The Contraception Question

The President's decision to override religious freedom in favor of contraception (and abortion^*) has raised its own little firestorm, but there are many who are thinking, "Wait, why am I getting upset over this? Isn't contraception a Catholic thing?" Tim Challies over at Challies.com has been doing a series on "The Bible and Birth Control" (Part 1 and Part 2) that is quite enlightening. I won't bother to restate his arguments on the topic. He's a good writer and you would do well to examine them for yourself (since it's about The Bible and Birth Control rather than my opinion or his). It is my conviction, however, that we are guilty of not loving God with our whole minds when it comes to topics like these.

Here's what is typical. We do or don't do something because our pastor or our parents or whatever other primary, trusted source tells us to do or not do it. That often won't change. If it does, it will typically change not because we examined it carefully, sought the Lord, read the Scriptures, and found the reasons that we should change. More often it's because "I really want to do what I've been told I shouldn't, or don't want to do what I've been told I should." When that happens, we'll find reasons, excuses, biblical prooftexts, or "wise scholars" who will inform us that "all of Christendom for all time has been wrong an that point" or some such so that we can then indulge our whims rather than engage our brains. And, of course, when a sufficient tide of people have succumbed to their whims on a particular topic (like contraception), our pastors, parents, or whatever other primary, trusted sources start telling us what we want to hear and that becomes "the norm", the "new moral". On the topic of contraception, then, while it was always held as immoral prior to the 20th century regardless of whether you were Roman Catholic or Protestant of some stripe or another, we've managed to push that tide over so that nearly all Protestants and even a whole lot of Roman Catholics are now persuaded otherwise. Why? Because of clear biblical examination and careful thinking? No. Not at all. We're not really thinking about it anymore.

I'm not making an argument here for (or against) contraception. I'm making an argument here for thinking. We are to "be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2). We are to "take every thought captive to obedience to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). God does not ask for mindless drones who don't think. We are to be among "those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" (Heb 5:14). Think! Is contraception good or bad? I am not saying. Tim Challies makes some interesting points worth considering. I'm simply asking you to consider. Consider what God says. Consider what is in the Word. Test yourself. These things are the obligation of all followers of Christ.
________
^* "Hey, what's this stuff about abortion, anyway? The president isn't saying we'll have to pay for abortions. Don't misrepresent this stuff, man!" When I reference abortion (now -- because who knows where it will go later), I reference the standard contraceptive methods of abortifacients. These methods do not prevent conception, but rather prevent pregnancy, either by making the uterus an unfriendly place for an embryo or by dislodging the embryo. That is abortion.

Yeah, But Why?

Something I don't often hear asked is "Why?" Okay, perhaps I need to be more clear. There are lots of questions about salvation -- how it occurs, what has to be done, who has it (or doesn't), even when it occurs. What I seem to never hear is why. It appears to never occur to us to ask why God would save us. So, I will. Why are we saved?

Perhaps the reason we don't ask is because we think we know. God saves us because He loves us so much. Well, maybe, but I suspect that we mean something different by that than the Scriptures allow, and I'm sure it's not the whole story. "He saved us out of His abundant grace!" That's likely a true statement, but not really an answer for "why". "We're saved so we don't have to go to Hell, but get to spend eternity with God." Well, there's certainly truth in the statement, but I think it's still masking both the real reason and operating off a faulty perspective. I think it's probable that back there, lurking most likely behind our conscious mind, is the feeling that we are saved because we're so important. Sure, sure, saved by Christ, saved from death, saved for eternity, saved by faith ... all that. But I don't think we've realized why yet.

"I've got it!" someone may say. "He saved us to make us into the image of His Son." Can't argue with that. Paul wrote, "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified" (Rom 8:29-30). "Oh, oh," another hand goes up, "it says there that our glorification is the reason!" Yes, that's there, too. Indeed, I'd suggest that "conformed to the image of His Son" is a synonym for "glorified". But why?

You can continue your conjecture, if you like, but I think the Bible actually tells us why.

He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved (Eph 1:5-6).

It doesn't stop there. It goes on to say,

In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:11-12).

Wow, did you catch that echo? So, let's unpack it for a moment. He predestined us for adoption, and gave us an inheritance. He blessed us with grace and made us part of His purpose. He saved us. Why? "To the praise of His glorious grace" it says once, and, again, "to the praise of His glory."

That's the answer, folks. We can try to say that it's because He loves us, and I wouldn't deny that there's something to it. We can say it's because He's gracious and merciful and He is. But the bottom line, the real reason, the fundamental purpose that God had in providing salvation to us is that His glory and grace would be praised. See that? Even in our salvation it's not about us. It's all about Him. I think that's something we have a hard time learning. I also think that it's something from which we could greatly benefit if we could get that straight.

On Public Statements

It has been interesting watching the developments of this Sandra Fluke incident. First, she complained that the government ought to rescind the religious freedoms of those who are opposed to contraception (and, by inference, abortion). The government ought to mandate that employers violate their principles in order to provide her with her $1000/year contraception habit. No, not habit, hobby. It wasn't only me that thought, "Really? $3000 for contraception for 3 years?? That's pretty expensive." A little research would tell you that you could get it from Planned Parenthood for something between a total of $600 to $1800 for those 3 years. And, of course, there was the nagging question, "Has it ever occurred to her to not have sex while she's engaged in law school?" Well, no, of course not! Don't be ridiculous! Freedom of Religion may not be a mandate anymore, but the freedom to indulge our whims is!

Then there were the infamous slurs from Rush Limbaugh. He suggested that a woman who wishes to get paid to have sex is at least a slut and more likely a prostitute. Oh, bad choice, Rush. That will not fly. Sponsors were pulling out. Women's groups rallied around Fluke. She was the victim in all this, first of those sexist Republicans for not calling her to testify in their hearings and now of the evil Limbaugh.

Then came the apology. Bad choice of words. Doesn't actually believe she's a slut or a prostitute. Carried away. My bad. And sponsors are still pulling out. And Ms Fluke has no interest in accepting the apology. She's the victim, after all. Why should she accept an apology from Rush Limbaugh? No way!

Far be it from me to introduce logic in any of this. That would never do. But, I can't help myself. When Limbaugh made his ludicrous suggestion that Sandra Fluke wanted to be paid to have sex, I thought, "But ... that makes no sense." She didn't want to be paid for having sex. She simply wanted to avoid pregnancy while having sex. Come on, Rush, be reasonable. A prostitute is one who solicits payment for sex acts. She wasn't looking for payment for sex acts. Look, she would be using the contraception whether or not she had sex, so that just didn't fit. She was no prostitute. And a "slut" is a slatternly woman. (Okay, I'm just having fun there.) In modern vernacular a slut is a woman who is sexually promiscuous. Rush, you don't know if she was sexually promiscuous. She may have just been having a lot of sex with one guy. Come on, man, be reasonable! (Of course, if she was actually sexually promiscuous, well, then, if the shoe/term fits, it will have to be worn, won't it?)

I was taken aback, however, at Fluke's position that there was no apology that would be accepted. She was applauded for it (literally, on the TV show she was on when she said so). Her "moral high ground" was to refuse to forgive. So, let me see if I've got this straight. We cannot assume that Sandra Fluke is a prostitute and should probably not bother assuming she is a slut (although there is no current evidence one way or the other at the moment). What we can know is this. She is a law student, so career is pretty important to her. She spent $3000 in three years on contraceptives, so sex is probably pretty important to her. According to her testimony, she spent on contraception what she made in a summer job, so she is not particularly careful or wise with her money. She clearly has no interest in sexual purity or delayed gratification. And she will hold a grudge with a vengeance. No forgiveness. So, guys, keep all this in mind when considering Sandra (or her fans) for marriage purposes.

And the hypocrisy is a bit disturbing to me. Rush used some pretty horrible slurs against Ms Fluke. Sponsors withdrew. There was a public outcry. Rush apologized. On the other hand, when public figures in public venues make accusations against folks like Kirk Cameron for stating that he believed God's Word regarding homosexual practices that he is bigoted, hateful, homophobic, even "an accomplice to murder with his hate speech" (Roseanne Barr"), no one seems to care. That's all okay. That's good. Insults to a woman like Fluke? Bad. Insults to a Christian because he's "out of step with a growing majority of Americans"? Good! A negative opinion about a woman who has no concern about religious freedom or sexual morality is bad, intolerant, judgmental, but a negative opinion about a man who holds to his biblical beliefs about the morality of an issue like homosexual behavior is not bad nor intolerant nor judgmental. Folks, I think there needs to be some rethinking here. I think we've just about arrived. You won't find a public outcry in favor of statements like Kirk Cameron's public confession of his beliefs because Christians who believe the Bible for what it says are "antiquated" and "dated", "bigoted", not acceptable in modern society. These things will not be tolerated. These things are evil and shouldn't be allowed. Or, to put it another way, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion that our Bill of Rights has said is inalienable is antiquated, dated, and not acceptable. As soon as a majority of Americans see that, Christians, expect trouble.

One other thing. I suspect that any liberals that read this will disagree (of course). The outcry against Cameron was good and the response to Fluke was bad and that's the way it is. The conservative complaint that they're not playing by the same rules that we are required to play by is real. The problem, of course, is that we don't know what game we're playing. In the game we're playing, there are rules. Limbaugh broke them and was penalized. Roseanne did not and was not because in that game there are no rules. The rule of that game is "win". Do it by lies or meanness, by turning public opinion or by overturning public opinion, by media control or by mind control, by defamation or redefinition, whatever it takes. We're suggesting bringing civil disagreement to a gun battle. Don't expect equity. As in the old "cops and robbers" movie, the good guy is always at a disadvantage. He has to play within the rules, while the bad guy by definition gets to break them. Complaining about it won't make it better. Perhaps standing by biblical standards and trusting yourself to the righteous Judge of All the Earth is a better plan.

The Polls Have It

According to Relevant Magazine, 80% of single, evangelical Christians ages 18-29 are no longer virgins. Take that abstinence education!

Stories like these are disturbing for multiple reasons. They are disturbing because they cast such a dreary light on modern Christians. There isn't very much in life that is as clear in Scripture as the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage. You'll find debates on whether or not lying is a sin or even whether or not the passages that say that homosexual behavior is a sin are genuine, but almost no one can argue that sex outside of marriage is, biblically, a violation of God's clear commands. The best we can do, then, as devout followers of Christ, pursuers of a relationship with the Almighty, genuine disciples of our Lord and Savior, is ... fail miserably. 20%. That's it? Really?

They are disturbing because some of it is a lie. In this story, for instance, the category is "single, evangelical Christians ages 18-29." Who determines that they are "evangelical Christians"? Well, apparently they are "self-identifying". Excuse me, but has anyone looked at the disarray of the group once known as "evangelical Christians"? It used to mean something. Not so much these days. That term has little meaning anymore. Add to that the muddled voices of self-identified "Christians" who are shouting exactly that God's Word is no longer relevant and the Bible is an outdated book and really, how much of it can you really trust anyway? So loud are some of these voices that it is not uncommon to hear that "Christian scholars do not believe that the Bible is relevant or reliable." Really? Some studies have found that when factors like genuine Christian living and genuine biblical values produce genuinely different results in these polls. But Christ is still going to get the black eye for this assault on His character as reflected in His followers.

They are disturbing because of the biblical conclusions. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, the difference between the two is that some are sheep and some are goats. The demonstration that they're different is in what they did or didn't do. If there is no difference between the sinful lives of 80% of the "single, evangelical Christians ages 18-29" and the rest of the world, are they sheep or are they goats. James says that faith produces works. "Faith," he says, "if it has no works is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). Are we to conclude that this 80% is operating on dead faith? No, I wouldn't say that. A sin does not indicate dead faith. On the other hand, if it is true that "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), it is a reasonable question for those of the 80% who defend their sin and continue in it.

They are disturbing because the statistic prompts Relevant Magazine (and others by extension) to say, "God's picture of sex and marriage is certainly a beautiful one, but itʼs also ... old. Biblical times were a lot different than current times. Is such a picture still relevant?" That's the question. Is God's picture of sex and marriage relevant? We allow sin and circumstances to dictate God's reality? We abandon God's commands and expect God to come around to our way of thinking?

They are disturbing because of the variety of causes. Marriage in the Bible was intended for the young. Our society has all but banned it for the young. We've pushed the "acceptable" marriage age out to somewhere around 30 and then wonder why there's such pressure to sin. It was not for nothing that Paul wrote, "Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor 7:2). Not us. We know better. Don't marry too soon. Sin! Much, much better. Beyond that, we've allowed the redefinition of marriage to exclude procreation and center around self-service. We've devalued marriage first by allowing "no fault divorce" (an oxymoron) and then failing to define marriage at all until now it means "people who want to be together" and not much more, and then we wonder why the younger generation isn't much concerned about marriage. We've bought the lie that "finding myself" and "settling into a fulfilling career" are much more important than obedience. We've pushed away genuine discipline and child rearing in favor of "encouraging individuality". The result is that the current generation of children aren't getting married until later because they aren't adults until later. They've never been taught personal responsibility, self-control, delayed gratification, self-sacrifice, even basic financial responsibility. And, let's face it, we're raising kids in a hyper-sexualized environment where every commercial is about how to improve your sex life (implicitly or explicitly) and every TV show is about who's having sex with whom (built neatly around a theme -- cops, doctors, lawyers, friends, whatever. Shows on "family" TV include series on pregnant teenagers and despicable, controlling high school girls. It almost looks as if the only way to fix this is to withdraw from society and return to biblical living. We have caused this, and then we moan about the results of our choices.

Look, I'm not ready to say that only 20% of those who self-identify as evangelical Christians are genuine Christians. Everyone sins. And I'm not suggesting that because 80% (or whatever the real number is) have had sex that we're headed for the end of the Church Age. It does call to mind Jesus's words, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). Note that the warning in the context of that verse is "Will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night? Will He delay long over them? I tell you, He will give justice to them speedily" (Luke 18:7-8). That ought to give pause. And I would hope that stories like these would call on us not to alter our faith in Christ and His Word, but to reevaluate our own approach and positions. The question should rarely be "Am I holding too closely to the Word of God?" The question most often would be "Have I slipped from God's way without knowing it?" I'd say, in fact, that it's often a given.

Living Black and White in a Grayscale World

So often our approach (well, my approach, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone) is to find the easy answer to the question. What is the killer verse? What are the correct steps? What is the program? It is my suspicion, however, that much of life does not operate on this principle. It is my conviction, in fact, that most of life is much more complicated than that.

We who are "pro-life" have no problem with the question of abortion. Or do we? We know that murder is wrong. We know that the fetus is an early stage of human life. Thus, killing the fetus is murder and we've settled the question. If it's "women's choice", that will take you down one path. If it's "pro-life", that will take you down another. Now, taking a "pro-life" stance, how do you handle the harsher objections? "What about cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life?" Well, the first part is easy. In case of rape, the question is, "Do we make this about one victim or two?" A woman who is raped is a victim, to be sure. But killing the baby that results makes two victims. In the case of incest, why does someone's moral failure make murder acceptable? Killing a baby who is the result of incest kills a baby. I would suggest, however, that a "pro-life" will have to pause at the final question. If we are pro-life and a baby threatens to kill its mother, is there grounds for saving the mother? Remove it for a moment from mother and baby. If a burglar comes into the house of a pro-life advocate and threatens the life of the wife, does the husband have the right or responsibility to end the life of the burglar to save the life of his wife? If so, how does this differ from the threat to a mother from a baby? I'd say if it's a question of life or death, you're facing a more difficult question. Now, I need to point out that medically less than 1 in 1000 pregnancies are considered threats to the mother. Of those, even less are considered potentially fatal, but now you're comparing "pro-life" to "pro-life" and asking "Whose life?" Of course, the question seems easily answered when you consider the two -- mother and child -- as two lives. Who would suggest, for instance, that an infant be put to death because he or she is causing stress to the mother and risking her life? If a baby was born from a conception of a rape, could we condone murdering the baby after discovering the rape? A baby born with deformations or health problems is not subject to execution, is it? No, a "pro-life" perspective answers these questions, but it isn't as simple as you might think.

The Bible is quite clear that "a man lying with a man as with a woman" is sin. End of discussion. Next? Or is it? Today "homosexual" means so many different things to so many different people. I, for instance, don't know the difference between the various components of the LGBT (with as many additions to that acronym as there may be). I see "someone engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same gender" as a biblical category of sin. But there are differences, they tell me. That's because "homosexual" to many (most?) means a "sexual orientation" rather than an activity. They even object when I call it a "preference". And it is not a "choice". "Born that way" and all, you see. So what does the Bible have to say about people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender? This might surprise you. It says nothing. Oh, it does say that "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14), but James goes on to say, "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:15). Thus, a desire that is aborted is not a sin, right? (See? Maybe abortion isn't always wrong.) Indeed, we are all tempted to sin. I would argue that the temptation to sin is not sin. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus was "one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). Thus there is a distinction between temptation and sin. As such, while "a man lying with a man as with a woman" or, if you prefer, "women [who] exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men [who] likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27) would fall in the category of sinning, but those with "sexual orientation", if I give the concept credence, without sexual activity would not. The question has nuances, you see?

One that I've written about a couple of times but has very recently been in the news is the concept of contraception. Today it is almost exclusively Roman Catholics who consider the use of contraception sin. Protestants consider it a silly question. But, wait! Is it? Here's what we know. Abstinence is mandated for those outside marriage (eliminating contraception as a question), and forbidden (except on a very short-term basis) within marriage. (Thus, for married people, contraception via abstinence is disallowed.) We know that abortion is not allowed (life of the baby and all that). So while we haven't answered the question, we have narrowed it. The standard form of birth control, the Pill, is an abortifacient. One of its effects is to change the endometrium, the lining of the womb, to make it likely to prevent the implantation of an embryo. The implantation of the embryo typically happens 7-8 days after the fertilization of the egg. This failure produces a "spontaneous abortion". Technically, "contraception" is the preventing of the fertilization of an egg. Thus, the function of the Pill on the uterus is an abortifacient, not a contraception. That is, a conception has already occurred. Other contraceptive methods operate on the same concept, preventing implantation of an embryo, a human being. Since conception is the start of human life and since human life has started in these cases, these methods violate the biblical injunction against murder. Perhaps now you can begin to see that there are indeed hard and fast rules in the general question of contraception, and it isn't just a "Catholic question". Of course, then it gets stickier. God, for instance, commanded Man (Adam) to "be fruitful and multiply." Do we say, "Well, that was then, but we don't have to obey that anymore"? Why? Do we not need to "subdue the earth" either? Did God include a "but stop when population gets up there" clause? The Bible clearly considers children a blessing. Do we? Or are we practicing contraception (even the genuine "prevent conception" type) to prevent children, a kind of slap in the face to God who says they're a blessing? Do we question God's sovereignty and providence? "Yeah, sure, You'll let us get pregnant and have kids, but will You provide for them? Not likely!" In areas like this we may not be operating on faith, and "That which is not of faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). Sticky questions.

I think that, while we can often find hard and fast rules for many things, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." (1 Sam 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12). Just my opinion, of course. I think that the motives we have are often the problem rather than the actions we take (or don't take). We live in a grayscale world, but if you examine the concept of grayscale on a printer, you'll see that it is made up not of shades of gray, but actually black and white dots. There are indeed hard and fast rules. There are also areas not as clear -- "gray areas". But for each of us there are matters of motivation and faith that define those unclear areas in black and white ways. We are actually to be living black and white in a grayscale world. As such, it is incumbent upon all of us to "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves" (2 Cor 13:5). Okay, not just my opinion.

The Propitiation Problem

The Bible (at least most translations) uses the word "propitiation" in a few places. So I looked it up. The dictionary says it is "The act of propitiating". Um ... thanks. No, really, what is it? Propitiation is the appeasement of anger, typically in reference to a deity (you know, God). Now, recently I wrote about God's wrath, without which we don't have justice or the righteous recognition of the violation of the Holy. Without wrath we don't have God. And, of course, we don't have ... propitiation.

It is this preference to deny the wrath of God that makes the concept of propitiation a problem. It sounds so ... primitive. There's an angry god and we have to appease him or he'll ... what ... do bad things? He'll explode the volcano? He'll stop the rain? Who knows, but it's not good, I'll tell you that. And, of course, while that god doesn't exist, we're still stuck with a God whose wrath "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). While God is not capricious, spewing wrath whenever He is upset, He does have wrath against sin. And while we don't have the capacity of providing a virgin to throw into the volcano or any other sacrifice to appease this wrath, appeasement is still necessary if we're going to have any sort of a positive outcome. Appeasement of God's righteous wrath is expressed, then, in the biblical term, propitiation.

The term shows up at the end of Paul's initial diatribe against Man's sinful condition in Romans 1:18-3:23. He says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:23-26). There's that word -- "propitiation". So with God's wrath revealed, justice required either judgment or propitiation -- appeasement of God's wrath. His wrath was appeased by Christ's blood. The appeasement of God's wrath is applied "by faith". It's all there.

It's there in Hebrews 2:17 where Jesus, our High Priest, made "propitiation for the sins of the people." John assures us that even if we sin we have an Advocate who is "the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:1-2). John goes on to define love. It is "not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10).

There are some who have tried to eliminate propitiation. Too primitive. Makes God out to be some sort of monster. Some have substituted "expiation" for "propitiation". "There," they say, "that ought to do it." But expiation isn't propitiation. Expiation is "the act of expiating" (oh, come on!). No, it is simply the removal of sin. It's only the beginning of the story. Propitiation is the full story. Sin is removed -- atoned for -- and God's wrath against our sin is appeased. It is, in that sense, the heart of the Gospel. Christ died to remove our sin and appease God's wrath for our sin. He succeeded beautifully. It is the Atonement, without which we could not have a relationship with God. Expressed on the Cross as "It is finished", our sins are not merely removed, but God's wrath is turned away and we have been given, through no work of our own, a right relationship with God. God's wrath is real, but it's not the end of the story for those who are in Christ. Good news indeed!

Logical Progression

I wrote recently about consistency. We ought to be consistent in our lives and message. The standard word for this is "integrity" -- one. If I hold that all the world is blue, I must not argue that some of it is red or I am inconsistent. I do not have integrity. In that piece I gave examples of inconsistency. There were those who say that wealth is bad and being poor is a blessing, but they remain wealthy and either ignore the poor or try to eliminate poverty (not recognizing that they are eliminating a blessing, apparently). There are those who argue that life is a cosmic accident and we're just the result of godless evolution, and then they complain about moral issues like people killing people as if there is some rational basis for such a complaint. That sort of thing.

Consider, then, what the logical progression of a consistent line of thinking might produce. Take, for instance, the "pro-abortion" stand. You may prefer "pro-choice", but the stand remains the same. It is premised first and foremost on the position that the highest consideration is that women get to choose on matters of their health. Fathers are irrelevant. Babies are not the point. Human life is not the question. "Women's choice" is the only important concern. Take that idea down its logical progression. Women, then, are certainly free to terminate the life of a baby in the womb. Consistent. At what point, though, is this no longer the case? Some have argued that only as long as the fetus is not "viable" -- cannot survive outside the womb -- is it a matter of choice. Others say, "No, no, as long as it's inside the mother, it's her choice." That means that a full-term baby, even in the process of birth, can be killed if the mother so chooses. And, that's consistent with the premise. But why does it stop there? Is not a woman deeply impacted when she has a child outside the womb? Why is it okay to kill a baby inside the mother and not outside? Why doesn't the mother have the choice as long as the child affects her health? And when does that stop? I know mothers with adult children who are physically stressed by their kids. Shouldn't she be able to terminate those lives as well if a "woman's choice" is the prime issue? That's consistent. Obviously no one will argue for it (or almost no one), but if integrity/consistency is the issue, you'll be hard-pressed to figure out why. And while you're thinking I'm exaggerating here, consider this. In the Journal of Medical Ethics you'll find a new "peer-reviewed" paper filed for your perusal. The abstract goes something like this:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Okay, exactly like that. This is not illogical. It is the reasonable progression as outlined in the abstract. Abortion is okay for a variety of reasons. Therefore the earliest stages of human life don't have the moral status of actual persons. Since "potential person" is irrelevant and adoption may be inconvenient, why not kill them? Why not? The title of the piece is "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" This is the logical progression of this line of thinking. And I'm not the only one following the logic.

Take, for instance, the "born that way" concept. The argument goes like this. People are born with their "sexual orientation". How do we know this? Well, the science of it has failed (given the lack of a "gay gene", the failure of identical orientation of identical twins, and the like), but we know it because the public thinks so and, if that's not enough, Lady Gaga has said so. What else do we need? Okay, so we're all "born that way", whatever way we are. If we're "born that way", it must be good. (Often the argument here is even religious in nature. "If God made me this way, it must be good.") Thus, we are born to sexual orientation and, therefore, it is good. Now, without refuting the "born that way" scenario, let's go down that logical path. "Born that way" equals "good". "Is" equals "ought". So where does this logic train take us? Well, modern medical science tells us that some people are born with a propensity to breast cancer. Instead of trying to counter that, why don't we embrace it as good? But that's not a "moral issue". How about alcoholism? Science says they believe that some people are born with addictive personalities, making them susceptible to alcoholism or gambling addiction or sexual addiction. How much time, energy, and money do we spend fighting off these horrible things only to discover now that "is" equals "ought" and "born that way" means "good"? There are also those in the scientific community that argue that some people are born with other inclinations like murder or criminal tendencies. If we are following the logic train, here, we must conclude that those people are, by virtue of birth tendencies, being good when they follow through on their alcoholism or their murder sprees. How dare you suggest that it's immoral? They don't choose to be this way. We should embrace their birth heritage and allow them free expression because "born that way" means "good" and we embrace good. Another example, then, of thinking logically and consistently down the reasonable path to the wrong conclusion.

Take, for instance, the Darwinian Evolution position. Even some who classify themselves as Christians buy into Darwinian Evolution. Sure, when it comes to moral issues it's possibly acceptable to claim "the Bible tells me so", but when it comes to the origins of the species, science tells me so. Darwinian Evolution, by definition irreligious ("natural selection", "survival of the fittest"), has a natural logical course to follow as well. For instance, given neo-Darwinian Evolution, whence comes morality? There is, of course, "empirical morality" -- what people do. This is easily explained by evolutionary theory simply by suggesting "what works". As such, it becomes pragmatism rather than morality. But the broader question, "normative morality" -- "how then shall we live?" -- is much more difficult to find in evolutionary theory. For instance, while "survival of the fittest" would seem to demand being prolific and, therefore, eliminate the concept of marital fidelity, we cling to a nearly universal notion that adultery is wrong. People ought to be faithful to their spouses, even though this defies evolutionary theory. Most people will say that we are morally obligated to take care of the weakest of the species even though evolutionary theory would cry out against it. Thus, if we are looking for integrity from a neo-Darwinian Evolution position, normative morality -- how we ought to live -- will have to be thrown out in favor of pragmatism -- what works for me. Indeed, some of our pet projects would have to go. Saving species of animals who are nearing extinction makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. Caring for the elderly or the sickly infants doesn't fit. Indeed, Peter Singer argues that we ought to be using these types for medical experimentation. Just because they're human doesn't mean they should have special treatment. That, according to Singer, is speciesism. And, while this seems horrific to your casual observer, it is also perfectly consistent with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Without even going to Singer's extreme, you may recall the "lifeboat" exercises of days gone by -- "values clarification". "You're on a lifeboat designed to hold 15 people and there are 20 people on board. If you don't get down to 15, you will all perish. How do you decide who lives and who dies?" In this scenario the sick, elderly, handicapped, or very young are sacrificed for the sake of the healthy -- those who might survive. Consistent with social evolutionary theory and neo-Darwinism, but not with normative morality. Darwinian Evolution cannot provide any basis for a moral code that transcends personal preference or pragmatic concerns. Still, they want to hang on to both a rejection of religious influence and a binding transpersonal moral code. It's not rational. It is not consistent. It lacks integrity.

I would like to point out that nothing I have said here calls on people who disagree with my views to change their basis of thinking. Do you want to favor "women's choice"? Fine, do so. But do so consistently rather than irrationally. Do you want to argue "born that way"? Go ahead and do so, but do it with integrity. Are you in favor of "marriage equity? Then why aren't you favoring polygamy and polyamory, too? Be consistent. Are you going to argue Evolution over a biblical perspective of the origins of our universe? That's perfectly okay. I'm not asking you not to. I'm simply suggesting that you do so consistently and rationally. After all, making rational arguments irrationally just doesn't make sense, does it? And if you're not willing to follow your line of thinking to its rational conclusions, perhaps your line of thinking needs some correction. All of us should keep that in mind.

Let There Be Wrath

And there was wrath. Lots of wrath. Serious wrath. It has been said that "A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness" (The Attributes of God, The Wrath of God, A.W. Pink). "Yeah, yeah," some will try to tell you, "that Old Testament God was a pretty angry fellow, but Jesus wasn't like that." Really? When asked about some Galileans murdered by Pilate, He said, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-5). Our most vivid images of Hell -- a place of eternal fire (Matt 5:22; Mark 9:43), eaten by worms (Mark 9:48), torment (Luke 16:23), that sort of thing -- come from Jesus. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ that gives us "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14-15), the place of final judgment. And it was Jesus who on at least one occasion went into the Temple with a whip to drive out the money changers (John 2; Matt 21). Beyond Jesus Himself, the New Testament retains this warning. A quick sampling:

Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36).

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7).

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

Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (Rom 2:5).

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming (Col 3:5-6).

Wrath, then, is a necessary component of God. That Romans 2:5 verse indicates why: "God's righteous judgment". Righteous judgment of our sin demands wrath. You see, the vastness of sin into which we've fallen is not minimized by the phrase, "fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). It's actually huge. In fact, part of God's purpose in making our universe was "to show His wrath and to make known His power" (Rom 9:22).

This, of course, doesn't fly in today's world. God is a warm, cuddly, friendly grandfather figure in the sky. He's the original "Mr. Nice Guy". He's our spiritual butler obligated, out of His great love for us, to give us anything that we desire. His failure to do so makes some question His very existence. And no one thinks that "fire and brimstone" is a good method of preaching today. No, no, that just won't work. God is just not that kind of God, you see.

Enter theodicy. It is the science of defending the goodness of God in the face of the evil we see around us. It is the product, however, of this twisted perspective that God is "all-loving and omnibenevolent", so evil, either unpleasantness or immorality, shouldn't exist, right? And that's right ... as long as you don't allow God to define Himself. Because He claims both light and calamity for Himself (Isa 45:7). He claims to have made everything including the wicked (Prov 16:4). The Bible always maintains this position, that God is both kind and angry. Paul wrote, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom 11:22). Kindness and severity.

John ends his first epistle simply and shortly: "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). What is an idol? It's anything worshiped in the place of God. There are, in fact, only two religions. We either worship God or we serve the creature (Rom 1:25). The latter occurs obviously when nature is worshiped, less obviously when we worship ourselves, and almost invisibly when we substitute for God something that is not God. A God without wrath is not God. A God without judgment is not God. A God without severity is not God. While we maintain God's love and goodness and kindness and grace and mercy and all those warm, friendly attributes in our thoughts of God, let's not forget His hatred of sin and just condemnation of it. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Amazing Grace

Christians know grace. We embrace grace. Grace is great. We know that "by grace you are saved through faith." Really, really good stuff. We know that God's awesome grace is infinite and marvelous ... hold it! Hang on a minute. Did you just say "infinite"? Perhaps we ought to stop and think this through.

Grace, as we know, is not the normal condition in human experience. It is unmerited favor. It is receiving what we don't deserve from God. It is the sole method whereby we can be saved. It is, in a sense, a contradiction to reality. Where reality would call for justice, God offers His Son. And so easily are we confused at this point that we often tend toward two mistakes: We often either disbelieve it or demand it. We might embrace "saved by grace", but we tend toward "saved by works" because that makes sense to us where the other does not. Or if we've genuinely grasped grace, we begin to expect it rather than be grateful for it. That is, if God doesn't show it on some occasion or another, we're put out. "Hey! Where's my grace??!" Neither fits in genuine grace. It is neither a myth nor an obligation. It is, in this way, truly amazing.

Grace is the means of salvation (Titus 2:11). While we deserve justice and, thus, punishment, mercy withholds that which we deserve and grace provides that which we do not. Mercy keeps us from judgment and grace provides us with the righteousness of Christ. And a simple awareness of the vastness of the offense of sin makes grace really, really big. In this way, grace is truly amazing.

Grace is not,however, infinite. God it not obligated to give it, something that makes it even bigger. There are times that God will withhold His favor because grace is not infinite. He does it for His good purposes and does it out of love (Heb 12:5-11), but there are times when God's "favor" doesn't seem to be our lot. Nor is it infinite toward unbelievers. He who will not believe "is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). That is not grace. Grace is not infinite. As such, when we get it, it is truly amazing.

Grace is the Christian's life. We were dead in sin (Eph 2:1), "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:4-7). Grace is the cause of our new birth. Every blessing you ever receive is an act of grace. Every breath you draw is a gift of God's grace. Through grace God provides us with consolation and hope (2 Thess 2:16). We were chosen as sons to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6). Every good thing you do is empowered by God's grace (2 Cor 9:8). Spiritual gifts are provided by God's grace (Rom 12:6). Paul says, "I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:9-10).

Grace is not infinite. And we can abuse grace. But God's unmerited favor toward us that causes Him to save us and bless us with every heavenly blessing, to call us to Himself, to give us new life, to empower us to follow Him and enable us to serve Him, that truly is amazing grace. I suspect it's bigger than we typically imagine. Truly amazing!

Praise and Worship

Jamie Smith is a Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College. He recently wrote an open letter to praise bands. It's an interesting read, but, more importantly, an interesting thought exercise.

1. Do you appreciate the time and effort that people put into leading music at church? My church, for instance, has two services. We aren't a big church, so that means that those who lead the singing will be doing both services while us "normal" people will only be there for one. Add to that the time to practice, the dedication to quality, the preparation both in content and in heart, and it becomes quite an investment. They deserve our appreciation.

2. Is it worship leading or is it performance? I've been in front in the past. I've led singing, played music, that sort of thing. I stopped for a variety of reasons, but one that I don't typically mention is the fact that the entire task of leading music coupled with the popularity of entertainment lends itself to the sense of performance rather than worship leading. Drawing the line between "quality" and "performance" is difficult. Fighting off the quite natural human desire to be noticed and appreciated ("I just love our music director; he sings so well and really puts us in the mood.") tends to feed more of the ego than the attention to the divine.

This problem is typically reflected in the congregation as well. We think of the front platform as a "stage" (often because that's exactly what we call it) and the people on it as "performers" and we appreciate a "good performance" and aren't thrilled with a "bad performance". We applaud (quite literally) skill and technique, but don't really pay as much attention to lyrical content or the direction the music takes us. (How often, for instance, do worship leaders practice Col 3:16?) We often make the most skilled musician the worship leader without regard to spiritual qualification. Some churches even make the worship group a paid position because we want the best talent. As such, the congregation feeds off a sense of performance which the worship leadership has to fight in itself. Problem.

The problem is the worldly mindset. The people up front are the performers. The congregation are the audience. And we have a concert going on. Not nearly accurate, of course, but it's how we tend to think. There is indeed an audience in church on Sunday. It's God Himself. And there are indeed performers on Sunday. They are each and every member of the congregation. The worship leaders (and pastors and all), then, have the task of leading, not performing. They direct the performance of the congregation to provide God the best possible pleasure. That, of course, is not the standard thinking of the world and it is too often not the standard thinking of the congregation.

In the article, Smith writes several suggestions for "leading worship" for the band. He tries to avoid making it a performance by encouraging less volume from the band, by choosing songs that people can sing (rather than simply hear), by making the band less than the center of attention. Good things, I'm sure. And he tries to avoid making it an issue of preference or stubbornness -- not about style or form. It's not about "I don't like that kind of music" or "Should we really have drums in church?", but he asks instead two basic questions. "Is it about pleasing us or pleasing God?" "Is it worship or performance?" We need to be careful about importing worldly thinking into church and calling it "worship" because it tickles our ears. I would recommend, also, that you read his postscript to the open letter. There are certainly things in the open letter as well as the postscript worth considering. And since we consider worship our highest task, perhaps we ought to give it some careful thought.

Keeping a Promise

Those of the more conservative ilk complain about President Obama a lot. He's too liberal, too socialist-leaning. He's too pro-abortion. He's too eager to raise taxes, encourages class-conflict. He's increasing our national debt while touting his economic plans. He's not even a genuine American. Okay, maybe that last one is for a lesser number of conservatives, but you get the idea. Barack Obama rode the anti-Bush wave into the White House with promises to the people that they dearly hoped he would keep, and most (even some previous supporters) don't think he has kept them.

Now he is complaining about the narrow-mindedness of the Republicans and their energy plan in the face of skyrocketing prices at the pump. "Their plan is to drill, drill, drill." Not him. He has a comprehensive plan. Check it out for yourself. Stop climate change. Protect the environment. Stop climate change and protect the environment by getting off oil. "Yes, we can!" ("Excuse me, Mr. President, but exactly how will this get me to work on Monday with the gas prices going past $5 a gallon today?")

The natural response of his detractors is to point to another promise not kept. I beg to differ. Check the record, folks. Here's what Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle back in January 2008: "Under my plan… energy rates will necessarily skyrocket." Now, that's pretty clear. And with his dedication to the environment that blocks new drilling and new energy sources, I think he is working hard at keeping that promise. So back off, you detractors. The man promised to skyrocketing prices. He is succeeding. You may not like his policies or politics, but give credit where credit is due.

Coming Soon

Coming soon to a country near you. Maybe even your own.

How long did you think it would take? Well, probably a lot longer than this. I mean, there is no homosexual agenda, right? It's a lie, a myth, a fable, foisted off on people by homophobic rightwingers trying to raise the alarm on something that simply doesn't exist. So, how could this happen?

According to Donna McColl, the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk, "Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program." Welcome to the new regime in Alberta, Canada.

"You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life," she said, "you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction."

Welcome to the fringes of genuine control, the start of the thought police. Education of all sorts will be required not merely to educate, but to require "honour and respect" of diverse beliefs. Interestingly, this would necessarily preclude honoring and respecting the beliefs of those who hold that homosexual acts are sinful. And that is the rub, isn't it? Someone is deciding "This diversity is good and that is not."

I personally know of no one who advocates the outlawing of homosexual acts. I've heard many Christians (genuine Christians) agree with the Bible that it's sin, but I have yet to hear of one in recent years who sought to make it illegal. I call that "respect". I call that "tolerance". "We believe it is sin. We don't approve. Please feel free to do so; just don't expect us to honor your activity." On the other hand, that position is called "homophobic", "hate", and now a violation of law.

Most disturbing, perhaps, is the fact that this will reach into the homeschooling realm. While they assure homeschooling families that they can surely teach what they wish during "family time", it is not really possible to distinguish "teaching time" from "family time" in a homeschoolers environment. Beyond that, Christian homeschoolers often use the Bible in teaching. The Bible isn't limited to "honouring and respecting diversity". That means that 1) families will no longer be able to teach their children their values and 2) the government will be coming into the home to find out what you're saying.

"Oh, such overreacting," some are saying. "That's Alberta, not America." Yes, perhaps, we are not quite there yet. But given the number of voices urging "marriage equity" (defined as "steal marriage from its original definition and then give it to another group but only that group that we deem worthy") and the number of people that classify simply holding a biblical view of homosexual behavior as offensive, hateful, and homophobic, how long do you think it will be before it comes knocking at our door? We're the international leaders, aren't we? We can't let Quebec and Alberta get ahead of us! Let's get more repressive. We're already going to demand that those who are opposed to contraceptives on religious grounds be unable to have the freedom to practice their religious views. Why stop there? Let's get out and be really invasive and oppressive to religious beliefs. After all, the sooner we can throw off this whole "God" thing, we can eliminate a whole lot of pesky "God-given rights". Think how nice that will be!

(Only obliquely related, I found this political cartoon way too close to home.)

Sovereignty

If Christianity is actually a religion that is spawned by God, it would be expected that there would be concepts in it that are not quite ... human. And, of course, it doesn't take long to find them. "Count it all joy when you encounter various trials" is not quite the standard human thought. "Blessed are the poor in spirit" is not the kind of thing that would naturally spring to mind. There are, in the Bible, concepts for which new words or uses of words were invented because it wasn't the standard human idea. We all know, as an example, the phrase, "He knew her ... in the biblical sense." That's because our version of "knowing" someone is not the biblical sense as when "Adam knew Eve" (Gen 4:1). But that's just a phrase, almost a euphemism. There are real changes elsewhere. Take, for instance, the Greek for "grace" which meant in Greek simply "favor" but which was redefined as "unmerited favor" because that wasn't the norm, but that described God's favor towards us. There is the highest form of "love" which meant in Greek a real intimacy, but in biblical terms it went beyond that to a revolutionary concept of loving without receiving anything in return -- unconditionally. Definitely not a normal human concept.

Sovereignty is one of these concepts. It's not a typical human concept because, well, it doesn't exist in the human environment. We can have a "sovereign" in human terms. He would be someone in power, someone with supreme authority, that sort of thing. But, let's face it, if he was a "sovereign" like the biblical concept, it would never stop. He couldn't be overthrown. He couldn't be removed. He couldn't be replaced. If he was sovereign in the biblical sense, no one would have the ability to oppose him. And, of course, in human terms that doesn't happen.

God, on the other hand, is called the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He is not the Lord and King, but "the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16). There are kings and there are lords and there are sovereigns, but our God falls in a different classification, the only Sovereign. Unlike human sovereigns, He is absolutely Sovereign. What He wills is what happens ... always (Eph 1:11). A sparrow doesn't fall without His approval (Matt 10:29). Satan operates within His command (Job 1:12). People cannot even sin without His allowing it for His good purposes (Gen 50:20; Prov 16:4, 9; Acts 4:27-28). This, my brothers and sisters, is not human sovereignty. This is something else. This is a Sovereignty that only God possesses.

This kind of Sovereignty is truly unique. It is truly divine. It is truly supernatural. As such, it is unnatural. Thus, it is highly likely that you and I will question it from time to time. I've never met a person who didn't, at least on occasion if not regularly, deny it entirely. "God is not in charge of the weather, the buildings that fall;" (Luke 13:4-5) "or the evil that men do" (Luke 13:1-3). "That stuff is outside His control." You'd think so, wouldn't you? And you'd be mistaken. But that's because God's Sovereignty is unique and divine and supernatural. You won't find it in your local neighborhood or city or government. It is His alone. So it may not be clear or fully understandable to you and me. That's okay. That's what you expect from the divine. The finite cannot encompass the infinite. I would recommend, however, that even if you don't understand it, you enjoy it. There is no safer place to be than in the hands of the only Sovereign, the King of kings, the Lord of lords. That's a good place indeed.

Delegated Authority

A couple of times in the last week this verse has come up: "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). I started giving that some thought.

Of course, the primary topic -- the context -- is submission to governments. Paul describes government as "what God has appointed" and warns us not to resist, but to serve. Indeed, Paul commends paying taxes, "for the authorities are ministers of God" (Rom 13:6). Didn't know taxation was biblical, did you? In an election year when we're faced with "Look at how bad our current president is!" contrasted with "Is there anyone better running?", this is a good thing to recall. "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." While we indeed must serve by performing our civic duty to vote and must do so according to conscience and all that, the outcome, pleasant or otherwise, is in the hands of the Lord. Whether blessing or judgment, "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." And in all cases we are to pray, intercede, and give thanks "for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Note, of course, that our "kings" are now "presidents". Are you praying for them?

The language of the verse, however, goes far beyond the election-year politics or the government of America. "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Thus, all authority is delegated authority, and everyone is under some authority. In a culture where personal freedom is the god of choice and "Question authority" is the mantra, this doesn't sit well with many. It is, however, the clear presentation of Scripture. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18). "All" includes ... all. The only authority that the president has is delegated authority. The only authority that your boss has is delegated authority. The only authority that your pastor has is delegated authority. The only authority that anyone has (and that would include Satan) is delegated authority. And everyone is under authority. As such, it should come as no surprise that Paul would write, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). And yet I cannot tell you how many Christian women have said, "Me ... submit to him? Not a chance!" I cannot tell you how many Christians I know who have denied the biblical command for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord or have discarded the biblical command to submit to the leadership of the church (Heb 13:17). We seem to make an art of finding ways to worm out of submission to authority delegated by God. If we are not avoiding submitting to the God-given authority over us, we are failing to exercise the God-given authority delegated to us. That's why we live in this upside-down world where children rule their parents, wives rule their husbands, workers rule their employers, and no one willingly submits to authority.

Of course I'm exaggerating. It's called "hyperbole", an overstatement to make a point. The point is that "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Do you recognize those in authority over you? Are you accepting the responsibility of the authority God has invested in you? All authority is delegated authority. All of us are under authority. Each of us has responsibility both to submit to the authority God has placed over us and to exercise the authority God as assigned to us. It's part of being a creation of God. The alternative, of course, has a name. It is missing the mark. It is sin. Not a good alternative.

At Gibeon the Lord Appeared to Solomon

I'm reading in 1 Kings these days and came across this little story. You all know it, I'd guess. Solomon had settled the kingdom. God shows up and says, "Ask me for what you want." You remember Solomon's answer. "Give me wisdom." God likes his answer so much that He gives him wisdom, long life, and riches. Nice. But there's something in that story that I never noticed before.

Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night ... (1 Kings 3:3-5).

Okay, let's see. Solomon loved the Lord. Got it. He was "walking in the statues of David." Good. And then there's an exception. "Only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places." The previous verse suggests an explanation. "The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD" (1 Kings 3:2). "Oh, see?" we are tempted to say, "They didn't have anywhere else to sacrifice." Except they did. The tabernacle was still there. It was still in place. It was still the right place to sacrifice. So good ol' Solomon who loved the Lord and walked in the statutes of David had one little problem -- the violation of the first commandment.

And this is where it gets interesting. "At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon." God didn't show up to correct Solomon. He didn't even mention it. He didn't point out, "You know, Solomon, this is not the place to be sacrificing to Me." Not a word about it. Just, "Ask what I shall give you." And He did.

There is, in my mind, one clear explanation. According to the text, Solomon's wisdom was the discernment between good and evil (1 Kings 3:9). Knowing Solomon's heart ("Solomon loved the Lord"), the gift of discernment between good and evil would correct Solomon's error here. And, in fact, it did. He built the Temple and sacrificed there.

Like C.S. Lewis's Aslan, God is not a tame lion. He doesn't do things the way you and I expect. He has His own methods. They aren't necessarily the ones that we think up. Giving the gift of wisdom to a man in the midst of idolatrous sacrifice may seem a bit strange to us. It appears to have been God's idea of a good thing. I'm glad that God is not limited by the abilities of His people nor limited to the ideas of His followers.

The Right Questions

I write to Christians, for the most part. We are "people of the book". That is, our sole authority on matters of faith and practice is the Bible. We are not the same "people of the book" as Islam. To Islam, the book itself is sacred. As we know, to disrespect the Qur'an is to disrespect their God. It is not, for us, that the Bible itself is a sacred book, but that when God speaks we are to listen.

Since we regard our Bible as important, it is a good thing to read with questions. What does it say? What does it mean? That sort of thing. One tendency we have, however, is to ask, "Why did He say that?" A common reason for that question is because we don't like or don't agree with what is said. Therefore, if we cannot find a satisfactory "Why did He say that?", we can disregard the content. And that is the wrong question. Or, perhaps, the wrong conclusion.

"What does it say?" is an excellent question. Finding the content the important first step. Sometimes that requires a bit of digging. What word is used? Why is that word used? What is the original language? That sort of thing. Good first question.

"What does it mean?" is an equally critical question. The concept is called "hermeneutics", the study and practice of interpretation. You need to have good principles if you're going to have good hermeneutics. Things like "Interpret the implicit from the explicit" would seem like a given, but many miss it. You certainly need to take into account the genre of the content. Poetry, for instance, uses poetic language. Expect it. Historic narrative does not necessarily offer commands as much as explains what happened. (For instance, expressing in an historical narrative that so-and-so lied does not mean that the Bible contains errors.) Wisdom literature gives advice. And so on. An important rule of hermeneutics is to have regard for the literal meaning. By "literal", of course, I include the concept of "as intended" or "as written" (remembering the genre of the text), but we have to understand the Bible as written as opposed to how we'd like to see it or as some ancient text no longer really working today. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is a helpful guide in assisting us to answer "What does it mean?"

That third question, though, can quickly become problematic. "Why did He say that?" often delves purely into the realm of conjecture. Unless there are contextual clues (and, to be sure, there often are), the best you get are guesses and personal ideas. "Well, you see," they will tell you, "the reason Paul did not allow a woman to teach men is because women were not educated in those days." Pure conjecture requiring first that you disregard the textual evidence. The goal of this conjecture is to eliminate Paul's command here. We don't like it. Get rid of it. I recently heard this same approach on another of these kinds of passages. "Paul wrote, 'The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church' (1 Cor 14:34-35). What was that all about??!!" Indeed, the outrage is evident. (Try today, for instance, to suggest in any way that Paul meant what he said and you will be met by voices, female and male, shouting you down. "These things cannot be!") "Why did He say that?" quickly becomes "If I am not given a satisfactory answer, I do not feel any need to follow it." And this happens a lot. Why did God give instructions on tattoos? Why did God order the deaths of the Amorites? Why did Paul forbid women in authority over men? Why did God give instructions to slave masters (rather than ban slavery)? And the implication always seems to be, "If you cannot give me an answer that satisfies me, I will disregard these as not genuine/applicable/real in some sense."

May I make a suggestion? If we believe that the Bible is God-breathed -- exhaled by God through the authors He ordained to present His timeless message to us -- then "I will disregard these as not genuine" is not an option. If we believe that the Bible is our sole authority in matters of practice and faith, then "I will disregard these as not applicable" is not an option. More to the point, if the Bible actually teaches that "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" (as an example), we would be violating God's instructions to dismiss it as no longer applicable or not genuine. And "violating God's instructions" has a well-known name: sin.

We need to read the Bible for all it's worth. We need to know what it says. We need to know how to faithfully interpret it. We need to understand the text, the context, and the intent. We need this. We cannot afford to dismiss as irrelevant what God has stated. We need to figure out what God has stated and follow it wherever it leads. And if God is God (and He is), that will very likely and necessarily lead us to places that are not natural or comfortable for us. "Not natural or comfortable", however, are not reasons to disobey. Ask Abraham who was commanded to kill the son he received by promise from God. His actions in that event are called "faith", not "woodenly literal".

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Aretha Franklin sang, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, that is what it means to me." That is what what means to me? What is respect?

The regular starting point for answering that question is the dictionary, of course. There isn't a lot of variation here -- "deference", "esteem", "honor", "regard for", that sort of thing. It's pretty clear. Not a lot of controversy. Unless, of course, you examine the idea rather than the simple definition. Unless, of course, you examine the biblical concept. Now that is something different.

In Eph 5:31 husbands are commanded to love their wives as their own bodies and wives are commanded to respect their husbands. The biblical word there is just ... well ... wrong. No, not wrong, but certainly unexpected. The word is phobeo. It is rooted in -- get this -- genuine fear. It is our root for the word "phobia". It is fear. Now, the word can be used of terror or that sort of paralyzing fear, but consider that just prior to this wives were commanded to "submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Thus, this "fear" would be the same type of fear afforded God. In fact, if you look up the New Testament use of the phrase "fear the Lord" or the like, you will find the same word there. Now, clearly we're not called to be paralyzed in terror of God. So, what? Most Bibles are happy to translate this concept as "reverential awe". And lest "awe" be diluted by today's mindless "totally awesome, dude", the dictionary will tell you that "awe" means "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc.". "Awe is "an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime". In biblical respect, then, there remains a sense of dread or fear, but not one that stops you from functioning. Instead, it informs your emotional response. It is a fear of violating the desires of the one respected. That kind of thing.

Now, down to the application of this concept. You see, I started this because I've heard from husbands, "I don't feel like my wife respects me." It appears fairly common, in fact. It even exists in cases that I think the wives would say, "But, I do respect you." So I was all set to write this to correct wives for failing to respect their husbands. Notice that I said "I was ..." No longer.

Look, guys, read the passage. Show me the portion that says, "Husbands, make sure your wife respects you." Funny thing. It's not in there. And I don't know about you, but I'm already pretty busy trying to plug the holes I have in my own responsibility of "love your wife as Christ loved the Church". Oh, that's really big, guys.

Having said that, it appears to me that women and men do not have the same vision of "respect". Lots of women say they respect their husbands. So why don't husbands feel respected? Is it possible that the two concepts -- women respecting men and men feeling respected -- are not the same thing? So, Christian women who are interested in being what God commands you to be, may I suggest something? Find out what "respect" looks like and do it.

There's an interesting little fact down here at the bottom. If you examine the needs of most women, their highest desire is to be loved. If you examine the needs of most men, their highest desire is to be respected. Isn't that funny? Okay, maybe "funny" isn't the right word. Maybe God is just really, really smart. So, men, if you'd like to have a more smoothly operating relationship with your wife, love her. No, not the way that you think of love. Love her the way that she thinks of love. And wives, here's a little secret. The husband that feels as if his wife respects him is the happiest, most loving, most responsive husband you'll ever see. Just a helpful hint to both.

A Math Dilemma

Enough seriousness for the moment. This one is just for fun.

Okay, there is an error in here (obviously), but see if you can find it. (Note: The "^" symbol means "to the power of", so that "a^2" means "a to the power of 2" or "a squared".)

Let a=b

Thus: a^2=ab

Add a^2 to both sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab

Or: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab

Subtract 2ab from both sides: 2a^2 – 2ab = a^2 + ab – 2ab

Or: 2a^2 – 2ab = a^2 – ab

This can be factored to: 2(a^2 – ab) = 1(a^2 – ab)

If you divide both sides by a^2 – ab, you get: 2 = 1

Being Consistent

I've been having dialogs in various places with various people who believe it is their job to correct me where I'm wrong in various places. I don't mind for the most part. I want to know if I'm wrong. I have been before. I might be now. I will be again. Of course, most of what I stand on today has been examined at great length from multiple perspectives with lots and lots of study, prayer, reason, and so forth, so getting me to shift at this point on some of those issues won't be easy. They'll have to undo all that study, prayer, reason and so forth. They're not. I'm always open to a good, biblically supported, carefully reasoned argument against my position. In fact, just the other day I decided that my original position that when God told Eve "Your desire shall be for your husband" (Gen 3:17) He was saying that she would desire to rule over him was likely incorrect. I've heard it before. I thought it was reasonable. I don't anymore. Change isn't all bad.

Still, in most of the dialogs in which I engage where people are trying to correct me I find a stunning consistency ... in a complete lack of consistency. Take, for instance, the constant complaint that Christians are intolerant and judgmental. Isn't that an intolerant and judgmental complaint? That's inconsistent. And that's common.

Some time ago I wrote about Jesus's command to "Sell all your possessions" and what I thought it meant. (I thought it meant that we ought to be stewards, not owners, that we ought to not be tied to our goods, that we ought to divest ourselves of all of that in the heart.) I've had more than one complain that I'm not taking it at face value, not taking it literally, and that we ought to. Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure that all of those who complained owned computers (as an example). So ... what's up with that? Inconsistency.

Anyone who is on top of this stuff knows that one of the fundamental problems with atheism is that it removes grounds for transpersonal morality. You might be able to retain your own moral values, but to suggest that anyone else must have the same ones is without basis in an atheistic approach. And still atheists protest that Christians are immoral and that God is not good. Not good on what basis? Inconsistency.

There are voices on the left that like to raise the cry against wealth. The wealthy are immoral. Rich people are the problem. They need to be forced to help the poor. Some like to clothe it in "godliness". "The Bible says that the poor are blessed." Oddly enough, it appears as if these voices never take into account the fact that they are among the wealthiest people on the planet. Why aren't they surrendering their wealth? If the poor are blessed simply for being poor, why are they trying to take away that blessing? Inconsistency.

A large portion of the secular world agrees with Darwinian Evolution. The universe that we know happened by chance. No amount of logic can shake that. Everything came from nothing and only a fool would believe otherwise. The secular world (that part that is devoted to a materialistic view) will, on the other hand, protest the execution of murderers or the killing of Syrians by the government of Syria. "That's wrong!" they assure us. Why? If all we are is a skin-bag for a biological computer, on what is this protest based? And if we wanted to experiment on rabbits or humans to try to solve medical problems or make our hair color different, why would that be wrong? You don't hear complaints when you take a can of Raid to an anthill, do you? Why, when a Syrian government decides to stop an uprising by whatever means they want, is it a bad thing? Inconsistency.

I've offered a few examples. Consider, then, the other side. If a Christian believes that God is the Ultimate Authority and states, "God believes X is a sin", that will not likely be appreciated, but it is consistent. If a Christian understands that Jesus commanded us to judge rightly and attempts to judge rightly, that will obviously be labeled as "judgmental", but it is consistent. Being intolerant of sin and judgmental about evil is consistent with Christianity. A moral code that applies to all humans is consistent with a Christian worldview. Recognizing that it is better to give than to receive without forcing it from others is consistent with Christianity. Protecting people over tyrants or science is consistent with Christian values.

People complain a lot about Christians. I get it. Jesus promised it. We should expect it. I'm not complaining about it. I am just pointing out that when a Christian makes a declaration against sin or a call to repent or any of the various other demands that God makes on His creation, it is a function of consistency. In fact, if a Christian says "The Bible says X is right" and someone points out "But, you don't do X", we haven't lapsed into inconsistency unless that Christian tries to defend X for himself. Because, you see, the premise of Christianity is that we are sinners and recognizing that "X is sin" right along with "I suffer from X and need to change" is consistent. The opposition, far too often, opposes from the position of inconsistency. That's a problem. If you'd like to help correct my thinking, I'd recommend consistency. It works much better.

In the Promised Land

The parallel has often been offered that the story of Israel in Egypt, moving through the desert, and into the Promised Land is the story of us: Slaves to sin, baptized, live life in the desert, and end up in heaven, the Promised Land. It's a fine parallel, isn't it? Except it doesn't quite work itself out. You see, when the children of Israel got to the Promised Land, they did not enter a land without weeping, a place of eternal bliss, "the happiest place on earth", like heaven is supposed to be. No, they went to war.

The Bible does indeed use the story as a parallel, but I would like to suggest that when we draw a connection between heaven and "the Promised Land", we miss the biblical point. I suspect it is due largely to our propensity for our love and demand of comfort. "If God is a good God, He will make things comfortable for us in this life." Well, it ain't necessarily so.

Let's take the story of Israel coming out of Egypt and see what real parallels there are. The Bible refers to slavery in Egypt as a parallel of slavery to sin. Good. Paul speaks of their passing through the Red Sea as "baptism" (1 Cor 10). That's okay. But we err when we think that living the Christian life is "the desert experience" while "the Promised Land" is heaven. So, what can we draw from those?

Well, first, let's recall Jesus's experience. In Matthew 3, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. What happened next? In Matthew 4, He was "led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" (Matt 4:1). That was a genuine "desert experience". So let's go with that. What did Jesus face immediately after His baptism? He faced temptations. He faced, in fact, the temptation. Whom would He follow? Whom would He trust? And like Israel in the Sinai, His responses to these temptations decided the rest of His ministry. Their choices resulted in death; His resulted in salvation.

Is the desert the rotten experience that we tend to think? I suggest it is not. There are valuable lessons learned there. There is dependence. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." There is clarification. "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone." Jesus came out of the desert and started His ministry. Israel came out of the desert with the dead weight lost ready to do battle. The desert may not be pleasant, but it is also neither useless nor dispensable.

In Scripture, "faith" means "to be convinced" (not "to believe something when there is no reason to"). Israel's shared experiences beginning at the Red Sea and carrying on through God's sustaining of them in the desert built the reasons they needed to trust God when it came to doing battle in "the land of giants". Thus, the "desert experience" was the necessary and indispensable preparation to doing the tasks God had assigned. In Jesus's case, it was ministry and ultimately death. In Israel's case it was war and ultimately conquest of the Promised Land. And that is our parallel. The Promised Land is not heaven. It is Christian living. It is the course of the victorious Christian life. Learn in the "desert experiences" to rely on God and then enjoy victory in Christian experience. We'd like to skip that desert stuff, I know. Jesus didn't. Followers of Christ shouldn't expect it. But, oh, the sweet rewards of learning to trust in God. Christian life is a war (Eph 6:13ff). How often do you get to go to war when you can't lose?