In the News

The pop icons of the day are rising up. "#BoycottDolceGabbana". Elton John, Martina Navratilova, Courtney Love, Ricky Martin, and more are outraged. Courtney love promises to burn all her Dolce & Gabbana stuff. Why? Domenico Dolce of fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana in an interview said the unthinkable. "Every child should have a mother." I mean, how could he?! "You are born and you have a father and a mother. Or at least it should be like this, that's why I am not convinced by chemical children, synthetic babies, wombs for rent." Oh, the humanity!

Oh, wait ... what exactly is the problem here? Is it offensive to suggest that children should have a father and a mother? Is it wrong to argue that two, married (remember my definition of "married" is the longstanding, traditional one), loving parents is the best for children? I mean, that's offensive today? (And isn't it ironic that it comes from Dolce, who was romantically involved with Gabbana? Is it possible that people with same-sex attractions who don't believe in "gay marriage" are the problem?)

I know, I know, "They are outraged by the insult to IVF children!" Which, of course, didn't happen. Dolce suggested that it was not best for children, not that the children were any "less" in any way. But the approach of twisting statements deemed unacceptable to that segment of society will always be the pattern and, I fear, the serviceable strategy.

In other news, Lieutenant Commander Wes Modder, a chaplain in the Navy, is facing charges of intolerance and disrespect because he privately counseled people on issues pertaining to faith, marriage, and sexuality. Yes, privately. The military limits what can be said publicly by chaplains, but Lt Cmdr Modder did it privately. The audacity! The man, an Assemblies of God chaplain, opted to express honestly and privately his views that sex should be limited to marriage and that marriage was between a man and a woman. For being unable to "function in the diverse and pluralistic environment", he faces possible dismissal I guess the military only wants chaplains without distinctions. Like the liberal, mainstream churches that have no distinctions, no distinctives, very little impact, and precious little truth. And once again, it would appear that the only way to "function in the diverse and pluralistic environment" is to eliminate the diverse and the pluralistic.

Then, in light of this little piece where a pastor argues that "By the time a Church legitimizes 'same sex marriage', it has already ceased to be a Church", what are we to make of this little bit of news, where the Presbyterian Church (USA) formally legitimizes "same sex marriage"? Well, when pastors can be classified as "in good standing" with the PCUSA while denying the Resurrection or even actual existence of Christ and advocating the Jesus Seminar and atheism, it's pretty difficult to argue that this is still a Church in any Christian sort of way.

On the world scene, Russia has launched military maneuvers in the Arctic with 38,000 servicemen, 50+ surface ships and submarines, and 110 aircraft. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said "The new challenges and military threats require further increase of the armed forces' capabilities." If that doesn't give you pause, you're probably not paying attention.

You know, after a very short exposure to this kind of stuff, I begin to wonder if the pre-television, news-at-the-tip-of-your-fingers world didn't have its advantages.

Eyes on the Goal

When I learned to drive, my instructor taught me, "When you're driving down a street with cars parked on the side, don't keep your eyes on the cars. You will tend to steer in the direction you look." I suspect this advice is applicable for much more than driving. Like ... oh, I don't know ... all of life?

There is, of course, something specific I have in mind. What is the goal ... of life? Are you keeping your eyes on that goal, or are you getting distracted? Are you looking at parked cars?

It is so easy for us--genuine disciples of Christ--to lose focus and get distracted. There is just so much to look at. There is the obvious problem of rampant sin in the world, much of it calling your name. But we generally know better than to focus there. At least, we should. So we often suffer from other things. Are you going to have a comfortable retirement? Do you have a happy marriage? Are you making a sufficient income? Do you have the things you need or want? Are you healthy? Do people like you? Are you respected? How do you look? Clothes, hair, appearance okay? Are you rich or famous? Would you like to be? Do you have enough power? Self-empowerment is really big these days. How is your self-esteem? Are you handling your problems okay? Need help? And so it goes.

You know, it's not as if all of these things are bad. It's just that we're not asking ourselves if we're paying attention to the right things. I'm pretty sure if you thought about it and were honest you'd have to admit, like me, that you're spending a huge amount of time focusing on the temporal, not the eternal. We're most concerned about the here and now with precious little thought about eternity. Today and your next 50 some odd years are critical, but preparing for forever isn't very important.

Paul wrote, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 11:22) Hebrews says we are to be "fixing our eyes on Jesus" (Heb 12:2). In light of eternity, are we spending too much time concerning ourselves over temporal things rather than important things? Are we looking at parked cars in danger of drifting into them, or are we keeping our eyes on the goal? Are we aiming for "the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil 3:14)?

Do You Believe in Magic

Yes, it's a line from the group, The Lovin' Spoonful, from a song about love. But magic, as it turns out, is a problem. You see, in a world ruled by science to the exclusion of the supernatural, magic (along with a lot of other things) is bunk. Do you believe in magic? Well, then, we can settle the question about you being a fool, can't we? So some of the key "proofs" that Christianity is false rotate around this premise. If you believe in prayer, if you believe in the Resurrection, if you believe in Jesus's miracles, if you believe in anything outside of scientific fact, you're deluded.

Not so fast. I've been told that I believe that a magician can heal blindness by rubbing mud in the blind man's eyes. Thus, I'm a fool. Do you see a problem with the claim? I do. Even without mud in my eyes. The Bible does not teach that Jesus magically healed the blind man with mud. The Bible teaches that Jesus healed the blind man. And lots of other people.

Our materialism-based world today starts with the denial of the supernatural. The media wants you to believe that everyone with any intelligence knows that God is a myth. Thus, if you believe in the supernatural, well, we know your lack of intelligence. But it just isn't so. Like they say in the courtroom, "Your Honor, I object! Assuming facts not in evidence."

There is no evidence that God does not exist. The claim that He does not exist is not supported by evidence or logic. Indeed, those who make the claim typically argue that they don't have to prove it. So the claim that the supernatural does not exist as the premise that the supernatural cannot occur is assuming facts not in evidence.

Still, am I arguing that magic is real? The dictionary defines "magic" as (first) "illusions", but goes on to include "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." The notion is that it is "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." And I would suggest that the Bible does not claim that this exists. A primary component of "magic" under the dictionary definition is "human control". It requires the use of supernatural forces. And I would argue that only the supernatural can use supernatural forces.

The Bible is clear that supernatural events have occurred throughout history. Sometimes they were done by God's hand. Sometimes they were done by God's power through an intermediary. But at no time were they done under "human control". It was not mud that healed the blind man. It was the power of God in the flesh. It was not Moses that divided the Red Sea. It was the power of God with Moses as a focal point, a show, a visual aid (Exo 14:1-31). Not human-directed "magic"; supernatural powers.

And, you see, this itself isn't nonsense. If there is a God--if there is any supernatural being(s)--then there would be supernatural powers. It isn't a question. It isn't a "faith". It's sheer logic. If supernatural, then supernatural powers. If you can see your way clear to believe that there is a God, then it is a given that supernatural powers exist as well.

They would like to ridicule believers on the basis of "magic". "You believe in magic? What a fool!" Technically, no, we don't. But we do believe in the supernatural, and, as such, would assume the existence of supernatural powers. Why not? "Do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil." (Rom 14:16) New Atheism today is not simply opposed to theism. It is opposed to allowing you to believe. What are you going to do? (Hint: 1 Peter 3:15.)

The Marriage Test

I recently had an exchange with a self-identified "agnostic, humanist, and naturalist" that started with the topic of Biblical inerrancy. Of course, that wasn't his aim. His aim was to remove the Bible entirely. And I get that. Those who deny the existence of God, who are, by nature, "hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7), are certainly going to deny His Word. No surprise there. What is a surprise is the frequency and volume of those who classify themselves as "Christians" who deny that the Bible is God's Word. Oh, sure, they may affirm it's God's Word in speech, but when they deny that God breathed and maintained it without error, well, then, you only have a couple possible conclusions. If your Bible is fallible, either God is not God, or God is subject to His creatures who changed it, or the Bible is not God's Word. Look, it's a simple equation. God = infallible. If the Word we have is not infallible, it is not God's Word. Simple math.

But you can see the simple math from my agnostic antagonist, right? Here, it's easy. If the Bible is God's Word, then God exists, Christ is who He says He is, the entire faith is true, and the "agnostic, humanist, naturalist" is in trouble. And so is the Bible-denying "Christian".

Over at (the deteriorating) Christianity Today, Gavin Peacock, pastor of Calvary Grace Church, Calgary, Canada, wrote an article on inerrancy and, of all things, marriage. As it turns out (and as I've maintained along with those of the rest who hold this position), the Church affirmed inerrancy for the first 16 centuries. They debated at times "Is this one in?" or the like, but the question was never whether or not God's Word could be ... wrong.

I don't know. Maybe when I put it like that you see it. You see, if "inerrant" means "without error", it's opposite is "erroneous"--"wrong". And yet, self-professed Christians today argue that God was or is, well, wrong.

Gavin Peacock talks about the Church's history on the question, about how this current "No it isn't" position was the product of the skeptics of the 17th and 18th centuries, about how inerrancy was affirmed, denied, and reaffirmed. He (as I) points to the position as a parallel to Satan's "Did God say?" in the garden. But what I found most interesting was his connection between Scripture and marriage. He considers marriage a "litmus test" for biblical inerrancy--for a proper understanding and respect for Scripture.

There is no doubt that Scripture starts with the marriage of Adam and Eve (for the purpose of mutual support and companionship, and for procreation) (Gen 1:28; Gen 2:18,24), that it ends with marriage (Rev 19:6-9), and that marriage is a central depiction of Christ's relationship with His own (Eph 5:28-33). Marriage in the Bible is not incidental; it is central. So Peacock concludes, "Earthly marriage is crucial but not ultimate, God is, and marriage points to the person of Christ and how he relates to us. Affirming 'same sex marriage' destroys that picture. But it is the fruit of denying the inerrancy of God's Word." He goes on to say, "In other words, by the time a Church legitimizes 'same sex marriage', it has already ceased to be a Church."

I have no reason to disagree with the pastor from Canada. I think that marriage is not a peripheral, but a key issue, and in a much broader sense than just society, interpersonal relationships, or families. It is a key structure assigned by God for our benefit and for illustration, and people mess with that at their own peril. And I am convinced that the only way you can arrive at the conclusion that the thing going on between same-sex people is "marriage" is to first eliminate God's Word. But, then, when you do that, you're at the same position as my friend, the agnostic. And marriage is a valid litmus test.

What are you going to do?

I've got mine, as they say. I mean, I have my faith. I have my reasons for my faith. I have my Bible that I can trust. I have my God, a Sovereign, loving, Omnipotent Father. I have my Savior, Jesus Christ, who has rescued me from my Cosmic Treason against the Most High. I've got mine.

But I have to wonder. What about those who don't? What about, for instance, the atheist who denies the existence of a being we call God? Or what about the religious type not of Christian faith? Am I any better off than they?

Laying aside the reasons and evidence I have for what I believe (and, therefore, that anyone else could have for believing), where does the atheist stand? He (or she) isn't particularly concerned about the wrath of ... what do they like to call it--"the flying spaghetti monster". So my salvation means nothing to them. But I have a reason for a moral code because I have a Moral Lawgiver who has the right to dictate good and bad to His creation (and the perfect ability to tell which is which). They don't. What do they do for a basis for a moral code? Under that structure (or lack of structure), killing or not killing can be equally moral. They might complain about how it's wrong for my God to fail to heal everyone (for instance), but they have no basis for such a complaint because by their measure all creatures, whether ant or aunt, are essentially accidents of nature, random events without any underlying value or dignity, so why would it matter? What makes giving to the poor better than taking from them? What makes taking care of a sick child better than terminating the weak ones (for the survival of the fittest)? So they dodge the salvation question but eliminate any basis for the moral code they haven't violated because there is no God. And when a loved one dies or a friend or family member suffers, I have a Sovereign God to lean on to give me strength and hope. They have no such thing. Their loved ones die and return their biochemical bags to dust without lingering hope or ultimate purpose. Where's the comfort? But, of course, such things as comfort from loss or purpose in life are meaningless, right? Because without the Divine, the only comfort is fleeting and insubstantial and the only purpose is artificial and temporal. No ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose, no ultimate hope. That defines the parameters of an atheist worldview.

Still, the religious are better off, aren't they? At least they have meaning and value and purpose. They have some god or gods that provide a basis for morality. They expect, as I do, to have a hereafter and hope for a good one. Much better off than the atheist, aren't they? You would think so, but I can't imagine why. Because, as everyone knows, no one is perfect. "To err is human," we say. So every religious effort on the planet (with the exception of Christianity) is aimed at "good enough". It is a "good enough" without a real definition, I fear. There is no "This many good deeds done and that many bad deeds avoided." So there appears to be a standard from which they assume "good enough", but the standard is never really known. The word in the Bible for "sin" is defined most literally as "miss the mark", but in the world's religions, that mark of "good enough" is an unknown and you can't know if you hit it. So, for the religious but not Christian, there is no remedy for the problem of what we all know is a problem--the violation of God's commands. Earlier Judaism had a sacrificial system for obtaining forgiveness, but no longer. Most other systems are basically "be good and be sorry". Be as good as you can and be sorry for when you're not. And hope that works.

Of course, this group has another difficulty. Assuming "good enough" exists, what does that say about the justice of their deity? You see, the ultimate basis for an objective moral system--a morality that applies to all humans--is the fundamental justice of the Lawgiver. If we can be sure there will be ultimate justice, we can be sure that there is a valid moral system. If not, it's not so. But if this deity of other religions capriciously excuses transgressions, that isn't justice. And if that isn't justice, then the basis for the moral system is in jeopardy. In the final analysis, just how divine is an unjust deity?

As I said, I've got mine. I have a Sovereign, Just, Omnipotent, loving Father, a Savior in Christ, and even the Holy Spirit to indwell and empower me. I have a reliable faith based on a reliable document breathed by God to His messengers as an authority in matters of faith and practice. In all of this I have salvation, hope, confidence, comfort, love, faith. For those without Christ, what are you going to do? It doesn't look very good for you.

I Believe in Marriage

I believe in marriage. I believe it is valuable and useful and profitable to those who engage in it. I believe that everyone should have the right to marry. I believe that race should not be a reason to forbid marriage. I believe marriage should be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Tim 4:3). Look, I like marriage and think that it's a good idea. So if a man who has sexual attraction to a man wants to marry, I say he should. And if a woman who is sexually attracted to women wishes to marry, I say she should. Because I believe in marriage.

Of course, when you define marriage as I do, as it has always been defined--the union of a male and a female for a lifelong commitment for the purposes of mutual support, encouragement, and even offspring--you may understand why I'm so bold in my assertion regarding marriage. So if a man who identifies himself as "gay" wishes to marry a woman, I'm all for it. If a woman who calls herself a "lesbian" wishes to marry a man, I'm in favor of it. Hey, maybe they'd like to marry each other? Well, maybe.

I'm in favor of marriage. I'm not in favor of the destruction of marriage by refuting it, deconstructing it, redefining it until it has no definition, and then asserting that lump of useless nonsense is "marriage". I don't consider that "pro-marriage" and I don't see how handing that lump out to everyone is "marriage equity". "Here. Have some mud. Now you're equal."

Nor is it "anti-gay marriage" to believe in marriage. It isn't a "prohibition" or "ban" any more than defining "beef" as "coming from a cow" is "anti-pork". It just isn't so. And no amount of pulpit-pounding from the media or the general populace will make it so. I will continue to stand for marriage. It's not mean-spirited. Nor is it complicated.

Because I believe in marriage.

The Rider

I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. (Rev 19:11)

Can we be honest? Revelation is not exactly my favorite book of the Bible. I mean, it's full of imagery and allegory which we're kind of stuck trying to untangle and decipher. There are horns and horses, bowls and blood, seals and woes. It's a really big drama ... of which I'm not quite clear. So when I come across one like the above, I'm pleased. Pleased as punch. (I wonder where in the world that phrase came from?)

In Revelation 19 there are thunders and judgments. There is praise and shouts. There is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. As nebulous as all that may or may not be, this text isn't unclear at all. This rider of the white horse is "the Word of God" (Rev 19:13), the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev 19:16). So while we may not be clear about the imagery of "From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations" (Rev 19:15), one thing is perfectly clear. He is called Faithful and True.

As it turns out, I'm banking on it. I'm placing all my hopes, all my comfort, all my anticipations on the claim that Christ is, indeed, faithful and is, indeed, true. You see, I need both. If He is true but not faithful, then He can promise but change His mind and I'm out of luck. If He is faithful but not true, He can promise but be wrong, and I'm out of luck.

This text, then, doesn't merely say that He is faithful and true. This text that He is defined by those characteristics. Those are who He is. Sure, there is more, but of all that Christ is, these two--Faithful and True--are two defining attributes for my King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So even if we've forgotten exactly the significance of a king or a lord, we still get Faithful and we still understand True. And we still benefit from knowing Christ who is called Faithful and True.

Double Standards

They tell me it's not racism if a black person denigrates a white person. Black Pride month--good. White Pride month--racist.

They tell me it's not sexism when a woman insults a man. A woman slaps a man--he probably had it coming. A man slaps a woman--domestic abuse.

They tell me it's not hate when a homosexual sends death threats to a heterosexual. A homosexual says that marriages should be "monogamish"--forward thinking. A heterosexual suggests it might be better if children were raised in a home with a married mother and father--homophobic.

They will stand should to shoulder to defend the rights of the Muslim to believe and practice his or her faith, but not the Christian.

Well, you get the trend. Seems like a lot of double standards these days.

Noah Was a Righteous Man

It's an interesting thing. In Genesis 6 we read, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God." (Gen 6:9) "Now, wait," someone might venture to ask, "does this mean that Noah was righteous by his own efforts? And, if so, doesn't this mean that we can be saved by works and, in fact, that Paul was wrong when he said that all sinned and fell short of the glory of God?" Reasonable questions.

It has been suggested by heretics and sincere questioners alike. Aren't there people in Scripture who were found to be righteous? Pelagius was a heretic that argued firmly in favor of Free Will and against God's election, declaring that Man's Free Will was sufficient in itself to desire and attain sufficient virtue to gain heaven. After all, Noah did it, didn't he? Didn't Job? Weren't there biblical characters who were, of themselves, righteous?

When you examine the case of Noah, perhaps it's not as simple as Pelagius thought. We read before the ninth verse, for instance, "Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (Gen 6:8) That is, God's grace was applied before Noah's righteousness was declared. God's grace--unearned favor--isn't given for human righteousness. Thus, God's grace precedes it.

But that's just rational thought. We find a very specific reference to Noah elsewhere that clears this whole thing up.

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Heb 11:7)

In this text we understand that Noah, by faith, "became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." There is, to a limited extent, the possibility of human righteousness. It is the righteousness that God classifies as "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6). (And "filthy rags" is a nice way of putting it.) The only useful form of righteousness available to us is the righteousness that comes by faith.

Noah had God's grace. Noah had faith. Noah, then, was declared righteous, was "blameless in his generation". Not because he was a good man. Because of God's grace and because of faith. If you're counting on self-effort, Man's Free Will, and God's merited favor, I'd recommend you rethink that position. The Pelagian heresy has been refuted, but it isn't entirely dead. It is, in fact, one of the most popular ones around. Unfortunately for its adherents, it just doesn't work.

To Save His Life

The Book of Ezekiel has a lot of stuff about God talking to Ezekiel. You know, messages God wants Ezekiel to take to His people. Chapter 13 has messages for false prophets. Interestingly, there is a particular section addressed to "the daughters of your people", a particular group of false prophets (Ezek 13:17-23). At one point God says through Ezekiel to these false prophets:

"Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life, therefore you shall no more see false visions nor practice divination. I will deliver my people out of your hand. And you shall know that I am the LORD." (Eze 13:22-23)

Two errors are in view here. First, there is the disheartening of the righteous. Second, there is the encouraging of the wicked.

On the first, we're well aware of that one these days. You might hear (although it may be somewhat archaic) someone referred to as "goody two-shoes". It refers to someone who is being moral ... and insulted. It is a reference not to someone who is hypocritical. Nor is it a reference to someone who is of questionable morality--that is, someone who thinks "X" is moral but we're not sure it is. No, we're all pretty sure that the morality of this person is high; we just don't like it. It is meant to dishearten the righteous. To those of you who are harassed for trying to follow God's Word I say, "As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good." (2 Thess 3:13)

The second is quite interesting to me. Oh, sure, we understand it's not good to encourage the wicked. And most of us are aware that it's in vogue in our culture today. But that's not interesting. What's interesting is God's concern in the matter. It's not that wickedness was encouraged, but that the wicked "should not turn from his evil way to save his life." The concern is for the wicked, not against wickedness. To the wicked Jesus said, "Repent." (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3,5)

I wish I knew how to get that across better. Because that's my concern. It's not making the sexually immoral more sexually moral. It's not making the homosexual heterosexual. It's not making anyone conform to my sense of morality. It's the welfare of the wicked (where "wicked" is defined by God). It is the concern for eternity. It is the concern for the consequences of sin. It is concern, also, for the glory of God. I don't get extra points for making people behave better. But I am concerned about the well-being of others, and that well-being must first be defined by the Creator that made us. That they should turn from evil and save their lives is a good thing. Not for me; for them. For God.

But, of course, that won't be coming across any time soon. It's always there, at least for me. It's always in mind; at least my mind. But those intent on discouraging the righteous and those intent on encouraging the wicked will only hear "judgmentalism", "intolerance", and "self-righteous bigot". Even God appears to have some difficulty in getting that truth across. I guess I'm not alone in that.

Who Do You Love?

Before Jesus left the scene in Acts 1, He had a dialog with His disciples that most of us know about. You've likely heard sermons on it.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" and he said to Him, "Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." (John 21:15-17)

Now, I'm sure most of you have heard the interesting discussion about the particular use of terms in this exchange. You know, how in the first two instances Jesus used the term for unconditional love and Peter answered with the term for brotherly love, but in the third Jesus used the term for brotherly love, as if He came down to Peter's level. Interesting, sure, but not where I'm going. I'm simply looking at the face-value question: "Do you love Me?"

Most of the sermons I've heard on the text focus on "How do you love?" You know, is it agape or philos or whatever other fancy terms you like. But the basic question Jesus asked was "Who do you love?" He asked, "Do you love Me?" Because, you see, in general--the default human condition--is self-love.

Paul assumed this. He told husbands that they "should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church." (Eph 5:28-29) No question. "Learning to love yourself" is not an issue. We all do it. Not a question. But Jesus asked Peter something different. "Do you love Me?" And that is the question, isn't it?

We all have things and people we love. Truth be told, that list starts with "Me". If you don't recognize that, you won't be able to address it. Because, as it turns out, while self-love is a given, it is not the important one. Because I am not the important one. Christ is. So, who do you love? Or, rather, who do you love first? That is the question.

Law of Non-Contradiction

The fundamental principle of rational thought is the law of non-contradiction. The concept is pretty straightforward. Simply stated, a thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.

Let's think that through briefly. Take, for instance, two statements.

1. "It is sunny outside."
2. "It's overcast outside."

If taken at the same time and in the same sense, it would be nonsense. It cannot be both. But if we take it at different times ("Yesterday it was sunny outside; today it is overcast outside."), we have no problem. If we take it in different senses ("It's sunny outside in Arizona, but overcast outside in Seattle."), we have no problem. These are not contradictions. Or a biblical example. John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Are we looking at a contradiction here? Is it saying that Christ was both God and with God at the same time and in the same sense? No. John is saying that in one sense Christ was with God (the Father) and in another sense He was God (the essence of God). It's a standard Trinitarian view.

Proving the law of non-contradiction (LNC for short) is somewhat problematic, of course, because it is a fundamental premise. It is a starting point. Without it, there is no means of significant communication or determining truth. It is, for instance, the way we determine if someone is lying. We assume "truth" and locate contradictions to it. Besides, refuting LNC assumes the law in order to refute it ("It cannot be both true and not true in the same sense at the same time.") It isn't proved; it is a given.

So why do people argue that contradiction is perfectly acceptable? "Well," you have likely heard, "your religion may be true for you, but it is not for me." Like that makes sense? Look, if Christ said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6), then no other religion can be true ... or Christianity is not true. There is no "true for you but not for me" here. Cannot be. (Cite LNC.) I know you've heard people argue, "Sure, that's what the text says, but that's not what it means." It doesn't matter if you trot out multiple Scriptures, dictionaries, commentaries, Church history, even 2000 years of Christian concurrence. It doesn't matter if you point to Jesus's promise that the Spirit would lead His disciples into the truth. This privileged class has apparently bypassed all of that and come to a clear understanding that no one else ever did. And, oh, by the way, it's not what the text says. Because, you see, they have "new insight", some special means of divining what it says different than ... well, you know ... what it says. I've even heard people argue that God could contradict Himself, as if that is possible, reasonable, or suitable.

Dear reader, rest assured, the Law of Non-Contradiction is not a mere human construct. It is the nature of truth. If a single one of you at this very moment is saying, "No, it isn't", you're employing the very law you intend to negate. And if you embrace contradiction, you leave yourself nowhere to stand. In that case, the God who does not lie (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 7:21; Mal 3:6) is certainly capable of lying, His promises are not reliable, and you may find yourself standing in front of the Judge Who says, "Sorry, changed My mind ... you go to Hell" just because He wants to. Further, if this is your position, please feel free not to bother arguing the point (or, frankly, any point) with anyone else, since all arguments hinge on that law. This ought to ease a lot of the debates, right? (I don't suppose I'll be holding my breath on that one.)

Love Without Labels

Perhaps you've seen it. It has gone viral. It is a PSA, of all things, an ad by the Ad Council promoting ... well ... love. It is the Love Has No Labels campaign. The video shows x-ray-style skeletons on a screen dancing, kissing, holding hands, embracing--lots of pleasant interaction--followed by the "reveal" where the skeletons step out from behind and you get to see who they are. As they stand in front of the audience, a message displays, appropriate to the actors of the moment, extolling "Love has no ...". It could be "no race" or "no disability" or "no gender" or "no age" or "no religion" or whatever else. (I've never sat through the whole thing.)

I'm a little baffled by the campaign concept. Is there someone somewhere that disagrees? Is there a person or a group that believes that it is inappropriate to love? Does someone believe that love is limited by age, gender, disability, or whatever else you wish to list? Isn't it a given that anyone might love anyone at any time?

I don't actually believe that such a person or group exists. So what is the point? I suspect the point is ... missed. That is, we--they and I--are defining "love" in a different way. It's supposed to be "shocking", for instance, when two "skeletons" who were kissing come out from behind the screen to show that they were two women. Because two women, to some people, aren't supposed to love each other. Really? I'm pretty sure my sister loves my other sister, my mother loves my sisters, my wife loves her sisters, and on and on and on. They may embrace. They may kiss. They certainly love. What's the question?

The question is not, as it turns out, love. The question is sex. Sexual relations. And they know this. They obscure it, however, when three "skeletons" dance around--two adult-sized and one child-sized--and we're "surprised" when a child and two men come out from behind the screen. But no one is suggesting adult sexual relations with children. (Well, almost no one.) So we know it's not about sex. But if that's true, who protests love (non-sexual) between anyone?

Look, I'm heterosexual. Fine. But I love men. I know quite a few men I love. That shouldn't be shocking to anyone because there is nothing included in that love which includes sexual relations and, therefore, nothing in the least morally objectionable to anyone. I would, in fact, be concerned about people that don't love both genders, all ages, people with disabilities, people from various religions, or whatever other factors you wish to imagine. It is, after all, a command of Christ. We must do it.

I can only conclude, then, that either I'm missing the point of the ad campaign or the campaign is missing the point of what love is. And when the latter happens, all sorts of confusion follows. Like "I should be allowed to marry whomever I love." Think that through to its logical conclusion.

Postscript
In case you aren't really trying to think that through to its logical conclusion, consider. "I should be allowed to marry whomever I love" cannot be limited. When the standard is "whomever I love", then arbitrary "only one" or "only adults" or "only humans" become untenable. "Oh, you're such a scaremonger," I can hear already. Maybe. Except that it is already hitting the streets and your petty "only between two adults" or "only between humans" or even "only between adults" isn't going to hold water. To claim that it is doesn't take into account either the logic or the trends. And a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when it is actually happening.

Incite to Right

The book of Hebrews can be somewhat difficult at times for the Gentile mind to encompass. It is, after all, written to Hebrews ... and we are not Hebrew. So there is all that stuff about sacrificial systems and such of which the Hebrew mind was well aware but eludes 21st century Americans. That's okay. We can work through it. We can get a handle on it.

Then we read stuff like this: "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb 4:11) Now that's a little bit difficult to grasp, isn't it? We are to work to enter rest? I mean, don't you cease work to enter rest?

Then, over in the 10th chapter, we read, "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works." (Heb 10:24) Now how exactly are we to do that? The word there, "stir", is an interesting word. In Greek it is παροξυσμός--paroxusmos--from which we get our word "paroxysm". You know, a sudden attack of emotion or activity. We are to cause fits of love and good works. The word means to incite or dispute, to provoke or contend. It is rooted in the thought of sharpening and, figuratively, to exasperate. And we are to do it carefully and intentionally ("consider how to").

Now, you and I are Bible-believing Christians. You and I want to shape our lives by the instructions of God's Word. So you and I want to follow this command: "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works." How do we do that? How do we excite fellow believers into love and good works? How do we incite them? How do we provoke others to love and good works? How do we stimulate/sharpen/urge love and good works?

There are clues here. We do it by holding fast the confession of our hope (Heb 10:23). We do it by not neglecting to fellowship (Heb 10:25) (which, in this day and age, is alarmingly popular among self-professed Christians who "don't need to go to church to be a good Christian"). We do it by encouraging (rather then tearing down) one another (Heb 10:25). All this stuff is in the surrounding text. All are convenient ways to spur one another to love and good works. (Interesting, isn't it, when there is a sizable group of Christians who argue that "good works" are meaningless to Christianity?)

You can work through this on your own. What (in addition to the ones listed) are ways you can stir fellow Christians into love and good works? Remember, the command is to consider it. So think about it. Who will you incite to godliness? How will you do it? What will it look like? I'm not offering a comprehensive answer. I'm just encouraging you (and me) to be aware that it is a command, that we are to be doing it, and to go out and do it. Do we have time for a lengthy conversation about sports? Or politics? Or how she looked at church last week? Maybe. But you've got some stirring up to godliness to do. We should get started on that. Hey, wouldn't church be a good place to start?

Traffic Patterns

Overheard in a conversation between a couple of classic rock aficionados:

So, let's see ... we have Highway to Hell and Stairway to Heaven. I guess that sort of gives an indication of expected traffic patterns for the two places, doesn't it?

Converting Homosexuals

I bet the title caught your eye, didn't it? Some are groaning, "Here's another rightwinger trying to make gay people straight" and others are cheering about how we ought to offer means and methods to help people out of the homosexual lifestyle (which, in some states, is actually illegal, believe it or not). Well, relax. I'm not going there.

In the ongoing back-and-forth between "gay rights" advocates versus biblical Christianity, it is my suspicion that Christians might be losing their perspective. It's easy for believers who recognize the very clear biblical statements that homosexual behavior is a sin to get caught up in trying to get homosexual practitioners to stop that particular sin. And since that particular sin is generally deeply rooted and even poorly understood, that can become a full-time occupation.

A friend once told me his own little parable. A group of mountain climbers set out to conquer a previously unconquered peak. On their trek, they came across an apparently impassable gorge. Pooling their skills and ideas, they came up with an innovative way to bridge the gorge and, after some time, continued on their way. They came across a second such obstacle and set about building another crossing. About the time they were finishing, a group of hikers came up. They were impressed with the first bridge and wondered how it was done. The climbers finished their second bridge and set up a shop on the other side of the gorge, selling plans and procedures for building bridges over gorges. It was lucrative ... but not the point of the trek. They had forgotten that.

So, it seems, we tend to go. We set out to assure our society, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Then we forget immediately that "inherit the kingdom of God" is the point, not the particular sins at hand. We appear to think, somehow, that if we can provide a remedy to adulterers or homosexuals or drunkards, we can get them into the kingdom. And when I say it, every Christian can see it just isn't so.

Our job it not to convert the sexually immoral to the sexually pure or the homosexual to the heterosexual. Our job is to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to teach them to observe what Christ commands (Matt 28:19-20). The basis of Christian behavior isn't obedience, but gratitude. Working to coerce the unsaved into Christian behavior is working against the unsaved nature. So we work at showing people how to cross gorges, forgetting that the goal was salvation by faith in Christ, not overcoming obstacles.

This doesn't mean we stop pointing out that Scripture considers homosexual behavior to be worthy of hell, but everyone knows that an alcoholic or a drug addict won't change until he or she recognizes the problem and wants to change. For them and for the sexually immoral, the adulterer, the homosexual, and the rest, the solution isn't a 12-step program, but a change of heart. And that is not within our power to supply. We need to remember that our aim is not converting homosexuals to the good news of heterosexuality, but to the good news of Christ. After that, we won't be working alone on the obstacles. After that it's a changed heart and the power of God at work. We shouldn't lose sight of the goal of preaching Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2) and lose it in some ordinary morality plan. The homosexual--we all--needs Christ. Let's offer Him.

How Times Have Changed

Paul wrote an epistle to Titus in which he gave these instructions:

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:1-8)

We note, first, that, contrary to the opinion of many Christians today, "doctrine" could be both good and "sound" rather than nebulous, merely contentious, or simply opinion. Okay, good. But then Paul lapses into foolishness.

In what world are older men to be "temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance", older women to be "reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good", young women "to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands" or young men to be "sensible" or "an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach"? My, my, how times have changed. We're far beyond that, aren't we? Old men are to be a bit wild, pushing the envelope (especially with that "little blue pill"), and older women are to live for gossip and pretty much stay away from the younger women who have no need to love their husbands, let alone be subject to them--and by no means tied down to that male-domination notion of "workers at home"--or "pure". Young men? It's their time to sow their wild oats. Let them get it out of their system. Oh, yes, Paul lived in a different time. We're much more enlightened now.

Or, are we? Is it possible that we're wrong, that the "progress" we've seen is not positive, and that God, speaking through Paul, is right? Do you find it disturbing at all that Paul's descriptions of how men and women should be is so diametrically opposed to what our society (and, therefore, often the Christians in it) think men and women should be? Or is this just another example of how we've progressed and the Bible got it wrong? You know, like in the area of marriage as a man and a woman, female leadership in church, or the nature of the Bible as God-breathed?

The Washing of Water with the Word

I have always encouraged Christians (because, let's face it, it wouldn't be remotely reasonable to expect if of unbelievers) to allow the truth of God's Word to shape their understanding of reality rather than the reverse--allowing their sense of what's real to shape biblical truth. Now, sure, the left-leaning types (Eccl 10:2) will complain "That stuff is just your opinion!", but I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you Bible-believing Christians. Even you--we--tend to apply our experience and (misguided) thinking onto Scripture rather than vice versa. Brothers, these things ought not be.

Let's look at some examples. In John 6 Jesus said things that actually caused some of His followers to leave. He recognized it. "Some of you don't believe," He said. And then He explained why people don't believe. "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) So, Bible-believing Christian, what do you do with that? Do you explain that everyone is granted from the Father ... which nullifies what Jesus was saying but agrees with the general view that anyone can believe? Or do you question that general view because Jesus said this?

Here's a tough one. "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Prov 21:1) Many Christians are dedicated to Man's Free Will. (Don't misunderstand. We all agree that Man makes uncoerced choices. The question is about just how free that will is.) So this text cannot mean ... what it says. But factor in other texts. "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." (Prov 16:9) Well, now, that looks like a problem for the Free Will (capitalized version) folks, doesn't it? Or will a prior adherence to a non-biblical definition of "Free Will" decide how you will interpret Scripture?

There are lots of these. If you are affirming that love is a good thing even when expressed as a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender and every Scripture on that subject disagrees with you, will you question your affirmation or will you re-imagine Scripture? When Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12), will you interpret it based on Paul's call to the order of creation (1 Tim 2:13-14) or will you interpret it in line with modern perceptions shaped by feminism? When the Word says, "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12), will you understand it light of your experience or will you take it as it is written? When John writes, "Love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7), will you conclude, "Everyone loves, so everyone must be born of God" or will it make you question your understanding of "love"? There are lots of these.

It stands to reason. The world is naturally opposed to God (Rom 8:6-8). Therefore, it must be that the Scriptures will say things we don't think of as true because we, suffering from deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9), have been blinded (2 Cor 4:4) and are desperately in need of a renewed mind (Rom 12:2). I'd be skeptical of the person who didn't find his or her views challenged in the pages of Scripture. It isn't a surprise that Scripture will certainly contradict at times what we think we know. My question, though, is this. Will you allow God's Word to reshape your mind, or will you dedicate yourself to your preconceptions and reshape God's Word?

That's Your Opinion

There is an ongoing debate about the value of the Bible. A major sector would like to eliminate it as a viable option. "It's written by men 2000 years ago; who cares?" There are many (like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon Church) that argue that what we have isn't reliable; it was changed from the original. (They often go on to argue, "But what we have is not", as if that solves the problem.) There are those who argue that the Bible has some good stuff in it, but it's certainly not "God's Word". "It may contain God's Word, but it is not, actually God's Word." There are those who argue that the Bible is God's Word, but the only way to figure out what it says is pure opinion and "your opinion is as good as mine", effectively eliminating any solid ground. The Roman Catholic Church (among others) argues that the Church has the keys to understand the Bible and ... so sorry ... you don't. So your understanding will be flawed, but they can give you the Word of God from the texts without error. (This is problematic since the Roman Catholic Church hasn't agreed on the meaning of texts.) Then there are those who claim that the Bible, as God's Word, is perspicuous. Okay, so I've never actually heard anyone use that word, but the idea is that God has made His Word capable of being understood. This doesn't mean that it is easy or even always understandable, but that ordinary people who approach it in faith and humility and the Holy Spirit will be able to understand what the Bible is getting at, even if they meet with particular points of difficulty here and there. This position is predicated on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the claim of biblical infallibility. That latter claim is that God's Word, as God-breathed, is incapable of making an error. (If the text is erroneous, concluding what is true or meaningful is purely subjective.)

The position, referred to as "the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture", can be misunderstood. It is a simple misstep, for instance, to go from "understandable" to "I am the supreme authority on the meaning of Scripture." That's an abuse. Or perhaps you've heard, "I got it from the Holy Spirit that this is what that means" with the assumed "and you'd better not question the Spirit if you know what's good for you." Wrong place to go. And there is a question of this position given the differences of understanding of Scripture. (How many Protestant denominations are there?) So the doctrine might lead you to think that all understanding is valid. It's not.

What, then, is the idea? Well, given the Holy Spirit and given those who are in the faith, it seems given that believers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be able to properly understand what God has said in His Word. This doesn't mean that human understanding is infallible. It means that God is capable of explaining it. It doesn't mean that we don't make mistakes. It means that God is capable of explaining it. This does not mean that it's a simple thing, like reading a Dr. Seuss book. It means that God is capable of explaining it to those who are willing to listen and learn. As such, understanding the Bible, despite popular opinion, is not simply a matter of opinion. It is a matter of communication with the Spirit.

So, look, I gave three "warnings" in that previous paragraph. We are not infallible. We do make mistakes. It requires diligence. Have I just managed to move us away from any real confidence that what we have is reliable communication from God? Or is it, in the final analysis, just your opinion? I don't think it needs to be. I think there are means of discovering the truth.

First, What does it say? I am stunned at the number of Christians (genuine and not) who claim "The Bible teaches _____" only to discover that it's not in there. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is not in there. "Money is the root of all evil" is not in there. "God helps those who help themselves" is not in there. "God will not give you more than you can bear" is not in there. And yet I've heard multiple Christians espouse these as biblical. On the other hand, "The Bible has nothing to say about homosexual relationships" ignores what is in there. First rule, then: Read the Bible. Seems like it shouldn't have to be said, but I can't tell you how many people tell me what's in the Bible without themselves having actually looked.

So read what it says. Read the text. Read the context. Read it as it is written. (For instance, poetry is poetic and may not necessarily be completely literal. Consider literary types as you read.) Compare Scripture with Scripture.

Truth be told, in the vast majority of cases this is sufficient to figure out with some measure of confidence what most passages say and mean. It's not that hard.

Second, what do others say about it? Scripture says that God has given us "apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph 4:11). That is, we need those people. Christianity is, at its heart, relational--Christians to Christians. The "Lone Ranger Christian" is not in view in Scripture. So find out what others say. Compare other teachers, other commentaries, other writers. You can even ask your pastor. Or someone else who knows. Since a good portion of the difficulties with Scripture are solved by comparison with Scripture, it is helpful to have someone who has some experience with this process of comparison, so find out what they have to say. If the Bible is God's Word, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Don't toss the difficult parts. Figure out how to align them.

Third, how has the Church historically understood it? I know, that sounds questionable, especially to the Protestant mind. But if Jesus was accurate when He said that the Holy Spirit would lead His people into all truth, it would stand to reason that you should be able to trace a line throughout Church history that gives the constant and proper understanding of a text. This should be helpful. (Note: If you are going to go to teachers who tell you, "Well, biblical interpretation is purely a matter of opinion and your opinion is as good as any" or "First, you must understand that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God and then work from there" or even "Just listen to the Spirit within and you'll get it fine", perhaps you are going to untrustworthy teachers. Avoid the ones Scripture refers to as "false prophets" ... or "antichrists".)

These are just a few hints. There are rules of hermeneutics, the process of textual interpretation that you should likely know and follow. While I'd like to think that things like "Interpret the implicit by the explicit" would be obvious, it isn't always the case. And always allow Scripture to shape your reality rather than vice versa. I am convinced that one of our primary problems that cause erroneous interpretation is our predispositions that are not formed by God's Word, but by other sources. I would suggest, though, that using these tips will allow you to come to a much more reliable, biblical, and true understanding of what Scripture is saying. Skeptics may say it's merely a matter of opinion, but if Jesus was right about the function of the Holy Spirit, it just isn't so. It's only a matter of opinion if you're not reading, listening, paying attention, learning in faith and humility. Oh, and one little hint. If you come up with something completely new, trust me--it's wrong. That might save you a lot of mistaken effort right there.

Update:
It looks like Ligonier Ministries is reading my blog! Okay, maybe not, but they posted this today: "What Difference Does an Inerrant Bible Make?" So, okay, no, it doesn't mean anyone there is reading my blog. It does mean that the principles and concepts are relevant, important, and current.

And then, of course, there's this. This year's Shepherd's Conference from John MacArthur et al is a summit on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Biblical Standards on the Block

The Washington Post reports that Erskine College in South Carolina is not free in heart or mind when it comes to homosexual behavior. Apparently the Student Services and Athletic Committee issued a document on human sexuality that reads in part, "We believe the Bible teaches that monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intended design for humanity and that sexual intimacy has its proper place only within the context of marriage." Stunning. Simply stunning. In this day and age! And from a college "which is aligned with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian tradition." Well I never! Indeed, they had the audacity to give Scripture references! Has it come to this!!??

Apparently it's a new policy caused by a couple of volleyball players announcing their sinful disposition to sexual relations with the same gender. It's outrageous! Oh, not because it bans those guys from playing on the volleyball team. No. It doesn't do that. It simply makes it "a bit awkward for two of the school's volleyball players who came out as gay last year." Because by no means should those who hold to positions contrary to a Christian perspective be subjected to possibly feeling awkward. That's reserved for Christians who stand by the Bible.

So Erskine is compared to the Westboro Baptist Church and a negative view on Galileo. They're accused of cherry picking the Bible to "keep gay people out" because, as everyone knows, any opinion that does not fully embrace homosexuality is bad ... even if it's in the Bible. Even if it doesn't do anything. (The policy simply declares what they recognize is the right conditions for sexual intimacy--biblical marriage--and doesn't appear to prevent anyone from doing anything.) Erskine College has stated clearly, "Rooted in the historic Evangelical and Reformed Christian tradition, Erskine has always sought to show hospitality and respect to all members of its community, regardless of their religious or philosophical commitments." Doesn't matter. This will never fly.

Don't worry, folks. It won't last. College accreditation boards will not give accreditation to colleges that stand on the standards of the Bible, even if they are Christian colleges. Maybe you've already heard about Gordon College threatened to lose accreditation for such a position. Perhaps you've heard about the movement known as Safety Net in opposition to such schools as Bob Jones University, George Fox University, Biola, Wheaton College, and Fuller Theological Seminary protesting "a set of biblical teachings" with their focus on The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU), the accreditation body for such universities and colleges. Oh, no, it won't last. It will require either coerced discarding of biblical standards or the end of the school as an accredited entity (and, likely, the end of the school).

Fortunately, the inclusive, loving, LGBTQ community is spreading its arms wide in order to shoot down every possible opposition to their personal sexual satisfaction. They'll get rid of those lousy Christians with Bibles one way or another ... because that community is so tolerant.