How Great Thou Art

I'm writing about one of my all-time favorite hymns this Sunday.

The famous hymn, How Great Thou Art, was originally a poem entitled "O Store Gud" written by a Swedish pastor after experiencing the might of God's nature in a thunderstorm and the beauty of God's nature in the forest and stream he speaks of in the second verse. He wrote it in 1886, but it was translated in the 1930's by a missionary to Russia, Reverend Stuart K. Hine. Reverend Hine added the third verse in Russia, and the fourth in England.

O Lord, my God, when I, in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"
Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"

The song is a prayer. One of the fascinating aspects of this prayer is that there are no requests. It is a prayer of adoration. This is almost unheard of in our time. We are a generation of self-centered people who defend and encourage self-centered attitudes and actions. We are the focal point of our own universe. Even in our prayers we are asking God for what we want, for what would make us happy. This prayer focuses entirely on God and His greatness.

Let's listen in as the hymnist talks to God. Note first the address: "O Lord, my God." "Lord" speaks of God's sovereignty, His lordship. In theological terms, it speaks of the transcendence of God, the God above all.

"Lord" isn't a familiar term to modern day Americans. We are an independent nation that worships freedom and independence. We prefer not to recognize anyone as master over us. We have no present-day role to use as an example of the meaning of the term. But we must learn to recognize -- "realize" (that is, to make that which is true real to ourselves) -- that God is Lord. This isn't an opinion. This isn't an option. Any view that strays from the position of God's absolute sovereignty is in error.

The second aspect of the address, "O Lord, my God," is the term "my". To call Him God is correct. There is none other. He is the one and only God. But the term "my" personalizes the relationship between God, the Sovereign, and me. Theologically, this speaks to His immanence.

Martin Luther said that Christianity is a religion of personal pronouns. We constantly read expressions like "my God," "My people," "my Lord." This points to the personal facet of God, the amazing truth that God is interested in me. No other religion in the world carries this concept of personal relationship. But Jesus said that God knows the number of hairs on my head. That's personal. He wants us to know Him. That's astonishing. We can pray with Moses, "Teach me Thy ways, O Lord, that I might know Thee." (Exo. 33:18-23)

The prayer goes on to recognize God through creation. This is a common occurrence in Scripture (e.g., Psa. 19; Rom. 1:20). All of creation points to its Maker. All created things bear the fingerprints of their Creator.

One consideration of nature is "worlds". The word covers many concepts. Above us there are a myriad of galaxies, stars, solar systems -- worlds. But in the microscopic level there are chemical structures made up of molecular structures comprised of atomic structures -- worlds. In our world there are food chains, life cycles, ecosystems, weather patterns -- worlds. God’s hands, the hymnist says, made each of these. (This takes us back to the personal God.) And each of these, as in the thunderstorm, is a picture of God's power.

The only reasonable response to a glimpse of this sovereign, yet personal, transcendent, yet immanent God is, "How great Thou art!" The hymnist sings it with his innermost being, his soul. The soul encompasses one's mind, will, and emotions. A glimpse of God must impact us at these deepest of levels, or it wasn't real. The soul turned toward God has no room for self.

And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Paul says "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) The recurring theme of God's love appears all through Scripture (e.g., John 3:16; Phil. 2:5-11; Rom. 8:32). It seems, however, that we have taken that grace for granted, as if we somehow deserve God's love. The hymnist didn't see it that way. "I scarce can take it in," was his thought.

Romans says that God was perfectly willing to reveal His glory by demonstrating His wrath (Rom. 9:22). We have gone to great effort to earn His wrath (Romans 6:23). We are, according to Scripture, God-haters (Rom. 8:7; James 4:4). Yet, Christ demonstrated grace - unmerited favor - on the cross. If I have personal worth, intrinsic value, then there is no grace. He merely practiced wise economy. But the fact is Christ died for us because He wanted to, not because I was so valuable.

"On the cross . . . He bled and died." Crucifixion was the worst way to die. Physically, it was designed for the utmost in pain and torture without immediate death. The whipping, the nails, the continuous physical torture of merely breathing while every bone came out of joint, all designed for slow death. Emotionally, it was devised to humiliate. It was a public torture in which the criminal carried his own instrument of death. He hung naked on the cross in front of all that watched. But the only record of Christ crying out was at the spiritual torment of the cross. At the moment of separation from His Father, He cried, "My God, why have You forsaken Me?" He had never been separated from God. He had never known sin. Yet He became sin for us.

Perhaps most remarkable about that day on the cross was the simple, inescapable fact that Jesus chose to do it. No one required it of Him. He could have said, "No." The hymnist recognized this fact. "My burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin."

How can we see this and not answer with the writer, "Then sings my soul, 'How great Thou art!'" When we take for granted the immense love and grace demonstrated on the cross, we display our ignorance and self-centeredness.

When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow in humble adoration
And there proclaim, "My God, how great Thou art!"

The last verse is a common concept among hymn-writers. Many hymns looked to the return of Christ, to the day that we would be with Him. It was a joyous thought. The prospect of being in the presence of the Almighty God, the company of our Lord and Savior, was too wonderful to imagine.

We were designed for that condition. It was Adam's original condition in the garden, walking with God. We are incomplete here without that fellowship, so we immerse ourselves in spurious pursuits to fill that void. Meanwhile, Jesus promised to prepare for our arrival (John 14:2,3). What delight to know that He is anticipating our coming! Would that we would see it with such joy.

Hine had no misconceptions about that day. We have ideas of sightseeing in heaven or visiting with biblical characters. He saw his proper response to God's presence as bowing in "humble adoration." Bowing to anyone is not a popular concept in our culture. We are proud people who defer to no one. But Scripture readily reveals that this is the most common position of anyone who came in contact with God. We have failed to see the difference between coming boldly into the presence of God and coming arrogantly into the presence of God. That we can stand in His proximity at all should utterly amaze us. Somehow we have contracted a cavalier attitude that God is some "big guy" upstairs who winks at our sin because He loves us. We mustn't fall into that thought trap.

The hymn is aptly titled, "How Great Thou Art!" It speaks of God's sovereignty as Lord -- His transcendence -- as well as his personal care for us -- His immanence. In it we see Him as the joy of our souls and the sole worthy focus of our hearts. And we see ourselves as needy, sinful people. We see the need to turn the eyes of our souls to Him. He must increase, and I must decrease.

How Times Have Changed

My brother-in-law likes to refer to himself as "the out-law" at family gatherings. We laugh. It's intended to be humorous. But there are specific folk who are becoming the "outlaws" among Christians. Let's see if you qualify.

1. You concur with historical Christianity that the Bible is God's Word, breathed by God, infallible and inerrant.

2. You believe that the Holy Spirit teaches His followers the truth and, therefore, you can know the truth.

3. You stand on the position that Jesus is pro-life (based on the notion that humans are made in the image of God).

4. You hold the archaic belief that God is not three Gods or three modes of God, but one essence in three persons.

5. You actually believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

6. You believe there actually is orthodoxy ... and heresy (required if you claim there is orthodoxy).

7. Worse, you actually think it's possible to know which is which.

8. You derive your view of reality from the Bible.

When large and clear portions of yesterday's biblical orthodoxy becomes today's heresy, something is wrong ... and it's not with yesterday.

Sola Scriptura

The cry of the Reformation was "Sola Scriptura!" Okay, maybe not, but it was certainly the undergirding concept. Among all the other "solas", the other "only" references (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria) were based on this one. That is, the claims that we are saved by faith apart from works, saved by grace apart from works, saved by Christ alone, and that God alone deserves glory are all predicated on the notion that Scripture alone is the authority on matters of faith and practice. It was held over against the world's "reason" or "perceptions" and even the Roman Catholic three-part structure of Scripture, Church, and Traditions. Scripture alone was the authority in matters of faith and practice.

Of course, everyone knows that this was a "new thing", an invention of the Reformers. It's not biblical and it's not historical. And, as I often suggest, new things are suspect. But, is it true? Is it true that it was a new thing, that it was not historical? As it turns out, it ain't necessarily so. As it turns out, sola scriptura is historical.

When the Church stood against Arius and the Arian Heresy (the claim that Jesus was not God), the Council of Nicaea stood on the basis of Scripture. Gregory of Nyssa wrote,

What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.)

Arius was wrong not because he disagreed with the Council, but because he disagreed with Scripture.

In fact, a host of early Church fathers wrote of the authority of Scripture over against which everything must be weighed. Writings from Irenaeus of Lyons (died 202 A.D.), Tertullian (died 235 A.D.), Hippolytus (died 235 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 265 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373 A.D.) -- the list goes on and on -- all contain the same claims long before the Reformation. As Augustine put it,

Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)

As it turns out, the doctrine that Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice was around from the beginning, based on the authority of God, the source of Scripture.

And, as it turns out, "It's not biblical" is equally false. Paul warned the Corinthians to "not go beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6). You see, it is in our nature to think of our logic and reason as the ultimate authority, but Paul was concerned that "your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5) The psalmist wrote, "The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever." (Psa 119:160) The Bible claims, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17) Get that? Under God's authority, being sourced by God, "all Scripture" is profitable "that the man of God may be complete." What higher authority than God? What other authority is needed? Not human philosophy or human traditions or even the elemental spirits of the world (Col 2:8), but God is our sole authority and His Word is His revealed will. Does the Bible say, "Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice"? No, of course not. You won't find that text. Nor does it mention the word "Trinity" even once. But based on what the Bible says about the Bible (which, by definition, makes it "biblical"), it is the only reasonable conclusion. It is the conclusion that the early Church fathers came to. It has been the historical conclusion of the Church. It is my conclusion. As always, you're free to conclude otherwise. I just wonder about the wisdom of doing so.

Self-Centered

It seems like every day of being out in public is a constant and even growing confirmation that people are, in general, self-centered. Drivers who don't care how close you came to hitting them when they cut you off, shoppers who don't care if you can't get by because they're blocking the aisle while they browse, coworkers that appear to believe their mothers must work there because they make no effort to clean up after themselves ... lots and lots of illustrations.

The truth is people "in general" are not self-centered. All people are self-centered. It is the basic problem of the sin nature. "I will be like the Most High." Sure, most people learn, as they mature, that it's better not to appear too self-centered, but this is what is called by philosophers "enlightened self-interest". In this "highest morality" a wise person learns that assisting others to obtain their interests will serve to satisfy his own self-interest. In the end, of course, it is self-interest. Most consider altruism, regard for others without regard for yourself, a high moral value, but most will admit that in general this boils down to "I do it because it makes me feel good." Maybe it's neurological, where the act affects the pleasure centers of the brain. Maybe it's biological, where the act is an unconscious desire to protect the genetic line. Maybe it's a social expectation, where "If I help you in your time of need, you might help me later." Whatever the case, underlying the selflessness ... is selfishness. It's a human condition. It's just the way it is.

There is, as it turns out, only one means by which this can be changed. That is found in Jesus. Oh, sure, that sounds trite. And, to be sure, lots of Christians are not free of self-centeredness. (Hey, let's be honest ... not one of us is completely free of it.) But the means is available in Christ.

Obstacle 1: Sin Nature

The first problem to overcome to arrive at selflessness over selfishness is human nature. Specifically, the sin nature. In the flesh, that doesn't happen. In this life, it won't be ultimately achieved. But the Christian life consists of the process of making that happen. Of course, for the non-believer, that doesn't even start, because it can only begin if you have died with Christ (Rom 6:8). "With Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world." (Col 2:20) "You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." (Col 3:3) Then, "You who were dead in your trespasses ... God made alive together with Him." (Col 2:13) A new life. If the first obstacle is the sin nature, the solution is dying and rising to new life with Christ. "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." (2 Cor 5:17)

Obstacle 2: Motive Force

Dying to self and alive with Christ, we still have a sin nature. So now we have to move, to change, to be transformed. How does that work? We have that sin nature, but we also have the Holy Spirit in us. "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) We have God working in us to "be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29), the process known as sanctification.

Obstacle 3: Needs

So, in Christ we are new. We are capable of no longer serving just self. Further, we have the power to do so, the power of God Himself at work in us, giving us both the will and ability. Nothing more is needed to change from selfish to selfless. Nothing ... but the problem of needs. Because, look, we all have needs, right? We have physical and emotional and social and economic and ... lots of needs. We have to look out for those, don't we? And here we are, as denizens of these bodies on this planet, self-centered again. We have to meet our needs. But is that true? Jesus said, "Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matt 6:8) Jesus told His disciples, "All the nations of the world seek after these things [food, shelter, clothing, etc.], and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:30-32) Interestingly this is one of those places that Jesus tells His disciples to "Sell your possession" (Luke 12:33) because, you see, the Father will be supplying your needs.

Conclusion

We all suffer from self-centeredness. It's a human, sin problem. And on our own there is no solution. Indeed, the Natural Man wouldn't even call it a problem. "Hey," they will tell you, "you have to look out for #1." In Christ, however, there is an answer. We can die to self and have our life in Christ. We can be activated by God at work in us to change our natural inclinations (self-centeredness) to selflessness. We can operate without fear in this mode because we have the confidence that our Father has the ability and desire to meet our needs. That is, with all my needs met, I don't have to concern myself with my needs and can simply focus on God and those around me. Because, as Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34) The better we understand and incorporate that, the less self-centered we will be.

Love Discarded

We can learn a lot from an old book. Take, for instance, the Book of Revelation, right there at the end of the Bible. I know, I know, it can be a tough book, so let's just try a small part. Let's just look at Jesus's letter to the Church at Ephesus. (Imagine that. Jesus sent letters to churches.)

"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place--unless you repent. Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.'" (Rev 2:1-7)

Short letter, sure, but it is full of useful stuff for you and me.

Almost all of the seven letters follow a standard template. 1) Who is talking? 2) What are you doing right? 3) What do I have against you? 4) How do you fix it? 5) "He who has ears to hear ...".

First, the introduction. In the first chapter of Revelation Jesus is introduced to us holding the seven stars and standing among the seven lampstands. Jesus explains these so we don't have to guess. "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (Rev 1:20) So, here we have Jesus reminding Ephesus that He holds the angels of these churches and walks in the midst of them. (We're not entirely sure about the angels. The term means "messenger". It may refer to a messenger that was being sent, the one already there giving them God's message, or a literal angel.) What we know, then, is that the One sending this letter is sovereign over the messenger and intimately involved with the recipient.

Christ commends Ephesus for doing everything right. No, seriously, you would think that they're doing everything right. They're doing the right deeds. They're working hard. They're persevering. They do not tolerate evil and they do not tolerate false doctrine. Right down the line. (An extra one is stuck in down in verse 6 where they do not tolerate the deeds of the Nicolaitans whose deeds Christ hates, too.) I'll tell you what; it all looks good for the church at Ephesus.

And then the other shoe drops. One thing. One little thing. One little thing that, if it isn't remedied, will cost them everything. "You have left your first love." It's interesting that Jesus did not say that they "fell out of love" or "lost your first love". No. They left it. They didn't lose it. They let it go. They gave it up. They sent it away.

What is the literally God-given solution? It takes three parts: 1) remember, 2) repent, and 3) return. Remember where you came from--the sin from which you were saved--and repent, turning away from "left love" and back to the Savior, back to the One who saved you from that sin. Return, then, to those early deeds, those motivated by loving gratitude from the beginning rather than stale, if correct, duty. Or "I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand." The church in Ephesus would end.

It ends with the "ears to hear" part where the one who overcomes will be granted to eat from the tree of life in the Paradise of God.

The text is clear and understandable, but, more importantly, it is immediately applicable. We all suffer from this from time to time. We know what's right and we try to do what's right and believe what's right, but ... sometimes our heart is just not in it. We're doing it because we ought to do it. And, to be fair, doing it because we ought is better than not doing it at all. Ephesus was commended for doing what they ought. Still, Jesus says that love matters. Duty only takes us so far. Love is absolutely necessary.

So check the remedy for yourself. Have you left your first love? Maybe it's love for Christ. Maybe it's love for a spouse. Maybe a family member. It works the same for all of these. Remember where you fell from. Turn from your failure to love and to loving Christ, the One who saved you from where you were before. Now, perform those deeds that this kind of grateful love produces. You'll be surprised at how effective this is. You shouldn't be. It is the prescription of Christ Himself.

The New Agnostics

Around the start of the 21st century we saw the rise of the "New Atheists". They're "brighter" and louder and more "anti" than merely "not" theists. Now, they can discuss among themselves whether this is really new or whether the term is even applicable, but in the same sense I think we can see a rise of the "New Agnostics".

First, as a matter of basis, we need to define "agnostic". While "atheist" refers to those who are making a positive claim -- "There is no God" -- the "agnostic" term refers to those who make no such claim. They simply say "We don't or can't know if there is or isn't a God." The word is based on the Greek which starts with the "a" prefix for "not" and is followed by the "gnosis" term meaning "to know" -- to "not know". I, then, am suggesting a "New Agnostic" in this more literal sense, those who claim "we cannot know" about other things.

These "New Agnostics" are not "outside". The original atheists and agnostics are "outside". That is, they aren't claiming to be Christians because they either don't know if there is a God or they are sure there isn't. By definition, then, these would have to be outside the realm of believers ... because they don't believe. Seems simple enough. But we've largely shoved ordinary logic aside far enough that we can in this day and age have a pastor in good standing in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who is a self-professed atheist and considers himself a Christian. He would be an extreme example. Don't worry. There are lots more and far less extreme.

Most popular among these "insiders", these "New Agnostics" within Christendom (using the term loosely), are those who argue precisely what agnostics argue: "You cannot know." These, of course, cannot argue "You cannot know if there is a God." Not that. But they're happy to tell you, "You cannot know the truth of Scripture." And they are insidious. They make themselves out to be the "humble" ones. "Look," they'll tell you, "there is disagreement about most of Scripture. Are you so arrogant as to believe you know what's true or not when there is so much disagreement? Can't you see that it's pure egotism?" The unspoken suggestion (unspoken because as soon as it is spoken it becomes ludicrous) is "You should be more humble like I am."

These "New Agnostics" wend their way into churches (or, perhaps, are part of church-looking places already converted to this) to assure believers "You don't know what to believe." They argue, "It's not 'Did God say ...?' That's just Satan-talk. It's that you can't know for sure what God said." (It's amusing, too, because, generally speaking, these types will deny that the incident of "Did God say ...?" ever actually took place.) They'll protest, "You can't say 'God says this' just because you read it in the Bible. You have to be humble and say, 'It's just my opinion.'"

These "New Agnostics" are perhaps more destructive than the Atheists, new or old. The atheist attack is clear. It's easy to see and we can take a stand knowing that we do know there is a God. But these others are in among us urging biblical-sounding virtues like "humility" and "tolerance" while they assure us that, in other words, Jesus was wrong when He said that His Spirit would lead us into all truth. And that, to me, is neither humble nor tolerant. They so twist the Word of God that they require doubt. Confidence in the Word is wrong. Doubt is a virtue even though James says, "The one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind" (James 1:6), claiming that the doubter is "a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8) They love to prey on the weak -- the new Christian or the young Christian or especially that new college-bound Christian no longer tied to his family moorings, but they also like trying to take down the confident Christians. Confidence, to them, is a pretty big sin, at least when it is a confidence that they're wrong and the Word is knowable. Like waves against the shore, they lap away at the rocks, hoping to erode confidence in God and His Word and leave you without foundation, but feeling superior because you're humble.

You probably know some of these "New Agnostics". They may be in your family, in your church, at work, in your neighborhood. They're certainly in your social media. Rest assured that a "superior thinking" of "doubting everything" is not superior. In a vacuum, I suppose, it might be, but we live in a theistic world where Christ promised to send His Spirit to lead His own into all truth. Truth, then, can be known. And it will be known by all whom the Spirit leads. So you can be reasonably sure you are in the truth if you are diligent with the Scriptures (2 Tim 2:15), practicing the Scriptures (Heb 5:14), and of course, seeking first God and His righteousness (Matt 6:33) rather than the world's (1 John 2:15). Despite their denials, the voice of the "New Agnostics" that asks, "Did God say ...?" is not a superior voice; it is a voice from the father of lies.

Moral Relativism is Dead

Hey, good news! Did you know that moral relativism is dead? Or so we are told. Once touted as the biggest threat of postmodernism, they're now saying that it's no longer the case. As evidence, look at our "shame culture" where social media and social commentary is used to shame offenders into "being good". Look at the "Black Lives Matter", "Occupy Wall Street", and other movements. Look at Pay Pal, Springsteen, Ringo Starr, and Cirque de Soleil's refusal to show up in North Carolina because their law is standing on the science that says that your gender is a matter of genes, not feelings. Oh, no, moral relativism is not alive and well. It's dead.

The Atlantic is pretty sure that moral relativism is dead because people are taking firm stands on what they believe is right. That means that it's not relative, right? Easy mistake, I suppose, except that this new version of morality is tethered purely to the feelings of the crowd and, therefore, by definition it is relative. Relative to the feelings of the crowd.

Take the North Carolina law. That one is tied to science. Science defines gender. They go with science. End of story. Take the Freedom of Religion laws passed lately. These are tied to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights says that Americans have a guaranteed free exercise of religion, so they go with the Constitution. End of story. The protesters in both of these cases are standing firmly on "That violates how we feel about the issue!" Relativism. One view says, "There are some things we can know (e.g., science, the Constitution, etc.), so we will stand on what we can know and question how we feel." The other view says, "We put ultimate confidence in the human ability to feel the truth and we will question claims that counter that." The first is empiricism; the second is relativism. Relativism makes "personhood" murky. "You can't define a fetus as a person ... but we can't exactly say when that changes ... so go ahead and kill that non-person if you want." Relativism makes the standard, longstanding, historically unchallenged definition of marriage foggy. "It is not only a man and a woman ... but it is also not a man and two (or more) women. It is what we feel like it is right now." The opposite of moral relativism might look to what we can know -- say, God's law -- and say, "The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) The moral relativist will argue, "That's not what it means, you can't know what that means, and it is not in alignment with how we currently feel as a society, so it's wrong."

Moral relativism is not dead. It's actually just louder, more insistent, less tolerant. Instead of "right for you, not for me" like the older version, this one is going to require you to surrender your differing view, your science, your Bible, your historic context, your Constitution, and to knuckle under. "You don't want to participate? Too bad. We will strip you of your flower shop and your job and your freedoms because we are no longer wishy washy in our morality. We feel you're wrong, so you are."

Moral relativism is dead, long live moral relativism.

Be Still, My Soul!

Be still, my soul! The Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide,
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! Thy best, thy heavenly friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Written by Katharina von Schlegel in 1752, the hymn displays a trust in a God almost unheard of today. Why? What did she know that we have lost?

One of the most common commands to action in Scripture is "Wait." "Stand firm." "Be still." These are all the same concept. Why? "Be still, and know that I am God." In knowing God there is peace. Why? Because of who He is, but also because He is at your side.

How did Katharina von Schlegel view God? To her He was present and personal. She saw order and provision, and she saw Him as the sole source of order and provision. She saw Him as immutable and faithful, an anchor in a stormy world. She saw Him as the best possible choice, as a real friend, and wise enough to know the course to true joy.

Just as important as her view of God was her view of life. How she saw God directly impacted how she saw life. She saw that life was difficult, painful -- in her terms, a cross. But to her it was nothing to either deny or shrink from. Because her all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God was at her side, she could bear patiently and allow God to order her world and provide for her needs.

Even here we lose our way. Of course, we say, God will provide for our needs. But we mean something entirely different than God does in His promise for provision. We have turned to a God who will give us what we want rather than to a God to whom we must surrender ourselves. We believe that He is there to satisfy us. David Wells says that we have learned this in our American consumer mentality. "In the marketplace, everything is for us, for our pleasure, for our satisfaction, and we have come to assume that it must be so in the church as well."¹ The current prevalent belief is that God is there for our indulgence, and when he fails to give us what we want, He is no longer our friend. "We imagine that for those who love God and are called according to his purpose, all things work together for their satisfaction and the inner tranquility of their lives." But the fact is that God has promised suffering - because He loves us and wants the best for us. He will meet the needs He knows we have. He will use difficult circumstances to provide for our good. But it is only when we recognize the loving character of God that we can face harsh conditions with joy, knowing that He has our utmost in mind.

Katharina's viewpoints are vastly different from the average Christian today. While we speak of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, wise God, we tremble at the slightest disturbance in life. It is said that you are motivated by what you believe, and our motivation is self-preservation because we don't really believe that God is capable or reliable. It seems that most of us don't know the God that Katharina knew. We need to. We need to see Him in history, see Him in our experience, see Him in His Word, and see Him in others. We will be unable to reflect Him if we never view Him, never see Him as He is. It is the reflection of Him that is our goal. And when we view Him as He is, we can choose to proceed through painful circumstances, standing on His capabilities and love, and obtaining the prize He had in mind for us, perfection.

Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake.
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! The waves and winds still know
His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below.

The question of God's sovereignty has been a raging debate in the church throughout the years. Is God really in charge? What about predestination? Where does man's free will come into play? The real question is, is God truly sovereign?

The hymnist looks to His sovereignty as an ultimate anchor. "Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake to guide the future as He has the past." A key to the confidence we can have in God is in that simple sentence. How can we be sure God will "guide the future?" Because He has guided the past (Isa. 25:1). We see it in history. We see it in Scripture. We see it in our own lives. The fact is God's track record, whether we recognize it or not, is absolutely perfect.

It is God who we trust. It is His character, His proven character, in which we have confidence. We trust His goodness to do good. We trust His omniscience to know what that is and all that it entails. We trust His omnipotence to carry out His plans. When we fear anything or anyone other than God, we are saying, "I'm not sure You can be trusted here, God."

The author had another source of confidence in God. She looked to the scriptural record. We can be still in our souls because of the proof in Scripture. Her prime example is Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41). The passage says Jesus rebuked the wind and sea, and it became perfectly calm. The reaction of the disciples was increased fear, for real terror is the presence of the Holy with the unholy. If we know God, circumstances are inconsequential because they are in His hands. It is God we must fear (Deut. 4:10; Psa. 111:10; Eccl. 8:12; 12:13; Heb. 10:31).

Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord.
When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone -
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.

It is fascinating to me the consistent forward look of hymn writers. A majority of their songs and poems look to our ultimate union with God, either in His return or our death. Is this because of their great sorrow in life? Are they all suicidal? I don't think so. I think it is because of the immense joy set before them in the presence of God.

Most hymns point to God at work. There is great confidence in His work here and now. But to be with Him, united, perfect! Indeed, I believe it is this forward look that helped them toward their views of God. To recognize the here and now as satisfactory is possible because of who God is (Phil. 4:11-13). To see this as temporary makes it all the more enjoyable (Phil. 1:21-24). And anticipating being in God's presence in the future prevents too great an attachment to the present (Matt. 6:19-21). What cause to rejoice - to be someday in the presence of God!

Katharina ties it all together in this last verse. "Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored." Why be still? Because then, ultimately, the uncertainties and pains of life will be gone. We will know safety and blessing. "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)

What cause to be still? In a word, God. His faithfulness and providence, His love and sovereignty, and the absolute certainty of being with Him. Be still, my soul!

________

¹ David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pp. 114 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

Choices

The world tells us, with warmth and a smile,

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

Hmmm ... I wonder which to go with.

That's Not Biblical!

It's the argument that, frankly, makes me laugh. You see, I'm operating from the historical, orthodox view that the Bible is God's Word, inerrant and infallible, right all the time. As such, it is, as God's Word, the authority on matters of faith and practice. It forms my worldview, my entire thinking structure that correlates all things in a coherent pattern. And, as such, it is incumbent upon me to transform my thinking to align with God's Word. "It's biblical" is something I need to pay attention to. (Mind you, I need to check whether the claim that "it's biblical" is correct, but I need to pay attention.)

So it makes me laugh when someone who doesn't actually care what is biblical or not will tell me, "That's not biblical!" Typically, someone like this has devoted time to carefully, piece by piece, stripping off adherence to "biblical" at all. "This part is myth. That part is fiction. That other part is cultural and no longer relevant to our time. Oh, and that part ... right there ... where you have you finger ... that part is just plain wrong." In other words, "I don't care what is biblical ... but what your claiming isn't."

The criteria are somewhat vague as to what constitutes "biblical". Often it is so rigid as to be ridiculous. "It doesn't actually say that" (whatever that happens to be) "so it's not biblical." As such, the Trinity (as a common example) is not "biblical" by this criterion because the word itself does not appear in Scripture anywhere. Often the "that's not biblical" cry, sounding so definitive and assured, is just an argument from personal position. "Sure, you've made your arguments. You've shown where the texts say something and the context argues something and the rest of Scripture argues something, but I disagree, so 'that's not biblical'." Why? Perhaps it's not explicit enough. (I think often it's because the position is not one they're willing to allow.) The fact is that more often than not people choose to disregard biblical arguments on the basis of preference rather than the Bible. So if all of Christendom agrees (as an example) that you can see Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral laws in the Old Testament and the Bible teaches that some Old Testament laws are either replaced or removed and Christians are, therefore, no longer obligated to keep the whole Law, the fact that no such explicit text exists -- disregarding all the supporting texts and all the relevant logic and the long history of this idea -- means that it isn't biblical. There are more oddly applied criteria, but none are applied evenly or even rationally.

What really makes me laugh is that these people who shout these accusations are not particularly interested in what is biblical and therefore, not intending to submit to the Bible. That is, "You're wrong because that's not biblical ... but I wouldn't submit to it if it was." They're not working at a better understanding of Scripture; they're aiming at removing your objection to their preferences. For instance, if you explain how, biblically, "there appears to be three types of laws in the Old Testament and here in Scripture is why we don't need to follow all three types anymore", they might argue that your argument isn't biblical (ignoring the fact that your argument was based on the Bible). Does that mean that they intend for us to keep all the Old Testament laws? Absolutely not! No, they just want you to stop saying that homosexual behavior is a sin because it says so in Leviticus (as if that's the only reason we say it) or whatever other truths or moral values you're pulling from Scripture. "No, we disagree that your explanation for not keeping the whole Old Testament Law is biblical ... but neither will we seek to keep the whole Old Testament Law." Leaving us with "I do what I want and you can't say otherwise", as if that trumps "biblical".

They'll keep arguing, "That's not biblical." On very rare occasion, they may actually be right. (For instance, "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is actually not biblical.) Most of the time, however, you can be fairly sure that they just want to diminish your faith, decrease your connection to Scripture, and deny God's Word as authoritative or even real. All of which are not biblical. Note to readers: If you derive your argument from the Bible, it is by definition biblical. Your argument may be false (because you improperly derived it from Scripture), but it is "biblical". Just to be clear.

Archaic

Suggest to most anyone around you that it's good and right to remain celibate until you marry and they'll consider you an anachronism, a throwback, archaic. That's old stuff. We've moved on. We know better now. "Come join the 21st century."

Just an example, of course, because, as it turns out, if you argue for the bulk of Christian moral values, you're going to find yourself out of sync with the rest of the world. Indeed, a large portion of Christianity. Clearly the world has rejected Christian values in realms of sexual morality and marriage, divorce, work ethics, views on authority, and much, much more. But Christians are right behind. It is common for self-identified Christians in church settings to admit to living together without being married. Divorce is perfectly acceptable in most churches. The overarching biblical command to love God and love your neighbor is barely grasped among believers because "love" is barely grasped anymore. Let's face it. Genuine, Bible-believing Christians are on their way out.

It's not like this is a new thing. The first century Christians counted themselves genuine Jews following the Jewish Messiah. They weren't deviating; it was the rest of Judaism that was leaving. It wasn't long before they were being arrested, tortured, and killed. Luke records that Herod had Peter arrested and sentenced for execution because, when he beheaded James, the brother of John, "it pleased the Jews." (Acts 12:1-4) The first Christians didn't move; the rest of Israel did.

So it is today. America was founded on Christian principles with Christian guidance. It was these principles that made America strong and guided her through the pitfalls of a government built on the will of the people. As is inevitably the case, though, the farther we got from the roots, the less the roots were visible. America, now, has moved on. From the 1950's when the president of the country prayed openly to Christ on a Christmas radio broadcast, we've now moved to an America where God isn't welcome anywhere near government. From "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion." Institutions like Princeton and Harvard, founded by Christians, are now Christianity's foes. And so goes the nation. When "freedom of religion" is consigned to "hate", you can rest assured that your faith will be classified as archaic.

That it is happening is without doubt. It is, in fact, to be expected. Jesus promised it. Not a big deal. The question is what will you do with it? Will you allow yourself to be "archaic" when it means siding with God, His Word, and the values and views found there? Dr. Mohler refers to us as the "moral minority" today. He's right. The question is, will you stand there? Or will you follow the tide? I suspect too many of us already are, possibly without even recognizing it. So the question is large because it will require greater strength and diligence. Will you view "archaic" as a good thing in this case? "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Josh 24:15) Archaic.

The Bible tells us to "hold fast" many things. "Hold fast to what is good." (Rom 12:9; 1 Thess 5:21) "Hold fast to the Word." (1 Cor 15:2) "Hold fast our confidence." (Heb 3:6) "Hold fast our confession." (Heb 10:23) "Hold fast to the hope set before us." (Heb 6:18) "Hold fast My name." (Rev 2:13) "Hold fast what you have." (Rev 2:25; Rev 3:11) Hold fast, Christian. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Red Letter Jesus

The Jesus Seminar in the 1980's and 90's claimed to be the search for the "real Jesus". Of course, they failed miserably. But too many today are failing just as miserably. Perhaps you've seen the "laughing Jesus" thing? (I could have included an example picture, but find it all too disturbing.) Sure, Jesus laughed ... no question. But describing Him as "laughing" misses the real Jesus. The more common suggestion of many is this "Jesus Meek and Mild" image. He's sweet and loving, full of grace, never judgmental; a really nice guy. The "turn the other cheek" guy. The "silent lamb" guy. And we ought to be, too. These folks, for instance, typically dismiss the Jesus in the Temple with a whip because that doesn't fit.

There is a sense in which people like to rely on their "Red Letter Jesus". You know, we use Bibles with Jesus's words in red letters so we know what He said as opposed to everyone else. And that, the theory goes, gives a better picture of the truth and of who Jesus is.

Well, I came across this version of Jesus recently. Oh, it isn't recent. It's just that I came across it recently. It isn't recent because it's a biblical picture. You can find it in your Bible, too. It's from John's The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Did you know that's what Revelation is about? Did you realize that the book is specifically a revelation of Christ (Rev 1:1)? And it's right there in the "Red Letter Jesus" stuff. So what did John see of the real Jesus?

I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around His chest. The hairs of His head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. In His right hand he held seven stars, from His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and His face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." (Rev 1:12-18)

"Now, Stan," I can hear some gearing up to disagree, "you're not actually saying that Jesus had white hair, eyes of fire, and a sword in His mouth, are you?" So, I'll tell you what. Let's grant that this isn't literal. The fact is much of Revelation is not literal. John repeatedly includes "like" in his descriptions. "Hair like white wool, like snow", "eyes like a flame of fire", that sort of thing. I'm okay with that. But what do we know here?

Well, we know that John saw something (most accurately, someone). We know that this person was Jesus. We know that His appearance was dazzling. Maybe John waxed eloquent. Maybe John gave his best description of something he had no real terms to describe. Fine. Maybe the "sharp two-edged sword" here is a reference to the Word of God (cp Heb 4:12). Surely His feet weren't actually bronze. It stands for something. But here's one thing we know for sure. John did not see a laughing, friendly, non-judgmental, "turn the other cheek" kind of Jesus. What John saw, whatever you think that might be, terrified him ... literally nearly to death. "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead."

Now, Jesus was certainly loving and gracious. He was surely the silent Lamb. But to leave the impression that this is the real Jesus is to miss out on many important aspects of the real Jesus. He said, "I have the keys of Death and Hades." That's not a laughing matter. He did chase people out of the Temple. That wasn't a "Jesus Meek and Mild". And the image so many hold of a simple, easy-going, nice fellow who wouldn't judge a fly doesn't fit with the biblical image. Which, in the end, makes it a caricature, not a portrait.

Jonah's Tale

One of the prime examples people will point to in the Bible for "allegory" is the book of Jonah. Here we have the story of a prophet (2 Kings 14:25) who is tasked by God to go preach repentance to Ninevah. Knowing that God was gracious and Ninevah would probably repent, Jonah decided instead to run. God stopped him on his escape boat with a storm and the sailors threw him overboard to save their lives. A "great fish" prepared by God swallowed him where he spent 3 days praying until the fish spewed him on shore (conveniently close to Ninevah, apparently). Jonah obeys, Ninevah repents, and Jonah is angry that God let them off. End of story.

This obviously is allegory. I mean, who is going to believe that a prophet got swallowed by a big fish (the translations uniformly say fish, not whale), survives for three days in this fish, then gets spit up on the shore? Clearly never happened. No, no, this is just an allegory. Let's see. Jonah represents Israel. Israel was unwilling to listen to God's instructions. The storm references the political turmoil of the day. The fish is Babylon and Israel spends time "in the belly of the fish". Judea is restored -- "vomited up". Israel is tasked again with obeying God. They do, but they're not happy about it. In case you think I made that stuff up, it's the explanation I found on several Jewish sites. Not my idea.

This doesn't actually work, you see. It makes no sense, for instance, for Jesus to reference Jonah (Matt 12:40) if Jonah is a reference to Israel. Besides, as the "Jonah = Israel" version illustrates, this allegory includes no instructions as to its meaning. Lacking any notes at the end to say something like, "So just as Jonah fled God, Israel flees God", allegory becomes meaningless because there is no definition. It's all up to you. Purely relative truth.

So maybe it's not allegory. Maybe it's parable. (The difference is that "allegory" requires every salient point to be significant while "parable" just tries to convey an idea. Take, for instance, the parable of the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10). Who the woman was and what she lost was irrelevant. The joy at finding what was lost was the point.) Jewish scholars suggest that the story is a parable of Israel in exile (Judah, actually). The fish, Ninevah, the worm and the vine (Jonah 4:7) ... these are not individually significant. Just a parable about the state of Israel in exile. It's unpleasant and they're unhappy. Maybe they shouldn't keep to themselves? Maybe they should share God's love with others? It's a morality play warning Jews (and, thus, Christians as well) not to be so stingy with the good news. That sort of thing.

Again, this doesn't seem to actually work. How does this correlate to Jesus's reference to Jonah? And, while many parables of Christ remain up to His listeners and the rest of us readers through time to figure out, there is no explanation of Jonah as parable and, thus, no actual consensus.

Now, to be clear, the Bible does include allegory and parable. Claiming that something in Scripture is one of these doesn't negate Scripture. So the issue is not the reliability of Scripture here. The issue is the question, "Is this allegory, parable, or historical?" What's the problem about it being historical? Well, of course, it's madness. Storms don't chase people, large fish don't swallow people and people don't survive inside large fish¹, fish don't deposit people onshore, entire cities don't repent, vines don't grow overnight then get eaten by a worm overnight ... it's all too ... miraculous. No scientific-minded person could swallow (pardon the pun) this story as historical.

But, you see, this is not a biblical reason to void the historical view. This is a prior commitment to an anti-supernatural bias. It is clear that if there is a God, it is certain that this God will, on occasion for whatever reason He might have, intervene in the natural world. We call these "miracles". That is, if there is a God, it is certain that miracles will occur. Thus, a prior commitment by a theist to an anti-theist perspective makes no sense. Further, assuming that "because there is the miraculous, it must be allegory or parable" would require that all the rest of the Old and New Testaments containing the miraculous would be suspect ... including the biggest miracle of all, the Resurrection. Balaam never talked to his donkey, the Red Sea never parted, there was no Flood. It gets really murky really fast.

There is, in fact, nothing in the text itself that requires or suggests allegory or parable. It is laid out without explanation or interpretation, a basic telling of a story. It is undeniable that the book is written in the form of an historical narrative. Sure, that doesn't mean that it is. I'm just saying that the text doesn't require something other than narrative. It is offered in just as historical approach as the stories of prophets like Elijah and Elisha in 1st and 2nd Kings. These are clearly intended as historical accounts. The account of Jonah reads the same.

There are arguments for allegory and parable approaches, but they don't seem to hold up under scrutiny and there is nothing in the text that requires or suggests a non-historical narrative. Is there any reason why we should prefer a narrative approach over the allegorical? Actually, there are a couple. First, the original Jewish understanding was that it was an event in history, not an allegory. The second is Jesus Himself.

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from You." But He answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish², so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here." (Matt 12:38-42)

If Jonah is allegory or parable, not history, then what must we conclude from Jesus's reference here?

1. No actual Jonah spent time in the belly of any great fish. If Jesus would spend time in the grave "as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish", He would only do so metaphorically.

2. The repentance of Ninevah was allegory. They won't actually rise up and condemn this generation. Jesus's words have no weight or meaning.

3. If Jonah was allegory, the stories of the queen of the South and Solomon are also likely allegory or parable, certainly not historical. Thus, Jesus is only claiming to be greater than an allegory, not an actual person.

It is assumed by the skeptic that Jonah is a fictional story. It does not appear to be so from the early Jewish understanding or from Jesus's reference to the event as a prophecy and a threat. The problems with taking the approach of allegory or parable seem to make these options less likely. The text itself contains nothing that demands anything other than an historical understanding. I would suggest that the only reason to dispute that the book of Jonah is about an actual, historical event would be the argument that God doesn't exist, at least insofar as affecting our world is concerned. This would seem an odd position for a Christian to take.
________

¹ Here's an interesting fact. There is an actual story from 1927 (A. J. Wilson, ‘The Sign of the Prophet Jonah,’ Princeton Theological Review, vol. xxv. p. 636) of a sailor off the Falkland Islands who was swallowed by a sperm whale. They caught and killed the whale three days later, cut him open, and found the missing sailor unconcious but alive. He was revived and was bleached, but his health was otherwise unaffected.

² Some have argued that Jonah was actually dead in the belly of the fish, making the connection between his experience and Christ's death and burial much tighter. The problem is that Scripture records that Jonah prayed while he was in the belly of the fish (Jonah 2). That's quite difficult when you're dead.

Fired for Jesus

Perusing the news, we find some odd things of late. For instance, did you know that it is unconstitutional to be allowed to work? Apparently, at least in Wisconsin, it is a constitutional right for businesses and unions to reach agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues. Who would have thought? Businesses and unions have rights. Workers don't. Or how about this one? China, leading the world in executions, as it turns out favors Donald Trump for President. Is that a good thing?

This one, though, might get your ire up. The story goes that Indiana State Police Officer Brian Hamilton was "fired after asking drivers he pulled over if they had been saved by Jesus Christ." It was the second complaint. The first was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union because, after all, "Freedom of Religion" is fast on its way out as an American civil liberty. As it turns out, Officer Hamilton had been ordered back in 2014 not to "question others regarding their religious beliefs nor provide religious pamphlets or similar advertisements" while on duty. Officer Hamilton did not abide by that order.

I'd like to point out a couple of misconceptions here, not to those about whom the story is written or those who think Mr. Hamilton was in the wrong, but to those Christians who are concerned or even outraged. First, it is not true that Hamilton was fired for preaching the Gospel. Mr. Hamilton was fired for violating the 2014 order. He was fired for failing to follow the requirements of his superiors. That is a viable and legal reason to fire someone. Oh, and note, when the Apostles were beaten for failing to follow the commands of the Sandhedrin, they didn't file a countersuit or go to court to right that wrong. "They went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name." (Acts 5:41) I would be pleasantly surprised to hear that Brian Hamilton is rejoicing that he had been considered worthy to suffer shame for Jesus's name.

One other point. There is no question that we are commanded to share the Gospel. When the Apostles were ordered to stop sharing the Gospel, they responded, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) However, there is a difference between what the Council ordered the Apostles to do (not do) and what the Indiana State Police ordered Brian Hamilton to not do. Mr. Hamilton was told not to share the Gospel on duty. The Apostles were ordered to cease and desist sharing the Gospel at all. So I'll leave it to you to consider. Does the command to share the Gospel require that we do it at all times in all situations regardless of the instructions of the authority over us? Or is it only the command to stop sharing the Gospel at all that we would necessarily need to ignore? I ask because I suspect that most of us are not in the habit of sharing the Gospel everywhere we go. So if you think that the officer was right in disobeying his superiors because the command is to share Jesus everywhere and you are not doing so, you are sinning, are you not? Either it is not a blanket order that requires us always and everywhere to share the Gospel and the state was justified in restricting him from sharing on duty, or it is a blanket order for Christians and most of us are failing. You decide.

In our current climate where our society is taking a dimmer view of religious freedom, at least for Christians, and it looks like our "rights will be violated" more and more, it's easy to jump at a story like this as an example of why we need to fight. I would suggest that this is not our calling. Our calling is to love God and love our neighbors, to model and share Christ, to make disciples. Not force the culture to accede to our demands. Jesus didn't do it. Peter and Paul didn't do it. The New Testament Church didn't do it. I'd suggest we take another lesson from this story rather than a call to fight. Now, maybe it's a call to pray (1 Tim 2:1-2).

The Earth is the Lord's

We read in Scripture, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." (1 Cor 10:26) That's quite a claim. It comes from Psalm 50.

"I shall take no young bull out of your house nor male goats out of your folds. "For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains." (Psa 50:9-12)

A friend of mine was in an accident two months ago. He was badly hurt and still can't work yet. Insurance is slow to respond. Healing is slower. He's bound up with one problem prevent the repair of another and frustrated for lack of improvement. I asked him how his family was holding up without his income. His response was "The simple answer is God has always meet our needs."

That's the God we serve. That's the God we worship. He owns everything. He knows when the sparrow falls. He will supply our needs. Of whom, then, shall we be afraid? Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.

Discrimination

One of the current evils plaguing our nation and our world is the evil of discrimination. Oh, but we are combating it left and right. We took the vast majority of the people of the United States to court and forced them to stop discriminating against homosexuals that wanted to wrench "marriage" from its roots and make it theirs. We forced Arizona and Georgia to block their protections of the First Amendment when they tried to allow religious people the right to opt out of being forced to violate their beliefs because that was discrimination. We're hard on the tails of Mississippi for the same error and of North Carolina for discriminating between birth gender and what people feel like. Dirty, rotten discriminators.

It is, of course, all bunk. The suggestion is "They are discriminating but we are not." Nonsense. When they make a taxi service for women only and consider it non-discrimination, we know they're confused. When Mississippi passed a law that said, "We agree with the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion", they were discriminating against rejecting the free exercise of religion. When executives from GE, Pepsi, Levi Strauss and other companies sent a letter to Mississippi's Governor Bryant demanding that he rescind that law, they were discriminating against the free exercise of religion. Pay Pal has attempted to extort North Carolina to succumb by cancelling their plans to build there, which is discrimination against North Carolina, but they have not opted out of all the other places they do business in other countries where, for instance, the government kills the people Pay Pal thinks are being wronged. That, too, is discrimination -- discrimination against North Carolina and for a bigger income in other countries who are doing worse.

Look, it's simple. "Discrimination" is a fact of life. You discriminate against foods you don't like and in favor of foods you do like. You discriminate against people you don't like and in favor of people you do like. Every one of us discriminates. We discriminate between a one dollar bill and a five dollar bill because these are different and you should know the difference. Discrimination is simply the process of distinguishing between things. The question is not whether you or I discriminate. The question is whether or not you are discriminating correctly. There is no option to not discriminate ... not with any sanity. You will need to determine right and wrong, good and bad. That is discrimination. The question is the standard you will use for discriminating. You can choose the world's or you can choose God's. But you will discriminate.

Changing Minds

The Bible actually has a pretty dim view of us humans. It includes characterizations like "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), "estranged from the womb" and "go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3), and the like. David claims we are sinners from conception (Psa 51:5). It doesn't look good. And then it gets worse. It turns out that, while we are sinners by nature, sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28). We have sick hearts (Jer 17:9).

But we're better than that, right? We're Christians. We have the Word of God and the Spirit of God. We're not as bad as all that. Right?

Of course, if we Christians subscribe to God's Word, then we begin by agreeing that we're as bad as all that. We admit that we are sinners, that we aren't prone to doing good, that we have sin-caused brain damage and sin-sick hearts. Our aim is to "be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). This is a given.

The perception is that Christians are stubborn. To be fair, that perception can often be true. There are stubborn Christians just as there are stubborn non-Christians. The suggestion is that we refuse to change our minds, the classic, "I know I'm right; don't bother me with facts." If you're a Christian and that describes you, beware. If you're mind is not changing, you're not paying attention. If God is infinite and we are finite, there is no limit to the amount of change we need in our thinking. We ought to be constantly changing how we think. Paul calls it being "transformed". Theologians call it "sanctification". Our lives should be a constant immersion in God's Word (Titus 3:5) which is bringing about a constant revelation of errors in our thinking and perceptions. We ought to be constantly changing as we align our thinking and hearts more closely with God's thinking and heart. Christians stubborn? Sure, but that's one of the first things that should change.

Thus Saith the Lord

I love the hymns. Just part of my upbringing, I suppose, although I believe it's something more. It's the content. These songs just seem to have a greater depth to them than so many that are popular today. They stand the test of time.

One I've always enjoyed is 'Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus. Written by Louisa Stead in 1871, the song was occasioned by the drowning of her husband in an attempt to save a young boy from drowning. It is, then, the more poignant when she claims

'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to take Him at His word,
Just to rest upon His promise,
Just to know, "Thus saith the Lord."

I suppose this is why I protest so much the claim of so many these days that, just like the agnostic who holds that you can't know if there is a God, argue that you can't be sure of what the Word says. "All you have is opinion," they might say. "You can't say, 'Thus saith the Lord'." And the grace and comfort Mrs. Stead experienced is swept away in a blind argument.

Is it true? Was Mrs. Stead (and everyone else who rests in God's Word as knowable) wrong? Is it a fact that all we have is opinion? I don't think so. If it is true, then all we have is an opinion, not a faith or a knowable doctrine or truth. It's purely subjective. "Christianity to me" is all we have without any actual "correct". What then?

If God is to be believed, the Scriptures originated from Him (2 Tim 3:16). They are man-penned, but not man-made. This means that they are true (since God is true) and trustworthy (since God is trustworthy). The question, then, is knowing what they say. On the face of it we shouldn't have a question. Given the disagreements of honest Christians on certain texts, the Bible is not always easy to figure out. So we can't know anything, right? That would be a faulty conclusion. The correct conclusion would be that some of the Bible is difficult to figure out.

Understanding Scripture requires effort (2 Peter 3:16). It has to be handled rightly (2 Tim 2:15). It has to be a matter of practice (Heb 5:14). Ultimately, God's truth is explained by God's Spirit (John 16:13). Now, in my view, this one is key. If the Spirit leads His disciples into His truth, it would stand to reason that His disciples would agree on what that truth is. Where they disagree there must be a conflict between those learning from the Spirit and those who are not. Thus, I find those areas of agreement to be quite compelling. Many prefer to focus on the disagreement. "See? Christians have disputed over this stuff since the beginning. How can we know?" It's true that there have been disputes from the beginning, but I would suggest that a large amount has not been disputed and ought to provide a solid base of understanding.

For instance, at no time in all of Christian history (and prior) did anyone understand the texts on homosexual behavior to mean something other than homosexual behavior was a sin. Today and today only are there voices of dissent, as if "We've finally figured it out and they've been wrong the whole time!" This isn't an assault on Church history; this is an assault on the Holy Spirit whom Christ said would lead His own into all truth. Apparently He failed for 2,000 years. They'll point to how some who called themselves Christians in the 18th and 19th century found slavery acceptable in their bibles, and they were wrong. But it was not always thus (and the argument doesn't hold up in the Bible), making it a poor example and false argument. (The argument "Science has proven that Genesis was wrong in its creation story" is worse.)

There are lots of reasons for failing to understand Scripture. The first and most obvious would be that the person doing the reading doesn't belong to Christ. These particular folks, while perhaps not aware of their condition (Matt 7:21-23), are called "blinded" by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) and are "not able to understand" the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). (Note that this is a lack of ability -- "not able".) Being hostile to God (Rom 8:7), it would stand to reason that they wouldn't properly interpret His Word. Some are deceived by human doctrines (Matt 15:9) or pressured by false teachers (Gal 1:6-9). And there are other reasons. Laziness, a mind corrupted by sin, animosity to the truth ... lots of reasons. But most of these become obvious when held up to the light of the Holy Spirit leading His own to the truth. I think you'll find that on a large number of doctrines found in Scripture there has been agreement in the Church since the beginning.

Does this solve all the problems? No, of course not. But I think if you're diligent (2 Tim 2:15) and careful, constantly immersing your understanding in Scripture as opposed to the world's opinions (Rom 12:2), you'll find a lot more is clear than you realized. It might make you more skeptical of the novel, the "latest", and especially "current scholars" who are coming up with "new and improved" understandings in direct contradiction to the entire history of Church understanding. But I think you'll find that it's clearer than you thought.

The bottom line, of course, is that Mrs. Stead was right. It is sweet to rest in Jesus and His Word, to know "Thus saith the Lord", even if it is in opposition to some of the loudest voices today. Remember, Jesus opposed some of the loudest voices of His day as well.

12-Step Christianity

In the current world of Do It Yourself (DIY) and self-help books and 12-step programs for just about anything you can think of, the temptation is the see Christianity as a DIY, self-help, 12-step program. Oh, no, not 12 steps, to be sure, but we're pretty sure that if we find the right hooks, the right techniques, the correct sequences and methods, we can be pretty good Christians. I'd like to tell you it just isn't so. I'd like to tell you it's much easier than that ... and much more difficult.

Easy -- One Thing

How could it be easier than a 12-step program? Because the Bible narrows it down to one. See? Much easier. Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples ..." Okay, it's one thing. You should be paying close attention. If this was a class, this would be on your final test. What one thing? "... if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He wasn't done. He finished with "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:37-40) Perhaps Paul said it just as clearly. "Love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom 13:10) See? Easy. One thing. Love. Love God; love your neighbor. Next!

And, of course, this is where it gets more difficult. Because we tend to nod and say, "Yeah, we get it" and then move on demonstrating that we don't. In fact, these days we're not even sure what love looks like. Is it a warm feeling? Sex? Being nice to people? These are common ideas ... they're just not biblical ideas. So, remembering that love is the aim, let's look at some examples.

Marriage

Now, remember, the aim here is not to "do what you're told" in marriage. The aim here is to love. Remember, "Let us love one another, for love is from God." (1 John 4:7) "We love, because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19) So what does that look like? It looks like submission (Eph 5:22-24) just as Christ submitted to His Father (John 6:38). Love. It looks like sacrificial love (Eph 5:25) as Christ did with the Father (Mark 14:36). Love. It looks like a wife who respects her husband (Eph 5:33) and a husband who lives to understand his wife (1 Peter 3:7). It does not look like keeping an account of wrongs or seeking your own way (1 Cor 13:5). In terms of biblical love, marriage looks a lot different than what we tend to see in the world today -- outwardly focused.

Parenthood

If love is seeking the very best for the loved one, then parents seeking to love God and love others will be disciplining their children. "He who withholds the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently." (Prov 13:24) "Loving your children" means "discipline". Even "the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) The goal, however, is not to make them behave, but to "save his soul" (Prov 23:13-15). Love. The Bible says, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Prov 22:6) Love. Parents are to "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4) Love. The parent who loves, then, will diligently teach his children (Deut 6:7). Biblical parenthood is strikingly different than what we commonly see today, and it's based on love -- outwardly focused.

Church

If the command is "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" (which includes Jesus's specific command for Christians to "love one another" (John 13:34)), how does that shape the church? More to the point, how does it shape your interaction with the people of God? Well, clearly it is not possible to "love God" and "love your neighbor" while avoiding both. Makes no sense. Avoiding either cannot be seen as loving the avoided one. Thus, if love is the command (and, remember, love comes from God), people of God would, out of love, be involved with the people of God. They would exercise their gifts to minister to the people of God (1 Cor 12:7). They would not forsake gathering for fellowship (Heb 10:25), but instead focus on stirring up love and encouragement among fellow believers (Heb 10:24-25). They would bear one another's burdens, pray for one another, encourage, build up, forgive, and restore one another. Love. That's what it's about. Funny thing. This, too, appears to be quite different from the common "go to church" perspective seen in most church groups today. They're based mostly on "What can I get out of it?" rather than love.

Conclusion

Look, here's the point. We are commanded two things: Love God and love your neighbor. Everything else is wrapped up in these two. Further, love is from God, and we love because He first loved us. That is, we are not the source; we are the conduit. Remember, also, that this is not the "feel warm" love, but the desire for the very best for the loved one, either God or those around us. This precludes "doing good works" in a 12-step, mechanical way. It's not "good works" in view; it's love. On the other hand, it prescribes the vast majority of interactions with family, friends, neighbors, and fellow believers. Oh, and you may have noticed, "What about me??" doesn't enter the picture. That should be significant. I think you'll find it is vastly different than the current views on a lot of things.

Keeping the Law

You've heard it before, I'm sure. "You Christians are such hypocrites. You go on and on about how evil homosexuals are or some other pet sexual immorality, but you ignore the rest of the Old Testament laws. You just pick and choose what you'll follow." You know it's true. That is, it is an extremely tiny number of Christians today who consider it a sin to eat shellfish or pork.

Valid question

It is a mistake to ignore the question. It is valid. Here's why. It is not the skeptic who said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:17-18) (And, oh, by the way, all is not yet accomplished.) That was Jesus. Jesus did come to fulfill the Law and did indeed do that by living a sinless life and taking on the entire sacrificial aspect of the Law Himself. But if Jesus is to be believed, we must necessarily answer why it is that we don't, for instance, concern ourselves with dietary laws (e.g., Lev 11:1-47), mixed cloth (Lev 19:19), or things that are "unclean" (Lev 10:10). It is a valid question that shouldn't simply be dismissed. "Because my pastor said so" won't work here.

We are not under the Law

Keeping the Law was never a means to salvation. While it is true that the one who keeps the whole Law will go to heaven, only One has ever done this. But the one who keeps the Law doesn't need salvation. It is only Lawbreakers that need salvation. So here's the problem. No amount of "doing good" will satisfy the demands of justice for the sin that occurs in any given life. If you spent 100 years on this planet and only had one year of sin, you'd still have one year of sin to give account for. The standard, on the other hand, is perfection (Matt 5:48) James says, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10) (Note: James says in the previous verse that the sin of "partiality" is sufficient to classify you as a transgressor.) Paul wrote "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'" (Gal 3:10) That's the option. Do it all perfectly or be cursed.

So what was the purpose of the Law? Paul wrote:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Gal 3:23-26)

The original intent of the Law was to be a guardian. It told God's people what God expected of them. It still does today. But "now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." It's not as if the guardian is no longer useful; it's that it is no longer the means by which we are kept. That is accomplished by being "in Christ Jesus".

We are not, then, under the Law. Scripture says, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Gal 5:18) The Law is no longer our guardian. It remains our instructor in the sense that it teaches us what God thinks, but it is not a means of attaining heaven (via perfect submission) or salvation. That is, Christians sin. We don't arrive at salvation by becoming sinless. The Law didn't work that way before and doesn't now. Never will. In that sense we are not under the Law.

The New Covenant

The term, "the Old Testament", is a reference to "the Old Covenant". We are under "the New Testament" -- the New Covenant. Jesus said so (Luke 22:20). It is not the same covenant that God had with Israel. Some of that covenant included matters of theocracy, rules required of a nation literally governed by God. Many of their commands were oriented around the notion of being separated from other peoples (Lev 20:26). These would be their Civil laws which included things like clothing and food laws. Another part of the Law was the sacrificial system. This system was intended to be a forerunner of the Sacrifice, Christ. Theologians refer to this part as the Ceremonial laws. And, of course, there was an entire set of ethics offered, the Moral laws. Things like the Decalogue (10 Commandments) would fall in these categories. The Civil laws, then, would not apply to those outside of the covenant between Israel and God and would not apply after the New Covenant, the replacement of the old. The Ceremonial laws were not removed as much as they were fulfilled in Christ and, as such, are still in effect in a "new and improved" condition. That leaves the Moral laws which would still be binding.

So, how do we know which are Civil and which are Moral? Well, we look to the New Covenant for that. We know, for instance, that God commanded some things in the Old Covenant that God later removed. He told Peter, "What God has made clean, do not call common." (Acts 10:15) (Mark claims that Jesus "declared all foods clean." (Mark 7:19)) The Apostles understood that circumcision (for instance) was part of the Old Covenant and no longer required it of Gentile believers (Rom 2:28) and intentionally removed a long list of Civil laws not required by God for those outside of that covenant (Acts 15:19-20). When we have specific retractions from God and His Word, we can say that these civil laws are no longer in effect for those outside of civil Israel.

Recap

The Law does not go away. It's purpose, however, has shifted. In the Old Testament times it was intended to guard God's people. In the New Testament it tells God's people what God thinks. In neither case did keeping the Law save anyone. (Remember, those who kept the Law perfectly required no salvation.) (Remember, only One ever did that.) The Law, as part of covenants between God and His people, consists of parts dedicated to civil Israel as a theocracy (no longer in place), ceremonial (sacrificial) laws now replaced (not eliminated) by Christ's perfect sacrifice, and moral values from God. We are directed to keep God's moral values, not as an issue of salvation, but as an act of gratitude on the part of saved people wishing to please our Savior.

Defending Inerrancy ... Why?

I have on more than than one occasion (and more) defended the argument that the Scriptures in their original documents were without error. We can further conclude, based on the high level of confidence that we have better than 99.5% confidence that the texts we have are true to the original documents, that our Bibles are without error. Oh, there may be a minor translation mistake here or there. There may be a transcription error in a number or something. But the doctrine of biblical inerrancy holds that the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant in what it teaches. I defend that.

Lots of people disagree. Lots of people wonder why I bother. "What's the point? Are you some kind of crazy fundamentalist whacko?" (because, as we all know, anyone who believes in the fundamentals of Scripture and, therefore, Christianity is a whacko). Some have argued, "You know, the Bible makes no such claim." Others have argued, "You know, if you're arguing from the Bible, you're arguing from circular logic. 'The Bible claims to be inerrant, so it is.' Logical fallacy." There are even those who will claim "I love the Bible, but your idea that it is infallible and inerrant cannot be true." In other words, there are lots of critics, and they even disagree with each other.

Why do I defend the doctrine? Well, it's simple. The question is not the book (technically "books"). The question is God. Consider this syllogism.

Premise 1: God cannot be wrong.
Premise 2: The Bible is God's Word.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong.

In logic, arguments are valid if they logically agree, if the premises require the conclusion. This is a valid argument.

Now, in logic, there is a difference between a valid argument and a true argument. A valid argument means that the conclusion must follow the premises. A true argument requires that the premises be true. Are these premises true?

The claim of the Bible is that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV) The phrase you will often see for "breathed out by God" is "inspired by God". There is, in fact, a difference between these terms. "Inspired" is "breathed in". The word here is the opposite -- to breathe out. The idea is not how inspiring the writing was -- not the nature of the writing -- but the origin of the writing. Where did it come from? The biblical claim for Scripture is that Scripture is originated by God. It is God's Word. Thus, Premise 2 would be deemed truthful. Now, of course, we might consider a version of reality where God can be wrong (Premise 1), but if we're going to go down that route, we're going to have to stop being theists, let alone Christians.

Thus, we see that the syllogism is both valid and true. Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong.

Some people question the inerrancy of Scripture. I would contend that 1) logic requires it and 2) theism requires it. Now, you can debate all day long about whether or not it's true, but understand, at the end of the day, if you arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is not inerrant (as I've defined in the first paragraph), you have also eliminated either the reliability of God and/or the Bible as the Word of God. Some people are fine with that. People who claim to be Christians either must not be fine with that or must not be Christians. It isn't the Bible that is in question; it is God.

Rejoice!

I'm sure you've seen the commands before. Paul liked, by his own admission, to say it repeatedly.

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you. (Phil 3:1)

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. (Phil 4:4)

Rejoice always (1 Thess 5:16)

Starting to see a trend?

So, what is this thing called "rejoice"? Well, of course, it is to find joy in something, to delight in something. It is happiness with an object. It isn't just "be happy"; it is finding joy in something. The Bible is full of this notion. The Jewish feasts were full of rejoicing "before the LORD" (Lev 23:40; Deut 12:12; Deut 14:26; Deut 27:7). The Jews were to "rejoice in all the good that the LORD your God has given to you" (Deut 26:11). Hannah rejoiced in the salvation God gave her (1 Sam 2:1). We are told to rejoice because "The LORD reigns!" (1 Chron 16:31) David rejoiced in God's steadfast love (Psa 31:7). And on and on it goes.

Are you starting to get a sense of the object of the biblical command to rejoice? It isn't a mere "Don't worry; be happy." There is an object. It is the object Paul aimed at: "Rejoice in the Lord always."

Happiness is fleeting. It is an emotion predicated on a sense of well-being. Sometimes you feel like you're in a good place; sometimes you don't. But joy -- this kind of joy -- can be ever-present because it is based not on circumstances or surroundings, but on the ever-present love of God and His Sovereignty. It is not mere positive thinking; it is rational. Rejoice in the Lord because of all He promises and provides. It's much better than "Be happy" because He is much better than "I hope my circumstances will be pleasant." Our circumstances are always good because He is in charge and He is always good. Rejoice!

The Speech

"Woe to you, liberals and progressives, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

"Woe to you, representatives and senators, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to defend human rights, but you deny the unborn those same rights, you make yourselves twice as much a child of hell.

"Woe to you, blind religious leaders, who say, 'If anyone goes to church, it is nothing, but if anyone takes money from the rich to give to the poor, he is a champion of social justice.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the church that Christ established or the love of money that He condemned? And you say, 'If anyone trusts in God's Word, it is nothing, but if anyone trusts in science, he is wise.' You blind men! For which is greater, that which God speaks or a human effort to figure out what God has done?

"Woe to you, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, hypocrites! For you demand that the government take from the rich to give to the poor, and have neglected the truth: that charity is a personal act from the heart. Giving ought not be coerced. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

"Woe to you, false preachers, hypocrites! For you give the appearance of holiness and reverence, but inside you are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind preacher! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

"Woe to you, religious left, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

"Woe to you, LGBTX advocates, hypocrites! For you sing the praises of 'equal rights' and 'tolerance', saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in stripping rights from others.' Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of your fathers as you strip the rights from those who disagree with you and refuse to tolerate them. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

Yeah, pretty harsh ... but you know the One who made the template, right?

Anti-Supernatural

There are only a few real differences between the religions of the world. There is monotheism as seen in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. There is pantheism as seen in Hinduism and Buddhism (when it's not actually atheism) where god(s) is in all things. And, of course, there is atheism where there is no god. (Don't let them fool you. This is a religion. If "religious" is defined as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" and "religion" is defined as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", then atheism is a faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality -- materialism -- and it is therefore a religion.)

Now, of course, the first two believe in the supernatural. They believe that there is a deity or deities and, therefore, by definition there can and will be "miracles" (defined as "an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore the work of a divine agency"), actions brought about by these supernatural deities. So if God created the universe from nothing by speaking it into existence, a theist has no problem, or if the Son of God rose from the dead, there would be no difficulty buying into that for one who believes in the supernatural.

Enter the third option -- the materialist. Atheists have eliminated the supernatural as a possibility and, therefore, are committed out of the starting gate to materialism, that is, the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. It's interesting when they do this because they eliminate from the beginning a possibility that some call "the elephant in the room", the possibility of the supernatural. That is, if all the evidence and all the logic and all the testing and all the evaluations point to an event that cannot be attributed to the physical laws of nature ... well, end of story. They deleted the right answer before they started asking.

It isn't really surprising that atheists would do this. It is, after all, the definition of what they believe. It is surprising when presumed theists do this. And you know they do. Many who consider themselves "believers" and even "Christians" start with an anti-supernatural bias. Take, for instance, the Jesus Seminar, where "scholars" like John Dominic Crossan, a New Testament scholar and former Catholic priest, searched for "the historical Jesus" by voting on whether or not the Gospel accounts were historical. Did Jesus really say what the Bible says He said or do what it claims He did? They ended up with something like 18% of the quotes being possibly true. None of the miracles, of course. They eliminated John's Gospel out of hand as "spiritual", not historical. Oh, yeah, add in the Gospel of Thomas because ... well ... just because. Forget entirely about prophecy from Christ. If He did make any prophecies, He was wrong, so that can be eliminated. How did they decide what was and wasn't Jesus? Well, it had to be short (because it wouldn't survive oral transmission otherwise) and it had to be ironical because that, they figured, was Jesus's style, and if He told His followers to trust God. That's about it. Those, dear readers, were the scholarly, empirical tests they devised. Oh, and it wasn't true if it was miraculous. That was a given. He wasn't born of a virgin, He performed "healing" by curing psychosomatic ailments, and He certainly did not rise from the dead. That, they were quite sure, was simply hallucination or "visions". Not real. (In a debate between Crossan and William Lane Bryant, Crossan admitted that as a matter of personal doctrine he eliminated the possibility of supernatural action -- miracles.) Anti-supernatural bias.

Take, for instance, the question of origins. Darwin suggested an alternative to Genesis. Scientists have gotten on board with it (despite the problems, e.g., the irreducible complexity of a cell or an eye or ... most things, the problems with the fossil record, the complete absence of intermediate versions of life forms, the absence of an "origin theory", the argument that "life" came from "no life" -- that a single protein molecule consisting of chains of hundreds of precisely-arranged amino acids would spring up spontaneously, the problem of data (DNA) being produced "by chance", the simple fact that while microevolution -- evolution within a family (the biblical "kind") -- is observable, there has never been observed macroevolution -- evolution from one family to another family, etc.). Thus, it must be true, so Genesis cannot be historical. Myth, perhaps? Possibly just plain wrong. So they delete Adam and they delete Noah and they delete ... many whom the New Testament characters (you know, like Jesus and Paul) considered historical, real people and consign them to "myth" or "legend" or fairy tale. Because the data suggests it? No, because of an anti-supernatural bias.

Just a couple of examples.

If one is an atheist, one has no choice but to have an anti-supernatural bias, having eliminated (without evidence) the possibility of the supernatural. But when "theists" do it, I'm baffled. When they redefine Scriptures with this kind of bias as a guide, I'm at a loss to understand. I find in this kind of thinking a dichotomy, a worldview constructed on contradictory beliefs. "Yes, I believe in the supernatural ... but I tend not to believe in the supernatural." You know ... a grand April Fool's joke. "I believe in the supernatural ... April fools!" In some circles it might be called "insane."