An Unexpected Lesson from Harambe

You're all aware of the whole story, I'm sure, of the little boy that fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden that ended up with the zoo officials having to kill the poor endangered gorilla named Harambe. It was quite a story with all sorts of moral outrage. "How dare they kill that poor gorilla? Let the kid die instead!" "What's wrong with that zoo? Not securing their exhibits against all possible intrusions?" "That mother should face charges for not keeping her child out of the enclosure."

In many places it was that last one that was the loudest. And it's that last one that baffled me. We live in a world where "judging" is evil. You know, "judgmental". We live in a country where we worship freedom, a freedom that even exceeds freedom. Like our fervor to give "freedom" to less than 1% of the population by taking it away from 99% of the population because that tiny number believes themselves to be elves. Okay, not elves, but you get it. Freedom is our god. In gender questions (as if there is one), the aim is "let me be me." Don't limit us to binary gender identity. Let's obliterate it instead. In sexual pleasure, our aim is absolute freedom. We should each be allowed to do whatever it is we like. Well, almost. There is still a remnant of folks opposed to "man-boy love" and bestiality, but the rest is an open field, limited only by what we want. In child rearing, the aim is to make your kids free. Don't limit them; let them express themselves to their fullest extent. It would seem to me, then, that this mother was a hero. She didn't limit her child. She let him express himself fully. She should get a "mother medal" or something.

To tell you the truth, though, it is not the dead gorilla, the poor little boy, the zoo, the mother, or that news item that I have in mind. It isn't even the problem of Americans' worship of freedom. What occurs to me is the almost universal response that the mother should have protected her son better by limiting his freedom, by correcting him and even preventing him from doing what he did. We see that in parent-child relationships. Why can't we see that in the rest of life? Why is it love for a parent to correct a child, but it is not love for someone to correct another? Why can we see that a mother that drags her son from the brink of disaster or a husband that plunges into a burning building to pull his suicidal wife from the fire is loving and heroic, but we cannot see that a friend who tells you "God says your behavior is sin and it won't end well for you; there is a better way" is performing a service, an act of love?

If we were to be consistent, we would either give that mother a medal for refusing to meddle in the child's freedom, or we would recognize that true love sometimes has to "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (2 Tim 4:2) But, of course, we're humans, twisted by sin, and not consistent.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)

The Significance of the Resurrection

All Christians understand that the Resurrection of Christ is essential to Christianity. Paul classified it as part of the core of the Gospel.

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

So the Christian tradition is to meet and worship on Sundays because it is "the Lord's day" (Rev 1:10; see also Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) -- the day that He rose from the dead -- and we celebrate that resurrection. I suspect, however, that if you were to ask Christians, "Why is the Resurrection so important?" they might have a hard time finding much to say. So I'm here to help.

The top layer of this question is simply the "proof" nature of the miracle of His resurrection. That is, we can point to the event and say, "See? Explain that any other way than that He was who He said He was." It is the biblical nature of all miracles. Scripture refers to them as "signs", proof that the person in question is an actual emissary of God as they claim. Jesus even said, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me." (John 10:25) He said, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (John 14:10-11) Miracles prove it. No other miracle matches His resurrection. Other resurrections occurred in Scripture, but nowhere do we find one that is predicted and accomplished someone else involved and produces a new body.

Another layer of "proof" is that the Resurrection assures us that Jesus accomplished what He intended to accomplish. If He had died and that was the end, we wouldn't have known that His sacrifice on our behalf was accepted by God (1 Cor 15:13-14). His resurrection, then, was God's indication that the price was paid and the payment was accepted. Beyond that, in a very real sense it is His resurrection that provides for our justification. Paul wrote, "It will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." (Rom 4:24-25) The cross paid for the trespasses and the resurrection provided justification.

There are other important aspects that are often missed. For instance, without believing that He was raised from the dead, salvation is impossible (Rom 10:9). "Yeah, I believe in Jesus, but I'm not convinced that He rose from the dead" won't work.

In his speech to King Agrippa, Paul said, "I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, He would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23) The resurrection of Christ proclaimed light to Jews and Gentiles.

Christ's resurrection is what provides us with life as believers. We live an "exchanged life", my dead life for His living life, the "Christ in you" life (Col 1:27). That life was only made possible by His resurrection. "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with Him in a death like His, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His." (Rom 6:4-5)

We are able to bear fruit as believers because He was raised from the dead (Rom 7:4).

We have a hope that there will be an ultimate resurrection for us someday. The proof of that hope is found in His own resurrection (1 Thess 4:14). Most of us have heard the biblical passage so often quoted at funerals intended to give people hope. "What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:42-44) You know, "When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?'" (1 Cor 15:54-55) That whole thing. We love that. Well, the premise of that is Christ's resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-28). How can there be any hope beyond the grave? Christ rose; so will we. Thus, we can speak with confidence, "knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into His presence." (2 Cor 4:14)

As we face everyday living, it is His resurrection that provides the benchmark of the power we have to live for Christ. "God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by His power." (1 Cor 6:14)

Our position, "seated with Christ in heavenly places", is proven by His resurrection (Eph 2:4-7).

His resurrection is our life (Col 2:12), our proof of forgiveness (Col 2:13), our certificate of canceled debt (Col 2:14).

His resurrection is the source of our faith and hope in God (1 Peter 1:20-21).

The Resurrection isn't a small thing. We tend to think of it as miraculous, of course, and a good thing, but it is far bigger than I think we generally see it. It is the core of the faith. It is proof -- proof that He is who He said He was, that He accomplished the payment for our sin debt and it was accepted, that there is hope, that we can be seated with Christ in heavenly places, that we are forgiven, that we can hope in God, that we will someday be with Him in heaven. His death paid for our forgiveness, but His resurrection is the reason for our justification -- that necessary exchange of our sin for His righteousness. His resurrection is the source of power for the Christian life, the reason we bear fruit as believers, the means by which we can combat sin in our own lives daily. Thus, as Paul said, it is "of first importance". Perhaps we don't appreciate it sufficiently. Perhaps we should.

God and Sex

Speaking of our earthly existence here, someone once said, "There is a worm in everything." Paul expressed the same thing about our world when he wrote, "The creation was subjected to futility" (Rom 8:20). We know that each of us harbors sin, requiring first a new life in Christ and then a process of sanctification, of transformation. We all still struggle with sin and wrong thinking in some areas and we will continue to do so this side of heaven.

One of the primary gods of this world today (and, honestly, always, I think) is sex. I'd like to say that it is sexual immorality, but I'm pretty sure that properly married couples engaging in lawful sexual relations suffer from this same problem of broken thinking and perceptions. While the world has immersed itself in "What I do for pleasure is my business" with sex high on that list, God had a different idea of it and I believe we -- we who are genuinely interested in God's plans and perspectives -- have largely missed it.

Let's start at the beginning. Remember God's definition of marriage: "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) This "one flesh" union is a repeated theme in Scripture (see, for instance, Matt 19:4-6 and Eph 5:31-32). In this union is God's picture in human form of the union of His Son to His Bride in the form of the Church. It's an important picture and a vital concept. So why is it that we tend to largely boil it down to "sex"? It's not. It's intimacy. But, of course, Satan got here before me so that "intimate" is now a synonym for "sex". Ask someone "Were you intimate with that person?" and they'll understand you to be asking if they had sex. It is not sex I'm referencing. It's intimacy. Like Peter's command to husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7). Look, everyone knows what it means when we say, "He knew her in a biblical way." And sex is there, to be sure, but why "knew"? Why that word? It's not "acquaintance". It's not like Adam was introduced to Eve at that point. No, it is intimacy. That is, in God's version sex is a physical expression of a spiritual reality that a man and a woman who marry become one -- one flesh, one mind, intimate.

Today we've arrived at something so much better. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) We've arrived at sex for pleasure and, if we are being honest, sex for power, but not sex for intimacy. Think about it. What we do in the bedroom reflects what makes us feel good. Too often it is precisely that narrow -- "What makes me feel good." But even the generous husband and wife will be seeking pleasure for the other along with himself or herself. What we do in the bedroom is often for pleasure and if it is not pleasurable we don't do it because pleasure is the point, is it not? Now, I would argue that the answer to my own question is "No" not because it isn't pleasure in view, but that it most often is not merely pleasure in view. Most people who know will tell you that rape is not a sexual thing, but a power thing. I would contend that much of what happens in the bedroom today is not a sexual thing, but a power thing. You have various sex acts that are painful. There is the whole world of bondage and sadomasochism specifically aimed at giving and receiving pain and humiliation. Much of sex much of the time is aimed more at dominance and submission. More than pleasure? No. Because in these cases pain and dominance and submission gives these people pleasure, just not sexual pleasure.

So what is my point? My point is not about sex. It's about our failure even as Christians to grasp that God intended sex for the union of a man and a woman in the ultimate physical intimacy as part of the ultimate intimacy of persons. We've accepted the world's interpretation of sex for power or pleasure and figure that marriage sanctifies that lie. We're wrong. If what you do in the bedroom, husband or wife, is predicated on "what I like" or "what makes me feel good" or "what leads to an orgasm", you're missing the aim -- intimacy. And if you understand "intimacy" to merely mean "sex" instead of "knowing at the deepest levels", you've clearly missed the point. God intended so much more. It would be a shame for us to miss it in favor of so much less.

Taken in Vain

Most of us know the command from the Decalogue: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain." (Exo 20:7) Yeah, we know. We're not to say the word "God" as a vain or frivolous word. You know, like a swear word or something. Well, of course, that would include "Jesus", too. We get it. Do we?

"The name of the Lord" is actually a foreign phrase to modern America. It wasn't as unclear in former times. Back when people understood authority far better than we do today in our "individualism" and "question authority" days, they understood that there were those in authority who were to be obeyed -- a different class, a different echelon of people. Kings, masters, rulers, these people needed to be obeyed because these people had authority. In addition to these people, the underlings would need to obey those who came "in the name of the king". That is, an authority had the right to assign some of that authority to one of his people, and those under that authority would need to submit to this person operating "in the name of the king" as if the king himself was there, not because of the name, but because of the king. "The name", in these times, represented the person. You've heard, I'm sure, someone concerned about "my good name". It refers to their character, their reputation, much more than the term with which you address them.

We see this in Scripture. Jesus said, "I have come in my Father's name." (John 5:34) That's not a term, but a character reference. He wasn't saying, "Please address me as 'the Father'." He was saying, "I have come under the authority of and in the character of the Father." Jesus promised "If you ask me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:14) That's not "if you tack on 'in Jesus' name'." It is "under My authority and according to My character".

I think we get this. I think it's clear that there is nothing magical about "in Jesus' name, amen" in our prayers. I'm fairly sure, if we think about it, we know that "in My name" is not a mere reference to a term, but a reference to the character and authority of Christ. Now, if that is true, what about that command in the Ten Commandments? What does it mean to "take the name of the LORD your God in vain"? It means that we are not allowed to claim for yourself the character and authority of God vainly. Sure, that would include using God's name as a swear word, but that is only the start of it. It would include the lack of the proper reverence and respect for a holy God. It would include claiming to be a Christ-follower while not following Christ. It would include worshiping God with your lips while being far from Him in your heart. It would include attitudes and actions that bring shame upon His name while we are claiming His name for ourselves.

Most of us accept the Ten Commandments as valid moral instructions for modern Christians. If this is true, then "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" is one of those still-valid commandments. If this is true, perhaps we ought to be more diligent in this regard. Are you carrying around the name "Christian" without a thought of how your life reflects on Christ? Are you a "God-fearer" who has little fear of God? Maybe you manage to avoid saying God's name in a frivolous or crude way. Do you live as if your relationship with God is of little value? That's what it means to take the name of the Lord in vain.

The Remnant

I read this in Romans the other day.

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. (Rom 9:27)

So, way back in Isaiah's day God was declaring that not all would be saved, but "only a remnant". Now, to be sure, Paul was talking in this particular passage about how "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Rom 9:6) which means "that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Rom 9:8) Thus all of God's offspring will be saved; it's just that not all of Israel is part of God's offspring and, to be sure, not all people are God's offspring.

This concept is a theme through Scripture -- the concept of the remnant, the concept of the few. At the Flood, only 8 out of the entire population of the Earth survived, saved by God (1 Peter 3:18-20). Of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, only 4 escaped (Gen 19:15) and only 3 survived (Gen 19:26), saved by God. When Elijah complained to God that he was the last believer, God told him that He had retained 7,000 faithful followers (1 Kings 19:17-18; Rom 11:1-5). (Note Who kept them.) When God sent Assyria to wipe out Judah, He promised a "surviving remnant" (2 Kings 19:30). Jesus referred to the "many" who would take the gate that leads to destruction and the "few" who would find the narrow gate (Matt 7:13-14).

This concept of "the remnant" is both difficult and encouraging. It is difficult for obvious reasons. For those who think that God is trying to save every last person on the planet, it is a sign of failure. Instead of saving all, He saves "few", a remnant. But even for those who understand that He is not trying to save all, it means that there is a large contingent of human beings that God knows will come into this world, ultimately reject Him, and face judgment. Only a relative few will be saved. And, as it touches our humanity, that is heart-breaking. As someone once asked me, "How can I be happy in heaven knowing that my mother is in Hell?" So it has its difficult side.

On the other hand, there is that remnant. That remnant, the elect, is an amazing story. Jesus said of the great tribulation, "For the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." (Matt 24:22) This remnant is chosen by God (Rom 11:5), called out by God, saved by God, retained by God, and ultimately glorified by God (Rom 8:30). This remnant is "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son", making Christ "the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). Saved by grace apart from works, this remnant has nothing of which to boast (Eph 2:8-9) and nothing to fear (Rom 8:31-39). This select "few" are adopted by God (John 1:12-13; Rom 8:16-17). In a time when the world appears chaotic, morality declines, and Christians appear fewer and fewer as they stand up against Christ in the name of Christ, it is of great comfort, as it was to Elijah, to know that there is a remnant, a "few", a group chosen by God out of all types of people to be kept by Him, to represent Him here and be with Him in the end. That can be nothing less than encouraging.

I've heard discouraged Christians speak fearfully about what's coming. It looks, to many, as if the Church with its true believers is vanishing. Rest assured that God has a remnant, a kept crowd, a "few". He cannot fail. And not one that He plans to save will be lost. This is a source of great confidence in a turbulent world.

All Turned Around

Have you ever noticed how, over and over again, God seems to turn things around? What I mean is that God seems to have a penchant for taking what we know or "how it ought to be" and turning it around to ... how it is.

Take, for instance, Paul's commentary in his first letter to the Corinthian Christians.

Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1 Cor 1:17-21)

See? Turned around. We think that "eloquent wisdom" is the approach that will save and Paul says it isn't. We think that the wise are the ones needed and Paul says they aren't. We believe that an erudite discussion of the merits of the case will bring people to Christ and Paul calls it "folly" that we preach. Turned all around. It is truth, but it's turned around from what we might expect.

How about the cross? If you wanted to start a movement -- to build a following -- you surely wouldn't do it with an executed Savior. God did. Beyond that, however, we all classify death as "the end". You live, you die, end of story. But Christ came, died, and rose again. The world -- even His disciples -- didn't see that coming. Yet His certainly unexpected resurrection makes all the difference (e.g., Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3-4; Acts 26:23; Rom 6:4; Rom 7:4; 1 Thess 4:14; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Cor 15:20-28; 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21). All turned around.

Every other religion on the planet and, in fact, most of those not particularly religious see the means by which we get to "a better place" after we die as a process of being more good than bad. It makes sense. You earn your way. Reasonable ... and wrong. Christianity alone preaches a salvation not of works. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). We are saved apart from works (Rom 3:28; Rom 4:6). This is not reasonable to the majority, but it is right. All turned around.

Jesus gives a strange call to His followers. "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Mark 8:34) "What's that you say? Take up a cross?" Yes. "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (Matt 11:29) "Take up your yoke and find rest?" Makes no sense. It doesn't seem reasonable. It's all turned around.

One thing we know for sure: we chose Christ. We came to Him in faith. We repented. We chose Him. So why did He tell His disciples, "You didn't choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16)? Who chose whom? Now, to be fair, we did come to Him in faith and we did repent, but Scripture talks about faith as a gift (Rom 12:3; Phil 1:29) and repentance as something granted (2 Tim 2:25). That is He is the first cause. And that's all turned around from our normal way of seeing things.

One of the most difficult things for me to grasp is the twist God puts on what I can only refer to as His sovereignty. In more than one place the Bible uses the imagery of a potter to describe what God does with humans. Isaiah writes, "Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me'; or the thing formed say of Him who formed it, 'He has no understanding'?" (Isa 29:16) Paul writes, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21) The Word speaks of God as making humans as He wishes, and sometimes it's not ... what we would consider nice or fair. I mean, when the Potter can opt to make a person for "dishonorable use", that doesn't seem fair to our ears. But the Scriptures claim that "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (Prov 16:4) Now, we know that God doesn't cause sin (James 1:13), so we won't go there, but it seems equally clear that He expects it and uses it (e.g. Gen 50:20; Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:26-28). God doesn't cause it, but He ordains it. And that is so twisted from what we expect. It's all turned around.

Truth be told, despite the fact that my point is that God often tends to turn things around from what we might expect, this is exactly what we might expect if God is God. That is, if God is indeed infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, holy, holy, holy, and good -- if it is true that God holds, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9) -- then we would necessarily expect God's ways to be other than ours and God's thoughts higher than ours.

Two conclusions, then. First, if you are going to allow the Author of all to define reality, you may find that you need to rearrange your understanding of reality to more closely align with His ideas rather than vice versa. Second, if your notion is that how you understand the world defines what God does, you can be quite sure that you'll be wrong most of the time. Your view of God is too small. Human reason is not the answer here. God -- our God -- is, above all, an "other" God and human reason falls short. His own Word ought to help bridge that gap.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

I'd guess that most of you have never heard of this concept. Don't worry. I wouldn't expect it. Popular at one point, there are now very few churches that subscribe to it and, as you would expect, the rest have mostly put it out of their minds. So ... what is it? You've heard, I assume, of the principle of Christian Liberty. Based on passages like Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, this principle holds that Christians are permitted to do anything that God's Word does not forbid within the confines of conscience. Now, that's an oversimplification, perhaps, and there are lots of considerations, but that's the idea. Well, the regulative principle of worship is like that, except in reverse. This principle says that in worship believers are only permitted to do that which God commands.

The idea, believe it or not, comes from Scripture. The most compelling clue comes from the story of Nadab and Abihu. These priests, sons of Aaron, offered "strange fire" and were instantly burned to death (Lev 10:1-2). For "strange fire"? Oh, sure, the ESV says "unauthorized fire", like that helps. The point is that they didn't violate a command from God; they simply did something in worship that He had not commanded. When Aaron started to complain, Moses told him, "This is what the LORD has said: 'Among those who are near Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And the text says that with that, "Aaron held his peace." (Lev 10:3) It looks then like God is concerned with specifics in the worship He receives. Thus, Moses was not allowed to make whatever he thought appropriate for the tabernacle. He had to make everything "after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain." (Exo 25:40) The first two commands of the Decalogue are about the proper worship of God (Exo 20:1-6). Paul warns about "self-made religion" which "have indeed an appearance of wisdom" but "are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." (Col 2:23) Jesus rejected "the traditions of the elders" (Matt 15:1-14) and required a return to "the commandment of God". So it looks like the regulative principle of worship may have a biblical case.

After that, of course, the case breaks down. No, I don't mean it goes away. I mean it gets difficult to interpret. If we are going to accept that the worship of God must only be that which God commands, what does God command? Well, there is the reading of Scripture (1 Tim 4:13) and preaching the Word (2 Tim 4:2). There is singing (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) and prayer (Matt 21:13). There is baptism (Matt 28:19) and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26). These are pretty agreeable. And then the followers of the regulative principle of worship diverge.

How often do we celebrate the Lord's Supper? What about dancing? Drama? Videos? Technology at all? What about instruments? If instruments, what instruments? What songs are we allowed to sing? Many require that all singing for the purposes of worship be done solely from Scripture. Lots of unanswered questions. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America holds to the most extreme version of this principle that I know of. From their website:

We believe that God’s Word clearly sets forth how He is to be worshiped. The reading and exposition of the Word of God are the central focus of our worship. Our musical praise employs God’s Word only, thus making use of the divinely inspired Book of Psalms of the Bible. In keeping with the New Testament Church’s directive for heart worship, we sing without the aid of musical instruments.

Only God's Word is sung with only the Psalms and without musical instruments. Now, Paul commands us to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Col 3:16) Doesn't that mean it's more than just the Psalms? And Psalm 150 says to praise Him with instruments. Doesn't that mean that instruments are not a problem? "Oh," some will say, "we can use instruments, but only those listed in Scripture."

I think the case for the regulative principle of worship has merit. Worshiping God apart from what God wants wouldn't make sense at all. And I'm pretty sure that many Christians today are quite cavalier about their worship to God. They base it on "a warm feeling toward God" when worship is about God, not our feelings. A cool band with contemporary singing may feel good to you, but does it reach God? On the other hand, figuring out exactly what that means -- what is and isn't commanded -- seems to be problematic for us. At this point don't we end up back with the "Christian Liberty" thing? Oh, I don't know.

Sea-Change

You may have heard of a "sea-change". It comes from Shakespeare's The Tempest. He wrote about a man whose father drowned, which produced a "sea-change" in the man. It refers to a metamorphosis, a profound alteration, a systemic transformation.

There is, dear readers, a sea-change upon us. Where once Evangelicals were known as Bible-believing Christians, they have jettisoned that adjective in favor of something ... less. Where once Christians were defined as people of the Word, they have become "feeling" folk, classifying themselves as "compassionate" while rejecting the Word. If the wave hasn't hit where you're standing, wait. It will. This is a "sea-change" in a real sense, in that the tide of cultural values in opposition to biblical values is producing a change in Christendom that will, like the drowned father of The Tempest, leave Christendom no longer Christian.

In 2014, ex-leftist/feminist/lesbian Rosaria Butterfield was invited to one of the most conservative Christian colleges remaining in the country, Wheaton College, to give her testimony. What she encountered was a crowd of students demonstrating against her. Signs like "I’m gay and a beloved child of God. This is my story." and "Rosaria's story is valid, mine is too." declared their complaint that her story of conversion from lesbian to heterosexual would be regarded as the only "true conversion" scenario. They believed that you could be a practicing homosexual and a Christian at the same time. The idea that a person would come to Christ and necessarily change behaviors in this regard should not be considered normative. Lots of people who follow Christ and feel no need to repent same-sex behavior. Thus, "Rosaria's story is valid, mine is too."

It's odd. To attend Wheaton College it is necessary (among other things) to sign a "Community Covenant", an agreement of standards to be upheld during their time at Wheaton. Based on Scripture, they agree to things like "seek righteousness, mercy and justice, particularly for the helpless and oppressed" and "embrace ethnic diversity as part of God's design". Included in this list is "uphold chastity among the unmarried and the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman." They agree that Scripture condemns "sexual immorality, such as the use of pornography, pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexual behavior and all other sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage between a man and woman." So ... how is it that these could stand openly on the steps of the college chapel declaring themselves to be liars and hypocrites, agreeing to something that they, in fact, deny and even protest? To hold this position in the world is expected. In a conservative Christian college with supposedly conservative Christian students is unthinkable.

Welcome to the sea-change. Recently NPR reported that acceptance of the concept of practicing homosexuals as Christians is growing among Evangelicals. The NPR story centered around a man, self-identified as "gay" and "Christian", who was seeking to become a pastor. He was having trouble because he was single and, for apparently unknown reasons (1 Tim 3:2), churches wanted a married man. Oh, and he was gay, and for reasons he couldn't really understand (1 Cor 6:9-10), they didn't want a gay man. Well, he found his church and he's happy. He "seeks forgiveness and acknowledges that he is a sinner — but not because of his sexual orientation, nor because of his hope that someday he, too, will marry."

As the Wheaton College story illustrates, much of this shift is occurring in the younger generation. Unshackled by too much Bible learning and too much Bible authority, with views shaped more and more by the world rather than the Word, they're choosing to ignore the biblical injunctions on the subject and the inherent threats. (You have to admit that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" is a serious threat.) Paul says, "We know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin." (Rom 6:6-7) They argue, "Why give up the sin?" John argues, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9) They counter, "Sure we can; just watch." Or, more subtly, they simply redefine sin.

Today they're discussing the shift in attitudes among conservative Christians. The younger generation is demonstrating that it has already happened. It looks like the best we can expect is for the silly, conservative, biblical Christian outlook to die with age if not be transformed before that. It is a sea-change. Wash away all that "saved from sin" stuff and "God-breathed Word of God" nonsense. Redefine sin to our liking. Reshape God in our image. Call it "Christian".

It's good to know that Christ said, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) because if it was left up to many of His current "followers", His church would be gone by now, replaced with something else.

What is Worship?

If you ask around I suspect you might have a little trouble getting an answer to the question, "What is worship?" It's one of those words that we all know ... but don't really quite know. The first thing that comes to mind is likely that church singing we do. But, of course, we all know that this doesn't define worship. A more careful thinker might include the preaching of the Word. True, but this still doesn't define worship. Someone really paying attention might suggest something like "every day living" as in "Present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." (Rom 12:1) Sure, this is all true to some degree or another, but it still doesn't define worship. These are things we do to worship, but what is it?

The Bible doesn't offer a definition. The English word comes from two Old English terms which, combined, indicate the quality of worth, the worth-ship of something or someone. Worship of God, then, is ascribing worth to God. On the other hand, the primary Hebrew word means to bow or prostrate oneself. In a sense, then, this is diminishing my worth in favor of His worth. Others refer to adoration and reverence. In the New Testament the primary word is προσκυνέω -- proskuneō. It's actually a strange word at its roots. The two parts are pros and kuōn. The first is "towards". The second is a dog. Yes, a dog. The idea, then, is to kiss like a dog, to lick the master's hand, to fawn or crouch, to prostrate oneself. In Deuteronomy God commands, "You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name." (Deut 6:13) The quote of this passage by Jesus in the wilderness against Satan (Matt 4:10) uses this Greek word for the Hebrew "worship". So we end up in biblical terms with this idea of prostration, of lowering self before the One deserving worth-ship. Biblically, the only one receiving that worth-ship must be God and no other (Deut 8:19; Matt 4:10).

So ... what is worship? Beyond "prostration", beyond applying worth, beyond minimizing me and maximizing Him (John 3:30), clearly the intent is to glorify God. On the surface, that's an easy answer; everything we do is supposed to glorify Him (1 Cor 10:31). In fact, if you read your Bible for very long you'll discover that this is the primary reason God does most of what He does, but especially the reason for what He does for us. We were predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:5-6). We obtain an inheritance "to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory." (Eph 1:10-12) We have been given the pledge of the Holy Spirit "to the praise of His glory." (Eph 1:13-14) Worship, then, is to praise God for His glory.

What does the Bible tell us about worship, then? Well, first and foremost it is ascribing glory to God (Psa 96:8). In this, there are modes or methods of worship. These would include things like the sacrifice of self (Rom 12:1-2). The Bible does speak about music and worship. There is much about singing and even playing instruments. (To those who complain about this modern music being too loud, it's hard to imagine something louder than the divinely inspired "Praise Him with trumpet sound; praise Him with lute and harp! Praise Him with tambourine and dance; praise Him with strings and pipe! Praise Him with sounding cymbals; praise Him with loud clashing cymbals!" (Psa 150:3-5)) Music is part of worship, but it is music with an aim (Col 3:16). (Hint: That aim is not entertainment.) There is rejoicing before God (Psa 96:13). There is the preaching of the Word. Now, some people balk at this. "That's not worship." Well, if glorifying God is worship, then preaching His Word is worship. If sacrificing self is worship, then learning about how God commands that is worship. If Scripture is God-breathed and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17) , then preaching the Word is indispensable to worship. If we are to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Tim 4:2), then preaching the Word is absolutely worship.

One key component -- often overlooked, I think -- is this one clear thing Scripture says about worship. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24) From this we can see quite clearly that the preaching of the Word is essential in worship (because "If you abide in My Word, you are truly My disciples" (John 8:31) and "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) That would be the "truth" part). Beyond that, worship is "in spirit". The importance here is placed not on location, but attitude. It is not method, but mindset. It is not in ceremony and methodology, but the disposition of the worshipper. It is not external, but internal (Isa 29:13-14). What happens externally, for it to be worship, is a reflection of the heart set on God as ultimate worth.

Attitude is key, but did you know that there is such a thing as unacceptable worship? Hebrews says, "Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe." (Heb 12:28) Cain found out about unacceptable worship (Gen 4:3-5). Nadab and Abihu found out about unacceptable worship (Lev 10:1). What made their worship unacceptable? "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored." (Lev 10:3)

Do we know what worship is anymore? Sometimes I wonder. Sometimes it feels like our "worship" is more about good bands and good feelings than about a holy God. We're pretty good at catering to the crowd. We're pretty good at trying to entice people into church with flash and entertainment. We might even become accomplished at the use of music and words to make people feel warmly toward God. But the first and foremost demand of God is "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy" and the primary motivation of worship is "in spirit and in truth". Why is it, then, that we so often start with methods and means intended to entertain and make people feel a certain way? If worship is applying worth to God while minimizing ourselves, how does that image fit in most of today's church worship? Sometimes I wonder.

Government Gone Wild

Perhaps you've heard the stories. The Massachusetts State police shutdown a 12-year-old refugee from Fukushima, Japan, who was selling green tea because he had no permit. Police in Coralville, Iowa, closed up three different children's lemonade stands because they lacked a vendor's permit and health inspection. A resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was growing herbs in her front yard. The city destroyed the garden. A woman in Phoenix was handing out water to the homeless on one of their 110°+ days and was ordered to stop because she didn't have a permit. A 90-year-old veteran of World War II in Florida was serving meals to the homeless which he had done for two decades when the police ordered him to "Drop that plate!" It is a criminal offense in 71 cities to feed the homeless without a permit.

Remember when New York City banned big sizes of sugary drinks? Sure, it died, but it was there. Back in 2011 the city of San Francisco banned Happy Meals. Well, that's not entirely accurate. They banned toys in meals marketed for children if the meal was more than 600 calories. You might think that parents should be making these decisions, but the guy who introduced the ban has a young daughter himself and he complained about the "pester power" of young children making it impossible, apparently, for parents to refuse. And, of course, the first lady has worked hard to determine what school children should and should not be allowed to eat, because government should be doing that for you and your family.

We are all aware of Obama's recent transgender bathroom rule. All public schools in the country must surrender logic, ignore science, and admit to the lunacy that anyone can be any gender they feel. It is not a state issue; it is a federal issue. Submit, or there will be trouble. Expensive trouble. Well, New York City's commission on Human Rights followed suit with a law that requires businesses to accommodate an individual's chosen gender identity. Oh, and that is not a short list. They've listed 31 possible gender identities, including "genderqueer" for someone whose gender identity is neither man nor woman but beyond gender, "gender bender" whose identity changes, mixes, or combines genders, and "gender fluid" for someone whose gender identification shifts about. There is even the "two spirits" gender which is a Native American category for someone both male and female which is a distinct gender. But, wait! The new rule includes civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. "Violations" include the failure or refusal to call a person by the pronoun they prefer. Think that's crazy? Then you're not up to date. An elementary school teacher in Oregon who identifies as "transmasculine" (which, by the way, is not on New York City's list of 31 -- already time for an update, I guess) was awarded $60,000 from the school district because they wouldn't use the pronoun, "they", to refer to her. (Note: In New York City it is conceivable that my use of the pronoun "her" in that last sentence could be punishable by a 6-figure fine.) The school district enacted a slew of new policies on the subject and warned that any teacher refusing to use the selected pronoun could be fired.

Times, they are a'changin'. That's what the song says. You used to think that the constitutional "right to bear arms" meant that we would have the right to bear arms. They'd like to change that. You used to think that the restriction on government on the free exercise of religion meant that you'd be free to stand by your faith. They've already begun to change that. You used to think that this was a free country -- you know, "the land of the free". Not anymore. When the government is going to decide that kids can't have lemonade stands and people can't grow herbs in their garden and a permit is required to feed the homeless, it's not so free anymore. When the government decides what you can and can't eat, it's not so free anymore. When reason and science exit in favor of "felt gender" (especially when "felt gender" is fluid and therefore undefined) and everyone must succumb to this insanity, it's not so free anymore. Don't expect it to get better.

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. (Psa 146:3)

Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. But as for me, I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me. (Micah 7:5-7)

Lest Anyone Should Boast

I recently finished Rosaria Butterfield's The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. This is not a review of the book. If you don't know who she is, she was a leftist, lesbian professor that despised Christians ... and then became one. Good story. She was redeemed and actually turned her life over to Christ. She has drawn a lot of fire from the LGBT community because she stopped being a lesbian and married a pastor. There was one part in her story, after she was a pastor's wife, that shocked me. It shouldn't have, but it did.

She wrote about talking to a woman at a church that was considering calling her husband to be the pastor there. The woman, not knowing Rosaria's testimony, asked what she thought they should do if a homosexual came into the church. Rosaria gave her a copy of her testimony. Later, the woman came back and told her she shouldn't tell anyone about her testimony and that she didn't know how to remain friends with her. (Not a quote; just the essence.)

I'm baffled at this. Isn't this the Pharisee and the sinner? "Thank you, God, that I'm not a sinner like that one." Aren't we all sinners saved by grace? Is there something particularly evil about homosexual sin that is worse than sins of pride, lust, greed, idolatry, or disobedience to parents? (I throw that last one in because on more than one occasion Paul does in his lists of sins (Rom 1:28-32; 2 Tim 3:1-5).) When did we become "better than them" when it is two Christians in view? "Sure," the message seems to be, "we're saved by grace through faith, not of works lest anyone should boast ... but we can at least boast that we weren't as bad as some others." How is it that we pray for the souls and salvation of people and then balk when it happens? Why do we rejoice in God's grace and then think we may have earned it? How can it be that we expect everyone to view us as redeemed, forgiven, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, but do not expect to view fellow believers the same way? I don't understand.

The response of that Christian woman brought tears to my eyes. Here I was, reading the book, rejoicing in at all that God was doing in the life of "an unlikely convert", and all that woman saw was the sinner Christ didn't see anymore. Dear Lord, teach me to be gracious to my fellow redeemed sinners, not thinking more highly of myself than I ought.

Take for Granted

To take for granted: to fail to appreciate something or someone. To expect someone or something to always be available without thanks or recognition. To consider as true without thinking about it.

If you do a search for the word, "granted", in the Bible, you'll find a lot of references. Isaac prayed for Rebekah because she was barren and the Lord granted his prayer (Gen 25:21). Samson complained because after killing 1,000 Philistines he was thirsty, so he said to God, "You have granted this great salvation by the hand of your servant, and shall I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?" (Judges 15:18) Hannah prayed for a son and, having received him, gave him to the priest, Eli, saying, "For this child I prayed, and the LORD has granted me my petition that I made to him. Therefore I have lent him to the LORD." (1 Sam 1:27-28) In the New Testament, Pilate granted Jesus's corpse to Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:45). Jesus said, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself (John 5:26). When Paul was being taken to Rome in chains and his boat was caught in a deadly storm, he reassured everyone by telling them that an angel told him "Behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you." (Acts 27:24) Peter writes of the glorious truth that "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." (2 Peter 1:3-4) Lots and lots of "granteds".

What is "granted"? What does it mean to "grant" something? That is, how would we avoid "taking it for granted"? Well, we're not vague on the word. It simply means to give something to someone or to allow them something. It is a gift. Someone with power or authority or possession gives something to someone who wants or needs it. In Revelation 11:3 God says "I will grant authority to My two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." (Rev 11:3) It is God's authority; He gives it to the witnesses. You would think, then, that "take for granted" would demand gratitude. I mean, the phrase would literally mean "to take as a gift". And, yet, the phrase means "to fail to appreciate something."

As it turns out, we Christians do this often. Consider some of the things Scripture says are granted to us.

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus. (Rom 15:5)

May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. (2 Tim 1:16)

To the one who overcomes I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7)

And He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65)

When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18)

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Tim 2:24-26)

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake. (Phil 1:29)

Just a short list, really. How many of those "grants" did you find you "take for granted"? How many do you not appreciate?

I ask because it is fairly common that several of them aren't even recognized as gifts from God. We likely recognize mercy as a gift. We might recognize that the ability to live in harmony is a gift. But how about the very ability to come to the Father (John 6:65)? Not everyone is given that. How about repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25)? The Bible says twice that repentance is granted, and the second reference includes the distinct possibility that it won't be (2 Tim 2:25) ("God may perhaps grant them repentance ...") And most of us surely do not recognize faith as a gift (Phil 1:29). So, here we are -- believers, Christians, disciples of Christ -- and we're taking for granted things like faith and repentance that Scripture says God gave us, thinking instead that they're something we drummed up.

So what does it take for us to turn "take for granted" from "unappreciated" to "grateful for the gift"? I suppose it would have to start with the recognition that it was a gift, wouldn't it?

Whatever Happened to Prayer Meetings?

In Acts 12 there is a kind of fun story about Peter in jail. Herod had James, John's brother, beheaded and found out the Jews liked it. So he had Peter arrested and planned to further the fun by killing him after Passover. Well, God had other plans. In the night an angel came in, kicked Peter and told him to get up and go, and they walked out. Peter didn't even know it was real until the angel left him outside the prison. Imagine that! So he went to where he knew Christians would be gathered and knocked on the door. Sure enough, there was a group inside praying for Peter, but when the girl told them Peter was at the door, they were pretty sure she was nuts and all they expected was Peter's ghost. They were wrong. (Acts 12:1-17) Fun stuff.

Here's what's interesting in that story. First, "So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God." (Acts 12:5) Then, when Peter figured out it was not a dream or a vision, but real, "he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying." (Acts 12:12) The common theme, then, was that the church was gathered and praying. Oh, and with a greater effect than even they anticipated.

What ever happened to those meetings? In places in the world where persecution of Christians is rampant, group prayer is fundamental. But in the American church it's just about gone. Even in my youth, when "Wednesday night prayer meeting" was everywhere, it was never well attended. The vast majority have dropped it. We appear to have taken on the description of the church at Laodicea. "You say, 'I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,' and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." (Rev 3:17) (Oh, by the way, Laodicea was not the church you want to be associated with. Jesus considered Himself outside that church (Rev 3:20).)

What else? I don't think the answer is that simple. Sure, we underestimate our need and overestimate our ability. What else? We have certainly succumbed to an anti-supernatural spirit of our day. Science reigns in our world and, while we know science isn't the answer, we also tend toward a secular view when it comes to prayer. "God doesn't do the miraculous anymore. God doesn't answer prayer." This secular view extends beyond this anti-supernatural bias, of course. We buy into the idea that making money and doing things and indulging in entertainment and all this is important. Prayer? Not so much.

American individualism has had its effect. We don't need anyone or anything. We're individuals. We're self-sufficient. If there is anything the Bible teaches us about ourselves it is our inability to do what God demands, but we're pretty sure we've got this. If there's anything current events tells us it is that we are increasingly becoming targeted in society, that immorality and evil is growing, but we're pretty sure we've got this. Prayer? Don't worry; we've got this. The early church was "continually devoting themselves to prayer" (Acts 1:14; Acts 2:42). But we've got this.

Is it possible that, due to societal influences and individualism and pride and sin that one of the problems we have with prayer is that we just don't care? When Peter was dragged into prison, the first response of the church was to gather and pray fervently. Us? Not really. We might seek to feed the poor or help out someone or something like it, but to make it an issue of corporate prayer? I don't see it very often. I wonder how much of the vanishing of the prayer meeting is due to our apathy.

If the Bible is full of prayer, both individual and corporate (and it is), it would seem apparent that 1) God considers it important (Psa 27:4; Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17, etc.) and 2) Satan would target it (because God considers it important). If Jesus promised, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you" (John 15:7), it would make sense that Satan would target that kind of power. And we've let him.

Jesus said, "If two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven." (Matt 18:19) The first church devoted itself to praying together. Jesus promised great results from prayer. To the objection, "I don't know how to pray" Paul says, "We do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us." (Rom 8:26) We are commanded to pray. We are encouraged to pray. We are promised God's will is accomplished in our prayer. Prayer produces unity (Acts 1:14). Prayer is fundamental to the Christian life.

So, whatever happened to the prayer meeting? Satan took it on and we let it go. Sin, doubt, self-sufficiency, busyness, entertainment, pride, and perhaps even a healthy dose of apathy have all intervened to cut us off from the source of power God promised and the early church knew. Perhaps, given our life and times, it is something we should recover.

Reviling God

Paul writes what we title Titus to "Titus, my true child in a common faith" (Titus 1:4). Titus was discipled by Paul. At the writing of this letter, Titus was in Crete putting the church there in order (Titus 1:5). So Paul starts off explaining about elder qualifications and such. At the beginning of the second chapter, he tells Titus what he wants Titus himself to do. "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1) Simple enough. Or, you'd think so. Because what he follows that with doesn't seem to be what we would think of as the immediate issues of "what accords with sound doctrine".

Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. (Titus 2:2-6)

Really, Paul? You start "what accords with sound doctrine" with patriarchal gender roles? You begin with ageism and sexism? This is "what accords with sound doctrine"?

We don't think so. In our enlightened days, we know that when Paul engaged in this ill-considered rant about different roles of men and women, he was actually thinking of the known fact that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) As such, these apparent differences between gender roles are, well, a mistake, a misunderstanding, a failure to communicate. We can figure that out for ourselves simply by looking at our culture today. And that's a relief.

Except it isn't because it is not possible to put "gender equality" in the sense of "gender sameness" (as opposed to equal worth) in the whole of Scripture and have it make sense. The Bible is full of differing rules and roles for men and women. Further, the failure of sinful human beings to properly carry out those differing rules and roles is not a valid argument to say that either God or His Word is wrong for stating them.

But, in truth, I'm not writing this simply about gender roles. I'm writing this about the problem. I'm writing about what is at stake. Note what Paul told Titus in the course of "what accords with sound doctrine" regarding young wives. He told Titus to teach older women to train younger women (wives) "to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands." Now, in today's world and even in today's church whose values and perspectives too often come from today's world, that whole sentence comes across like nails on a chalkboard. "'Love their husbands'? We will if our husbands do what's right, but don't expect us to love the unlovable. 'Working at home'? Yeah, right, like some rotten '50's sitcom. No thanks. I have a career and I won't be fulfilled with that silly 'Suzie Homemaker' nonsense. (Which, by the way, will bring into question any need for that whole 'love their children' concept, since there very well might not be any.) And, honestly, who, anymore, is really going to be 'submissive to their own husbands'? Welcome to the 21st century. You know what you can do with your archaic patriarchal nonsense. We're at least equals in this marriage and, truth be told, we're pretty sure women are superior. So keep your 'submit' stuff to yourself." With or without the acrimony, that is the common view inside and out of the church.

But notice why Paul tells Titus that young wives ought to be trained this way. This is no minor item. Paul says that, in keeping with "what accords with sound doctrine", older women should "train the young women" in this manner that the word of God may not be reviled.

Paul mentions a similar concept in Romans. "You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'" (Rom 2:23-24) In the same way, according to Paul, when wives do not love their husbands and children, are not self-controlled and pure, do not work at home, are not kind, and are not submissive to their husbands, it reflects badly on God's Word. And, of course, when God's Word is diminished ("reviled"), the origin of God's Word -- God Himself -- is diminished (reviled). (Note: the words used in Romans 2:24 -- "blasphemed" -- and in Titus 2:5 -- "reviled" -- are the same Greek word.) So while we boldly stand on "higher ground" where "women are empowered" and no more of this silly (or worse) "patriarchal stuff" is in play, we hold God and His Word up for ridicule. And we are Christians.

When will we learn that we do not know better? When will we realize that we are not "of this world", but simply in it? When will we recognize that the world hates Christ and we ought not think that the views of the world should be the same as the views of the Father? Mind you, I'm not asking about the world. They're operating blind (2 Cor 4:4), hating God (Rom 8:7), with deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). But you, Christian, redeemed by the Son, forgiven by the Father, indwelt by the Spirit, adopted by God ... why are you buying the lies from the father of lies instead of being transformed by the renewing of your mind? Why, instead, are so many Christians conformed to this world? I think these are questions each of us needs to answer. (Rom 12:1-2)

Memorial Day, 2016

It's Memorial Day again. First celebrated in the years following the Civil War, it is an American holiday observed on the last Monday of May intended to honor men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. As is my pleasure on this day, I've gathered a few stories of Medal of Honor recipients. This episode will be for Medal of Honor recipients from the Korean Conflict.

Some of the men that earned this award were operating at a different level of courage and dedication than most of us can imagine. MSgt Stanley Adams is one of those. At 1 in the morning he was holding an outpost some 200 yards ahead of his company when they were attacked by some 250 enemy troops. The platoon was pressed on 3 sides with enemy fire. MSgt Adams noticed some 150 hostile troops silhouetted against the sky, so he told his men to fix bayonets and he charged. He went down with a bullet in the leg, but got up again and continued his charge. Four times he was knocked down by grenade concussions that had bounced off him. He and the 13 men who had followed him engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, killing over 50 of them and forcing them to withdraw. His leadership, dedication, and indomitable fighting spirit saved the battalion from possible disaster.

Captain William Barber was a Marine officer in charge of Company F. His company had been tasked with defending a mountain pass that was the main supply line for the area. He had his troops dig in for defensive positions. In the night they were attacked, with heavy casualties, and surrounded by the enemy. Capt. Barber managed to repulse the enemy and told headquarters that he could hold out if they would drop him some supplies, but they ordered him to retreat after 2 reinforcing units were driven back trying to fight their way to his location. Capt. Barber knew that retreating would mean they would have to leave the many wounded who couldn't walk and would cut off 8,000 marines, so he chose to remain at risk of being removed from command. His battered troops continued through another 5 days and 6 nights, killing an estimated 1,000 enemy troops, until they were relieved. Of the original 220 men, only 82 were able to walk away, but his actions provided for the safe retreat of troops in the Chosin Reservoir sector.

We tend to think of the fighters as the brave ones, but some of the most heroic stories come from medics. Sgt David Bleak was one of those. Sgt Bleak volunteered to accompany a reconnaissance patrol seeking to engage and capture an enemy for interrogation. Here, I cannot improve on the text of the actual citation. You have to read this to believe it.

Forging up the rugged slope of the key terrain, the group was subjected to intense automatic weapons and small arms fire and suffered several casualties. After administering to the wounded, he continued to advance with the patrol. Nearing the military crest of the hill, while attempting to cross the fire-swept area to attend the wounded, he came under hostile fire from a small group of the enemy concealed in a trench. Entering the trench he closed with the enemy, killed 2 with bare hands and a third with his trench knife. Moving from the emplacement, he saw a concussion grenade fall in front of a companion and, quickly shifting his position, shielded the man from the impact of the blast. Later, while ministering to the wounded, he was struck by a hostile bullet but, despite the wound, he undertook to evacuate a wounded comrade. As he moved down the hill with his heavy burden, he was attacked by 2 enemy soldiers with fixed bayonets. Closing with the aggressors, he grabbed them and smacked their heads together, then carried his helpless comrade down the hill to safety.

Killed two with bare hands, deflected a grenade blast, shot but kept going, then grabbed two charging enemy soldiers with bayonets and banged their heads together. Like out of the movies, except it was real.

You may like the movie heroes. Captain America or Luke Skywalker or whomever you prefer. Those fictional heroes have nothing on these people. These men and women who served our country with such dedication and bravery deserve our gratitude and at least one day of recognition. That would be this day.

The Zombie Gospel

While our society rambles on about the "zombie apocalypse" (So serious are some that a town in the UK sued their leadership because they didn't have a "zombie apocalypse plan" while Homeland Security does.) and revels in stories, movies, TV series, and the like about zombies, I remain disconnected from the silly genre. That is, until I realized that it was biblical. No, not the silly living-dead, brains-eating Hollywood version. That is, not the Hollywood version.

Consider.

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

Paul says that natural human beings are "dead in the trespasses and sins" and living "in the passions of our flesh". Dead and living.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Rom 1:28)

Paul says that sin rots the brain.

So biblically we have dead people who are alive, who lack brains and, therefore, need them. Now isn't that the description of a zombie?

Of course, in the Hollywood version there is a cure for a zombie -- shoot it. Kill it. (Ironic, since it is the living dead that they say we need to kill.) Biblically, there is another way.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
(Rom 6:3-8)

The biblical remedy for those who are alive but dead, functioning only with debased mind, is to die with Christ and be raised that "we too might walk in newness of life." Hollywood wants us to kill them for good and all. Christ wants them to die and be raised with Him.

This is, indeed, good news (Gospel) for the "zombies" among whom we walk every day. Dead in sin, walking about with diseased hearts (Jer 17:9) and debased minds, we have an answer for them. Die with Christ and be raised to new life.

I wonder, sometimes, if we, who were once among these very same "zombies" really appreciate the astounding reality that we were dead and are now alive, that we are no longer slaves to sin (Rom 6:12-14). I wonder if we value the opportunity to be renewed in the mind (Rom 12:2) that currently doesn't exist for all those who are currently the very real "undead". I wonder if we recognize the worth of this Gospel we hold to all those dead people we know who desperately need it. Do we realize that God didn't "make us better", but brought us to life, and that this same miracle is available for those around us? I would think that we would daily be grateful for the grace that made us alive when we were dead and that compassion would give us a sense of urgency in sharing this good news with the dead around us.

A Well-Oiled Government

Finally, we have a smoothly operating federal government. Well, I mean, on at least one item. The bill hit both the House and the Senate and was passed unanimously in both. Imagine that! The president signed the bill into law and now we have a new rule for the good of one and all.

What rule? The bill eliminated all known uses of the terms "oriental" and "negro" from federal law.

"After months of advocacy in both chambers of Congress, derogatory terms in federal law will finally be updated to reflect our country's diversity," said Senator Mazie Hirono, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate. Because, you see, "oriental" is derogatory. "Asian" is not.

Of course, "the Orient" is a term referring to the land east of Europe (which, by definition, is "Asia") and "oriental" refers to people and things from that part of the world ("the Orient"/Asia), so you can see that "Asian" is much less derogatory than "oriental". Congresswoman Meng, the originator and sponsor of the bill in the House, was relieved that "at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good." She went on to say, "Many Americans may not be aware that the word 'Oriental' is derogatory, but it is an insulting term that needed to be removed from the books, and I am extremely pleased that my legislation to do that is now the law of the land." I suppose "derogatory" is in the ear of the hearer because "oriental" means "from Asia" and she was right -- many Americans aren't at all clear why a word meaning "from Asia" is derogatory but "Asian" is not.

"Negro" refers to skin color and was the word of choice for a long time, even up to today. It includes people from Africa as well as other locations with dark-skinned people. It is now "African-American". I wonder how a white-skinned South African immigrant will feel about that? And, I was wondering ... do you suppose the United Negro College Fund will be changing their name in shame and repentance for being so derogatory? I wonder.

But, hey, our government has succeeded in removing this blight upon the land. Now if only they can get rid of those right-wing fundamentalist wackos, a term that is not derogatory I'm sure.

Dear Church

Jesus's letter to the church at Ephesus is an interesting letter. Oh, you know, the one that Jesus dictated to John in Revelation (Rev 2:1-7). It's an interesting letter because it is ... unexpected.

These seven letters have several common components. They are all headed by an appropriate description of the writer, Jesus. They all end with the exact same sentence: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." There is generally a commendation, a problem, a corrective, and a promise to "he who overcomes". In the letter to Ephesus, Jesus says, "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." (Rev 2:2-3) Okay, so let's summarize. They work, they work hard, they don't tolerate evil, they test people who claim to be apostles (but aren't), and they persevere. They have good works, good effort, and good doctrine.

You'd think that this would be one of those churches that doesn't get a warning. Nope! But how could that be? I mean, good works, not tolerating evil, good doctrine ... what else is there?

"But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. (Rev 2:4)

Interesting.

There has been a debate over the last century or so. Which is more important: orthdoxy or orthopraxy? That is, is it more important to believe the right things or do the right things? As it turns out, it is both ... and neither. Ephesus had both. Oh, and Christ commended them for it. That was good. But believing the right things and doing the right things is not enough. What else is important? What else, if it is lacking, requires repentance? It is love. It is the failure of the prime command -- love God with all your being. It is a failure of the second command -- love one another. It is a motivational breakdown. Because love is the hallmark of Christ's disciples, the reason we serve Him, the thing that gives our doctrine and practice meaning.

"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. (Rev 2:5)

That's Jesus's remedy. Remember, repent, and return. Remember what Christ did for you. Repent of leaving the prime motive -- love. Return to orthodoxy and orthopraxy on the basis of love. Or there will be consequences.

It's my suspicion that anyone who has been a Christian for some length of time runs this risk. It's my suspicion that most of us could benefit from Jesus's remedy: Remember, repent, and return.

Not of This World

One of the defining aspects of the nation of Israel was separateness. God separated out Noah and Abraham and Levi (Num 8:14) and then all Israel. They were distinct with their food and clothing customs. They were distinct with their laws. They were distinct by circumcision. Paul said that it was God's idea that they would "go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Co 6:17). They were in the world, but they were to be distinct from the world.

The idea carried into the New Testament. In Jesus's High Priestly Prayer He prayed, "I have given them Your Word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one." (John 17:14-15) There it is again. His request was not that we would be removed from the world, but that, not being of the world, we would be kept from the evil one in the world. You can see the same concept when Paul says, "We are ambassadors for Christ." (2 Cor 5:20) Foreigners in a strange land.

So how is it that most of us have most of our thinking and views and perceptions shaped just like the world's thinking and views and perceptions?

Take, for instance, the question of male-female relationships. As everyone know, there is no difference. Sure, everyone agrees that men and women are of equal value, but everyone mostly agrees that men and women do not have distinct roles or gender-related rules. That whole "wives submit" thing is dead and gone. Patriarchy isn't merely archaic ... it's sick and wrong.

This should bother Christians, at least those Christians who are aiming to not be of the world, but have their worldview shaped by God's views. The "wives submit" thing is not a male-created idea; it's Scripture (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6; etc.). Scripture says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor 11:3) It is God's Word that flies in the face of modern cultural views of gender roles when it says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Cor 11:8-9) Now, you could get stoned (I exaggerate, perhaps, but only slightly) for saying such things in the public square today, but it's Scripture. It falls in the category of "in the world but not of the world." So why is it that to hold such a position is scandalous today ... among Christians?

Take, for instance, the question of marriage. Most people these days, Christians included, consider marriage a social convention, a concept put out by humans, sanctioned by the government, and, to be honest, both without much definition or force. Did you know that God considered it of highest priority? Did you know that God would not rest in Creation until He had completed the marriage of Man and Woman (cp Gen 1:27 with Gen 2:18-24)? Depending on your understanding, there are various sacraments that God instituted for His people. Marriage was the first. Marriage, according to Scripture, makes a man and a woman into one being (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31). But, hey, that's okay. We can lop off body parts when we fall out of love with them, right? Christians don't debate whether divorce is okay or not; they debate how often it's okay. Maybe for adultery. Maybe for abandonment. Maybe for abuse or emotional abandonment. Maybe for pornography. Maybe for anything at all. But no one is suggesting "never". Why? Because our worldview is shaped more by the world that we are not of than by God's Word.

Just two quick examples. I'm sure if you thought for just a moment you could come up with more. Ideas about the importance of money and sex and power. Notions of how to raise children. Whether or not God's Word is actually God's Word. Oh, and how about the standard buzzwords? "Income equity" or "gender equality" or the like. Do not question any of that because those are the popular views of the world today. I'm sure you could come up with some more of your own.

It would seem to me that if Jesus said that we are not of this world and if our Savior said that the world would hate us for it, then we should be marked as people not of this world rather than people carefully and fully synchronized with it. You'd think, based on what we see in a lot of Christianity today, that we're making Jesus out to be a liar.

Moral Relativity

The story is told that the Christians in the days of the Caesars were charged at times with being atheists. Sure, they believed in God, but not that Caesar was a god, so that made them atheists. A problem of relativity. They were atheists as it relates to Caesar as god.

It has been the claim of many conservatives that liberals have no values. It has been the claim of many Christians that atheists have no morals. And, of course, everyone knows that homosexuals are morally bankrupt. As it turns out, this is all nonsense, relatively speaking. As it turns out, liberals and atheists and even homosexuals have lots of values and morals. They value "gender equality" and "income equity". They think that it is immoral to damage the environment, eat animals, or infringe on women's reproductive freedom. They are concerned about healthcare for all. They even seem really concerned about poverty. They fight against racism and sexism and gender issues. They talk a lot about diversity and tolerance. That is, when you chase it all down, they have values and morals; it's just that they may not be the same ones.

Then we get down to Christians. Most people are pretty sure that Christians have morals. I mean, it's one of our favorite topics. There's only one problem. While Christians surely should have the same values and moral code that we find in Scripture, we don't often find it to be so. Wives won't submit to (Eph 5:22) or respect (Eph 5:31) their husbands. Husbands fail to love (Eph 5:25-26) or understand (1 Peter 3:7) their wives. Mind you, I'm not saying we don't do it well. No. I'm saying that we read the Scriptures, understand the commands, and refuse. We call ourselves disciples of Christ and fail to love one another (John 13:35) or even learn from the Word of God ("disciple" means "learner"). We are called out from the world and then adopt the world's values of greed and narcissism and vanity and lust. When Christians are reported to be equally likely to engage in sexual immorality as non-Christians, Christians are clearly suffering from a lack of biblical morality.

We complain about the immorality of the world and the liberals and the atheists and the homosexuals and all. Perhaps we ought to check for logs in our own eyes.

Rejecting TULIP

The acronym, TULIP, has been used to supply the "shape" of Reformed Theology, of "the doctrines of grace", of what is popularly (even if it is not so popular) called "Calvinism". Just to refresh memories, here is what TULIP stands for:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Calling
Perseverance of the Saints

So, there is is, the "five points of Calvinism". Or ... is it? I would like to reject these five points.

First, no one is quite sure of where they came from. I mean, the ideas behind them came first from Scripture and then were "codified", so to speak, at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) when followers of Jacob Arminius brought complaints to the church at the time. The "five points" were the five things about which they complained (before they were referred to as "five points"). But "TULIP" didn't show up until Rev. Cleland Boyd McAfee (1905) (no relation to the antivirus software company). It didn't become popular until the 1930's. As such, I'd like to take exception to it. I do not accept the doctrines of TULIP. And here's why.

Total Depravity

Total Depravity has a sense -- a feel -- to it. It sounds like ... oh, I don't know ... total depravity. It sounds like "as evil as it can be". It sounds like humans are incapable of anything other than complete and total "awful". Now, we know this isn't true. How? No, not observation. Scripture. It was, after all, no less than Jesus who said, "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?" (Matt 7:11) Humans have the capacity, even being evil, to "give good gifts". Humans certainly have the capacity to do "nice" things, to do humanly good things. Atheists can give to charity. Unbelievers can feed the hungry. Unrepentant mothers can love their children. It can happen. So Total Depravity in the sense of "as bad as you can possibly be" is false.

Of course, we'll also have to keep in mind that the Scriptures do have other things to say about the nature of humans. The Bible says of Man "that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5) Worse, "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) Jesus said that the sins we commit "come from within" (Mark 7:20-23). Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6) and Paul said, "Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom 8:5-8) In Ephesians we read, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Eph 2:1-3) So, these (and many other passages) tell us that we are in bad shape, sinful at the core, dead in sin. Paul summarizes with statements like "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-18) So while we are not as bad as we can possibly be, it appears from Scripture that humans are spiritually dead from birth, incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), and incapable of doing anything that God would classify as "good" from His perspective.

Unconditional Election

This, of course, is nonsense. Everyone knows that to be chosen by God for salvation there are conditions. If not, everyone is chosen by God for salvation, and this is obviously false. So there must be conditions that determine whether or not someone is elect. Therefore, I reject this doctrine.

Of course, at this point we run into the question of what conditions there are to be elect. There are some things we can eliminate. We are not, for instance, chosen by God on the basis of our works or our choices (John 1:12-13; Rom 9:16). It is not on the basis of our superiority, either in wisdom or power or birth or other worldly standards (1 Cor 1:26-29). So, while we do not get saved without meeting the conditions of faith and repentance, it appears that God's choice of whom He will save is not conditioned on the ones whom He will save. What we do know is that there is one certain condition: "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls" (Rom 9:11). So God is not capricious, just picking and choosing without purpose or thought. He chooses on the basis of His purposes. And that is not "unconditional". It is conditioned on Him who calls.

Limited Atonement

This one is a little more difficult. I certainly believe that the Atonement that Christ accomplished on the cross was not unlimited. I mean, if anyone goes to Hell (Matt 7:13-14), then the Atonement does not cover all sin for all people for all time. If, on the other hand, the Atonement is unlimited, then all people are saved ... end of story. Still, how far did it go? How valuable was that blood? I would argue that the blood of Christ was sufficient to cover the sins of all mankind. I would argue, further, that the blood of Christ was sufficient to cover all the sins of those who will be saved. It's not "most"; it's all. In that sense, then, it is not limited.

The argument, though, isn't about limits, as it turns out. The argument is about intent. Who did Christ intend to save when He died on the cross? Now, we can bicker about it back and forth, throwing verses and opinions around like hand grenades. I'd prefer to see what Jesus said. Who did Jesus say He died for? (Did you know He answered that question?) In John 10, Jesus gives the metaphor of a sheep and shepherd arrangement, where Jesus is "the good shepherd" and He has sheep (John 10:7-18). In that discourse, Jesus says this: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (John 10:11) For whom did Jesus lay down His life? His sheep.

Irresistible Grace

This one is so patently obvious as to almost be painful. First, grace cannot be resisted. Anyone can favor anyone and there is no "No you can't" about it. But generally the idea is the calling of God. Does the Bible teach that the calling of God is irresistible? Don't be ridiculous! Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matt 23:37) There's the call. There's the resistance. End of story. Jesus said, "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt 22:14) Clearly not all who are called respond. No doubt.

There does remain a question on this, however. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out." (John 6:37) Now, how can that be true? In Acts we read, "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) That's odd. There is a correlation, a one-to-one "as many", where "as many" believed as were appointed and not one more and not one less. There is, then, some sense in which there is an absolute certainty that, in the final analysis, those whom the Father gives to the Son cannot not come and those who are appointed to believe cannot not believe. That doesn't preclude a long period of resistance. It just appears that Scripture holds that in the end there is a certain outcome.

Perseverance of the Saints

This one carries so much baggage that it becomes almost impossible to agree with. There is this version -- "the Perseverance of the Saints" -- but that's hardly used anymore. More popular is the "Eternal Security" version or the catchy "Once Saved, Always Saved" story. This almost necessarily leads to the antinomian position -- "We don't have to do anything at all." Some of these are militantly antinomian -- "If you suggest we do, you're making a salvation by works." I think we can all agree that we need to reject "salvation by works". On the other hand, Scripture is clear that we have to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), "endure" (2 Tim 2:12), "continue in the faith" (Col 1:23). So the implications of "once saved, always saved" become tenuous at best. The argument "We don't have to do anything at all" is in direct contradiction to "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)

All that having been said, every reference to "work", "endure", "continue", or the like that looks at us as the object includes instructions and warnings, but every one that looks at God as the object includes absolute certainty. We know, for instance, that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:27-29) These are absolutes. "No one." No, not even you ... unless you qualify as "no one". We read, "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:6) Who started it? Who will finish it? What is the question? He starts and finishes it and there is no question. Even in that Philippians 2 passage where we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling we are told "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) We work, but He supplies the will and the power to do it. Jude assured us that He "is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy." (Jude 1:24) Either He is indeed the starter and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2) or He is not. It isn't up to us; it's up to Him.

There are lots of misconceptions, false starts, and rabbit trails around this stuff. When I find people disagreeing with it, I find myself agreeing with their disagreement half the time because the whole "TULIP" thing is so misleading. Of course, on the other hand, I find the principles in Scripture and, as long as I don't stray very far from that, I have to agree with those principles. If only we could just jettison the whole misinformed, misguided, misunderstood TULIP thing.