". Even some Christians don't like the term. It sounds too ... narrow. It means "a set of beliefs held by a group", but to many people that's a bad thing. It is wrong to have a single "set of beliefs". At least, that's what their doctrine holds. That it would offend Christians confuses me. Paul said that the law was good for preventing people (including "men who practice homosexuality") from doing that which is "contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Tim 1:8-11) He warned against those who teach "a different doctrine" (1 Tim 6:3-5; see also 1 Tim 1:3). He told Titus that church leaders must "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) Oh, yes, the Bible is in favor of doctrine.

So what about me? I'm not afraid to take an unpopular position. I'm in favor of "Puritan" beliefs. Anyone who opts for a biblical Christianity and strives for holy living is wise in my view. I'm in favor of fundamentalism. A theology based on the fundamentals of the Word of God and historical orthodox Christianity is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. And what about "indoctrination"? Well, of course, I'm all for "teaching them to observe" all that Christ commands. Which, of course, is "indoctrination." I'm glad to instruct in doctrine, to teach, to imbue learning. To in-doctrinate someone in the doctrines of the faith seems not only a good thing, but a biblical one (2 Tim 2:2). But, then, this is all the same problem. Words change. And I can't seem to keep up. Someday I hope someone will tell me the new terminology I can use to express "the lifelong union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and for procreation" and "biblical Christianity and holy living" and "learning and embracing right doctrine." Until then, I'll still be a happily married puritanical fundamentalist bent on indoctrinating others. All without any of the negative connotations. Someone appears to have stolen the terms I've been using. Or maybe it's just that many, including a large number of people who call themselves Christians, think that those are bad things. Of course, they do so in opposition to Scripture, but try to get them to see that.