Dysphoria

They have their own website. It's called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Here's how they describe it.

When a person's idea of how they should look does not match their actual physical form, it can be caused by Body Integrity Identity Disorder. This condition affects a small percentage of the population and is commonly manifested by a desire to have an amputation of a specific body part. In most cases, the limb that the person would like to remove is actually in healthy working order and there are no physical problems with it.

That's the idea. Good working parts, but the owner thinks they shouldn't be there, so he/she would like them removed. It's a sickness, an illness, a mental problem. It needs to be fixed. There are various treatments, but none of them includes amputating the offending part.

It's called "dysphoria". The opposite of "euphoria", the word is basically defined as "a feeling of emotional and/or mental discomfort, restlessness, malaise, and depression." Of course, you may not have heard the term, but recently it has become more visible because it is often used with an adjective--"gender dysphoria". That is, "I'm not happy with my birth gender and feel like my body doesn't match my actual gender." Oh, wait. That's different from BIID in what way?

I'm trying to imagine how this would work in any other application. I am a human, but I feel like I should be an eagle. We'll call it "species dysphoria". And we'll see what medical science can do to make me more ... "eagley". (Is it possible to misspell a made-up word?) Maybe they can get me some wings to attach? Perhaps a beak? I can start right away living in trees and maybe wearing feathers. Of course, no doctor, psychological or medical, would take me up on this. Because everyone would understand that it's not right. Not immoral. Sick and wrong. A person who suffers from "species dysphoria" is not treated by changing species (just as impossible as actually changing genders). And don't even begin to consider "racial dysphoria". Because "I feel like" is not sufficient in the normal world to classify it as real. Unless, of course, it is gender dysphoria. Now that, unlike ever other version, is fine. Even brave.

Over at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Greg Gibson wrote about How should the Church Respond to the Transgender Question?. Helpful thoughts, to be sure, but the real answer ought to be, "Tell them they, like you and I, need Jesus." Because they are sick. And so are we. And cutting off body parts or undefining gender in order to make you feel better is not, in the long run, going to help. Like me, they need Jesus. Let's not get lost on the "dysphoria" canard. What's sick is the sin condition. We can all work on our faulty thinking and feelings after that.

What Difference Does It Make?

The question that wins the argument: "How would gay marriage affect you and your marriage?" End of discussion. Point: "gay marriage". Or is it?

The question, as it turns out, is ludicrous. Think about it. The question is irrelevant. The relevant questions, like "Is it right?" or "Is it rational?" or even "Is it moral?" are set aside and the question is about a very limited effect. Here, think about this obvious contrast. Let's say that there was a measure up to legalize polyamory. Any number of people could marry any number of people. Is this not the same question? "How would that affect you and your marriage?" And it wouldn't, would it? No, go even sillier. Now there is a move to allow marrying inanimate objects. Again, "How would that affect you and your marriage?" What is the point of the question? How does it affect me and my marriage if people do stupid things and call it "marriage"? It doesn't. My marriage is my marriage. So the short-term effect is not the question.

Still, there are answers to the question. There are certain, likely, or potential outcomes to consider. I have four primary effects to suggest^[1].

First, as we already know, marriage is in trouble in general. More and more people are opting out, either before they get into it or after. Divorce rates are high. Cohabitation (shacking up) rates are high. It is not uncommon to hear, "Why does a little piece of paper make a difference?" Clearly it does (or the whole question wouldn't be in the marketplace of ideas), but marriage is weaker today than it has ever been. According to the CDC just in this century marriage rates in America have dropped from 8.2 per 1,000 people to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Even the Huffington Post reported that marriage rates are at historic lows. Enter this new thing. Already marriage is on the verge of merely being an emotional attachment. We "marry for love" and when that is gone, we stop being married. That's not how it ought to be. That's not what it used to be. That's not what all of history and most of the major world's religions think of it. (And if you think I'm being too alarmist, it has already been proposed that 2-year renewable marriage licenses be issued to cut down on divorce problems.) Marriage is the union, physical and emotional, of a man and a woman with an eye toward children. It is the ideal family unit. It is the functional propagation of the species, the optimum environment for producing and raising children. But, look, let's strip that off, okay? Tina Turner asked, "What's love got to do with it?" We'll ask, "What have kids got to do with it?" And when we, as a society, push propagation out the back window of marriage and usher in "marry for love", it's a paradigm shift. No longer are spouses to maintain an unbroken relationship of commitment and cooperation for the family. Instead, it's a commitment to my emotions first. While traditional marriage brings social pressure to bear to keep couples and families together, redefining it will further ease that pressure and just let things dissolve as they may. Two of the worst things that have happened to marriage are contraception and "no-fault" divorce. One put families on hold, sometimes indefinitely, and the other made ending a lifelong commitment an easy thing. This new definition will simply push it that much further ... on both points.

Second, parenting is in jeopardy today. The skyrocketing rates of single parents is, frankly, frightening. Absentee fathers are a big problem, but mothers today are following similar trends, with more and more women making the news for killing or abusing their children. And why not? We are told that we need to find ourselves, to seek our own happiness. So why let those brats get in the way? Still, we all know that the best possible arrangement for raising children is a stable, mother-father, husband-wife home. There really is no question of that. And recent studies find, shock of shocks, that children fare better in traditional mom-dad families while same-sex parenting may have its risks. I know, I know, the American Psychological Association (APA) came out with its own study a short while ago and assured us that children of same-sex couples did just fine. Well, as it turns out, that whole study seems to be in question now. Enter a new definition of "married". Now the law will require that no regard be given to "husband-wife" marriages over "same-sex" unions ... because they're the same, right? Isn't that the point? They're the same? And then, as obscured as good parenting has become in recent decades, the ideal gets further obscured. The message is clear. Same-sex couples are just as good, just as appropriate, just as ideal as any other couple might be. And now it's the children who take the hit.

Third, we know that America is built on freedom and we know that this freedom includes, at its core, the freedom of religion. This very freedom, however, has caused a difficulty. Americans tend to confuse "equal protection" with "equal validity". Trying to suggest that, while all religions are protected under the law, not all are equally valid will likely get you into a fight. You're narrow-minded, judgmental, intolerant. Never mind that it's the only logical possibility. It's still wrong. Now throw in a governmental ruling on a moral issue that makes the moral issue not only legal, but endorsed. Say goodbye to your religious freedoms in the area of moral issues. And don't consider this a slippery slope argument because it's happening already. In Massachusetts Catholic Charities had to give up its adoption services because they would be required to ignore their principles in regard to placing children with same-sex couples. A student in California was banned from school for stating an opinion about the morality of homosexual behavior. A Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ruled that public schools may teach that homosexual relations are moral without regard for parental disagreement. A New Mexico photographer was sued and lost because she wasn't willing to do photos for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Oh, it's no nebulous slippery slope. It's happening. When the State rules that "marriage" now includes "same-sex" couples the fundamental freedom of religion and your right to express yourself on matters of morality will begin to see their legal end. And that's without even considering the tide of public opinion. It is already a "certainty" that if you stand for traditional marriage, you only do so out of hate and bigotry. It's a lie, but that kind of thinking is becoming more and more dominant and we would expect it to get worse, not better, if the State rules against traditional marriage.

The fourth issue is the change of the norm. When we changed from divorce to "no-fault divorce", the change wasn't simply to make things easier for people. The change produced a fundamental impression of what was normal. It became common to divorce simply because one or the other parties wanted the relationship to end. So no longer was a marriage "for life"; it was just until we decided we didn't want it anymore. The only reason required for divorce was "irreconcilable differences", which could mean just about anything at all. This is just an example of the shift of norm that the changing of laws produces. Adultery was once illegal just about everywhere, but over time we've dropped those laws. The upshot is that adultery has become viewed as relatively normal. Laws have been enacted to give unmarried couples the same rights as married couples and today the general sense is that not only is "shacking up" normal, it is recommended ... despite all the studies to the contrary. By changing the definition of marriage by force of law, we will have our sense of "normal" shifted again.

There are consequences to these things. It may look as if it won't matter. I will remain married to my wife in the same way that I always have, and I will continue to teach my children (okay, they're grown -- make it "grandchildren") right and wrong regardless of what my society says is moral. I will certainly lose some freedom of religion, but the Bible assures me that the animosity of the world is to be expected. And the world around me will continue to shift "normal morality" to match the changes. I have to point out, however, that all of this misses a very important point. Consider a situation that we all agree would be bad. What if they legalized heroin use? The same argument could be used. "Why would you care? How will it affect you?" And, in truth, it wouldn't in the sense that I still wouldn't be taking heroin, legal or not. On the other hand, it would have a large effect. Crime would change, and not necessarily for the better. Attitudes toward heroin use would change. There would be more users, more addicts, and more of the effects that such things cause. Society, then, would be paying for the impact of this new legal addiction. And the change would be permanent. Like Prohibition, it's not possible to put that genie back in the bottle. Legalizing heroin, it might be argued, won't change my life, but it will. It will change the face of the society in which I live and have multiple ramifications that will impact everyone, user or not. Even so with this radical redefinition of marriage. Sure, I'll remain married to my wife in the way I always have, but life will change for everyone in ways that not everyone recognizes will be unpleasant. The face of families will change. The face of parenting will change. The face of religious freedom will change. The face of normal morality will change. And those who would wish to affect change from these changes will be outlawed. Like putting toothpaste back into the tube.
________

^[1] I say "suggest", but, in fact, these are mostly derived from the effects already present in other countries where marriage was legally redefined to include two people of the same sex. All of these are already occurring in Canada, for instance. There is no reason we shouldn't anticipate the same. And as I've often said, a "slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy if it is already happening.

Motivation

There is a passage of Scripture that most of us have heard that comes from, of all places, Ezekiel. We've heard it because it's so heartwarming. (Wait for it. There's a joke there.)

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules. (Ezek 36:26-27)

(Get it? "Heart of flesh". "Heartwarming". Oh, never mind.)

I'm sure you've heard that before. It's about the glorious promise of God to replace our dead hearts with live ones, to implant us with His Spirit so that we can walk in His way. It is truly magnificent news, the heart (so to speak) of the Gospel.

But ... did you ever ask "Why?" Why does God remove a heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh? Why does He put His Spirit in people? What is God's motivation?

Well, of course, we all know what that is, right? He loves us. God loves all of us and, loving us as He does, He wants good things for us. At least, that's what our gut tells us. Perhaps we ought to examine what the text tells us.

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came." (Ezek 36:22)

Oh, didn't see that coming. And, in case you missed it, like a matching bookend, He puts a reminder at the back side of this discussion.

It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways." (Ezek 36:32)

We have this problem, you see. As born rebels, we tend to think that it's all about us. And you might see why. Wasn't this entire planet and all that it entails made for us? I mean, God didn't say about anyone else, "Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen 1:26) Very clearly we are the top, the apex, the primary point. But why? Well, we were made for Him. And what is the key difference between these two ideas? We didn't make the world that is ours; He did.

It sounds a bit egotistical for God to say, "It's all about Me." Or it would if it weren't true. It is, however. All things were made by Him and for Him (Col 1:16). So the instant that we begin to think, "It's about us", we begin to stray from sanity. And that is why we have such a problem with God. "Oh," we complain, "He wouldn't do that!" when we're told that He ordered the deaths of men, women, and children (1 Sam 15:3) or that God makes some for honor and some for dishonor (Rom 9:21) or some other uncomfortable truth. It might be true that if we were the point, He wouldn't do that. But if He is the point--if His Name and His glory and His purposes are the point--then perhaps we had better think again about what He might or might not do. And we had better think again about why He does it, beginning with "It's not about me."

It is truly good news that God promises, plans, and carries out the removal of hearts of stone and the replacement with hearts of flesh. It is amazing grace that God places His Spirit in us to enable us to obey Him. But never forget why He does it. It's not because you're just so darn loveable. It's for His Name's sake, for His glory, for Him. And it should be.

Going at it Backwards

I remember once hearing a speaker talking about that stunning passage in Paul's first epistle to Timothy where he says that women aren't supposed to usurp authority from men (1 Tim 2:9-15). "They tell me," he said, "that if we take this passage at face value, it says we should consider women as second-class Christians." He followed that with, "Let me say one thing here before I get to the passage. If that's what it says, then we must." Now, he concluded immediately after with, "Of course, that's not what it says ..." but I found the statement to be ... disturbing.

I think a lot of times we Christians go at it backwards. Here's a very common approach. "What do I know? How do the biblical claims fit into that?" Perhaps it's what we think we know from experience. Perhaps it's what we think we know from our world, our society, our families, our culture. Perhaps it's even what we think we know from the Bible. But we often tend to take explicit texts and revise them because they don't fit in with "what we know." And I think that's backwards. Even dangerous.

Look, here's what we do know. We know the Bible is "God's Word". It is "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). And, of course, we know that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). What else? We know that God is holy. No, not holy--"holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8.) (Isn't it significant that "holy" is repeated thrice and the "thrice-holy" is repeated twice? Seems like an important point.) Since "holy" means "set apart" and since God is "not a man" (1 Sam 15:29; Job 9:32; 1 Cor 1:25), it follows inexorably that God is not like us. That is, if we do not find in His Word that He is different than us--sees things differently than we do, has different values than we do, has different plans than we do, and so on--then we have reason to doubt that this is actually His Word. Fortunately, we find that to be true. Unfortunately, we often discount what we see because it doesn't line up with what we think. And we're back to the problem.

Look, we need to start with God here. The Bible is His Word. What He says is true. Expect that He won't be the same as us. So ... what does it say? That's what we ought to be asking first. So if God said (He doesn't; this is just an illustration), "I actually am a flying spaghetti monster," we would be obligated to agree even if it went against our feelings and prior assumptions. Or, as that speaker in my opening example, if God said we should treat women in a way that our culture defies, we would be obligated to do it.

So when we read statements about what God is like or statements about what is true, we need to ask ourselves if we're going to go with it or put God on trial. I'm talking about explicit statements here. (Always interpret the implicit by the explicit.) So when God says that He it is His will to demonstrate His wrath and power against vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22), we are doing Him no favors to say, "Well, we don't like that idea, so let's say it's not so." When God's Word says, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov 16:4), it doesn't help to say, "No, He doesn't." When we read that God ordered the deaths of a group of Amalekites--men, women, children, and their little dog, too (1 Sam 15:3)--it requires a denial of God's Word to change it. We can ask, "Why would He do that?", but to say, "No, He didn't" is simply to cancel any sort of reliable Word of God.

We need to ask ourselves this basic question. Do we want to know God and His truth for what He is and what He says, or do we wish to impose our own ideas on Him? Our natural (sinful) response is the latter. That's why I found that speaker's statement disturbing--my own sin nature. The right, reasonable, and only safe response is the former. Perhaps we ought to settle that in our minds before we seek to know God better through His Word, His God-breathed letter to us about Himself. Sure, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15) Sometimes that takes work. But it's worth it, and it's right, and it's the safest thing to do, even if we discover things we didn't expect about God. Because seeking to know God on our terms rather than His is sheer arrogance, and that cannot end well. And anyone who willingly argues, "God would be wrong if He did that" (whatever "that" might be) is standing on the exceedingly dangerous ground of passing judgment on the Creator of the Universe.

Gay Marriage in the Bible

Any casual reader of my stuff will know that the title is misleading if only because I don't believe that such a thing as "gay marriage" actually exists. As I have repeatedly and consistently held, marriage has a definition and "two people of the same sex" cannot be included in the definition any more than "four men and three women" or "a man and his goat" or any other of a large variety of other versions. So the title is somewhat misleading because 1) I don't believe in such a thing as "gay marriage" and 2) you won't find it in the Bible, either in defense or offense. It's not mentioned. Because it doesn't exist.

In the public domain, my argument against the subject is not a biblical one. I don't argue that it's immoral. I argue that marriage means something--has always had a core definition--and this is not it. It is not the same question as the morality of homosexual relations or the like. It is the meaning of the term.

Having said that, however, Christians ought to consider the question in light of what the Bible does say on the subject of marriage.

The first mention of marriage is, of course, Adam and Eve, where "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24) becomes the standard biblical concept. I call it "standard" because both Jesus (Matt 19:5) and Paul (Eph 5:31) refer to it as the explanation of marriage. "This is what marriage is." So at the beginning we have "man" and "woman" in union ("one flesh") for the purpose of mutual support (Gen 2:18) and procreation (Gen 1:28)^[1].

After that, "marriage" becomes somewhat repetitive. That is, it simply references "husband" and "wife" (and, of course, children) ... over and over and over. Sometimes there were singular husbands with multiple wives--polygamy. But always "husband" and always "wife". Never "husbands" as in two of the same gender either married to one or more women or to each other.

It's only much later that instructions for marriage are offered. In Ephesians, for instance, Paul commands "Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord" and "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church" (Eph 5:22-33). He repeats something similar for the Colossians (Col 3:18-19). Marriage of women (to men) is assumed in most of Scripture as evidenced by the general command "train the young women to love their husbands and children" (Titus 2:4-5) or the instruction that women with questions at church should ask their husbands (1 Cor 14:35). When we come to Peter's comments on the topic, they are mostly the same ... but not quite. He tells wives, "Be subject to your own husbands" (1 Peter 3:1-6) but specifies beyond that they they should do so "even if some do not obey the word." He does not command husbands to love their wives, but, rather, to live with them in an understanding way and to honor them (1 Peter 3:7). This clearly supersedes any cultural "women are chattel" concepts as is so often falsely accused by Bible skeptics.

So, what have we learned? We've learned that there is no explicit statement in Scripture that says, "Two men cannot marry." Of course, if "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" is the biblical concept of marriage, then "Two men cannot marry" is nonsense ... since marriage is defined for us as "man" and "woman" in union. While the text does not say, "This is God's definition of marriage", it is quite clear that the Bible sees it as such given 1) the consistent use of this description in the New Testament and 2) lack of anything else. Beyond this, we have clear instructions for married couples. We know, for instance, that despite our society's aim to subvert this concept, the Bible teaches 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) In fact, every marriage command is couched in "husband" and "wife" terms. Each role--husband and wife--has distinct commands (as in "the head of the wife is her husband" and "wives, submit to your husbands" as opposed to "the head of every man is Christ" and "husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way").

So, here we are. What does the Bible say about "gay marriage"? Nothing. Nothing at all. No reference, no hint, no subtle concept. Nothing. So, there are a few possibilities here. Maybe God didn't know that in the 21st century we'd be marrying men to men so He didn't have any input on that. Or maybe He knew and didn't have any commands that "husbands, submit to your husband" or "wives, submit to your wives" or otherwise. Heterosexual couples have commands; homosexual couples don't. Or maybe ... just maybe ... God defined marriage for us at the beginning and anything and everything that deviates from that is not marriage. Because trying to force "gay marriage" into anything remotely biblical on the subject is impossible, an argument from silence, completely in opposition to and incompatible with everything biblical about marriage.

So when "gay marriage" can be "husband" and "wife", "man" and "woman", a union for the purpose of mutual support and procreation like it's described in the Bible, then I'll be on board. Of course, that's just for Bible-believing Christians. The rest of you are on your own.
________

^[1] For those of you, Christians and skeptics, who wish to disagree with "for mutual support and procreation", let me say this. These are the aims, not the "definition". You know that. I know that. In biblical terms, a woman who was barren in Scripture was still married. She didn't like being barren, but it didn't dissolve the union. By the same token, if a wife ends up taking care of her husband after a traumatic brain injury, for instance, we wouldn't suggest he is no longer married because he is not offering mutual support. It's the aim, but not the definition. Thus, defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and procreation" works fine as long as we understand that "the purpose" in that statement doesn't require success, just intent. A husband who marries with no intention of offspring or a wife who marries with no expectation that she'll be supportive of her husband (examples, mind you) are not entering into a marriage that is the same aim as the biblical marriage.

Be Encouraged

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that our world is not revolving into greater morality, deeper Christianity, or an embrace of the good. For Christians who care, this can be rather discouraging. For Christians who love, it can be frightening.You may be a Christian man seeking a wife or a Christian woman seeking a husband with the constant, nagging fear that our society no longer supports biblical marriage and divorce (as in "don't divorce") and you wonder if you're going to find someone to walk with you into biblical marriage. You may have children or family or dear friends whose salvation you question. Worse, you may have a loved one who has walked away from it all and you see no hope of return given their departure and our world's support for it. Given the direction of our society toward anti-Christianity and toward immorality, given the growing departures of kids and loved ones from the faith, given the uncertainty caused by "tares among wheat", I would like to give you a note of encouragement.

Jesus was the one who gave Simon Bar-Jonah his more popular name, Peter. It means "rock". (And, since "Bar-Jonah" means "Son of John", Peter could be named Rock Johnson. But I digress.) When He named him Peter, He said this. "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18) Two observations here. First, "gates" ("the gates of hell") are not an offensive weapon. Jesus intended to plunder hell^[1]. Second, it was not Peter or Paul or anyone else who would build the church. Jesus said, "I will build My church."

The New Testament is full of warnings to do good, to persevere, to endure, to stand. We are unequivocally and unabashedly ordered to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" in a Bible that repeatedly tells us that we are saved by faith, not by works. When it comes to "This is your job" in the Bible, you will constantly find that our assignment is to work for Christ.

("Can we be honest here, Stan? This isn't exactly encouraging." Hold on. I'm not done.)

While the Bible is full of commands we are supposed to follow, there is another aspect that is equally prevalent in the pages of Scripture. There is our assignment--"Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) And there is Someone else at work. Every reference to God's actions in the matter of salvation and preservation is that of sovereignty and success. We are saved by grace through faith, "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10) We can be "sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:6) While we work out our salvation, "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) (See also Jude 1:24-25; Rom 8:38-39; 1 John 3:9; John 10:28-29; Rom 11:29; Rom 8:30, and more.) Over and over and over again we see that God opens hearts (e.g. Acts 16:14), wakes the dead (e.g. Eph 2:4-7), sustains the weak (e.g. 2 Cor 12:9-10), and never loses (e.g. Rom 8:31-39). In every single case God succeeds.

Where, then, is the encouragement? It is in the sovereignty and success of God. He can raise the dead, open the heart's blind eyes, and remove a heart of stone and replace it with a living heart (Ezek 36:26). If He can keep you from sinning (Gen 20:6), He can guide loved ones through dark valleys, call the blind to Himself, and waken the spiritually dead. Scripture says, "After you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you." (1 Peter 5:10) The encouragement? It's not all up to you. You are not the success or failure of the enterprise. That's God. And not one single lamb that He wishes to rescue will fail to be rescued (John 6:39). You may not have much hope for your world and you may be concerned about loved ones and you may certainly be at a loss to know what to do about it all, but you can be quite sure that God always accomplishes what He intends, and that includes the salvation and preservation of His own, even if they are, at a time, within the "gates of hell". The author of Hebrews says, "Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted." (Heb 12:3) And Paul repeatedly encouraged his readers to not grow weary of doing good (Gal 6:9; 2 Thess 3:13). We can do that (not grow weary) because of Him who endured hostility, because He never fails.
________

^[1] This "gates of hell" reference is not to "the place where the damned live", but the abode of the opposition to Christ as opposed to the kingdom of God. It is the place that Satan and his followers, human and demonic, feel safe, protected, defended against God. Jesus here isn't saying, "I will walk into the place of the dead and snatch some from it" like some second chance. He is saying, "There is no place that the god of this world can safely hold his people from Me."

The Gospel

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak. (Col 4:2-4)

I know. Long quote. But it's one sentence, so I didn't have a choice. In this sentence Paul asks the Colossian Christians to devote themselves to prayer. It should include thanksgiving as an attitude. But Paul's biggest concern was an open door for the word. Paul called it "the mystery of Christ" because the gospel is clearly that. And he asked them to pray "that I may make it clear." Imagine that. An Apostle devoting his life to the gospel asking them to pray that he might make it clear. Didn't he have the practice already? Didn't he already make it clear? Apparently that's not how it works. So here I am trying to make an attempt at a clear presentation of "the word", the "mystery of Christ", the gospel.

The term "the gospel" comes up in the New Testament. One of the first things Jesus did in His ministry was to preach the gospel. What was He preaching? "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15) Well, in its simplest terms, folks, there you have it. That's "the gospel". Repent and believe. Done. Next!

Of course, that's not going to hack it. You'll need more than that. So we find Paul's very clear description in 1 Corinthians.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor 15:1-8)

That's it. It is the place to stand, the place to lay your trust, the place to hold fast. It has two primary components. First, Christ died. Second, Christ rose again. Not "sort of". Not figuratively. There were witnesses. Lots of them.

That's it. That's the simplest gospel. Christ died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). He took our sins with Him (2 Cor 5:21). Christ rose leaving death behind (1 Cor 15:20-26). Indeed, "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor 11:26) Something to always keep in mind.

I'm Just Asking

Yes, I know, I don't usually do two in a day, but I have to know. Now that Bruce Jenner has assured us that he is a woman, is our society going to be consistent?

Look, we "all know" that you're "born that way" and we "all know" that your gender may not be the same as your anatomy. So now we "know" that Bruce Jenner was born a woman in a man's body. He's always been that way, right? Because you're "born that way". I mean, he didn't turn female recently, did he?

So, are they going to be consistent? Are they going to strip him of his medals? He, a woman, competed in the men's decathlon. Are they taking those back? Are they cancelling out any women's records and substituting his? And how about the medical profession? First we had this woman named Thomas Beatie who claimed she was a man having babies and now we have Bruce Jenner claiming he's a woman who fathered multiple children. So are the medical books going to change about how men and women produce babies? Might as well. We've been "undefining" lots of things. Not redefining--undefining. Remove the existing definition and don't substitute a new one. We've undefined marriage and we've undefined female and male. Why not undefine the whole "birds and the bees" thing?

Look, I'm not passing judgment here. (I can do that when I'm by myself, right?) I'm just asking a couple of the obvious questions. I just want to know one thing. Not "Are they right?" but "Will they be consistent?" Because inconsistency suggests either a lack of belief in a position or an erroneous position ... or both.

For a Reason

When bad things happen--you know, unpleasant things, not necessarily immoral things--we often try to comfort people with "Everything happens for a reason." Regardless of your theology, we like to think that there is an overall purpose to things and events. In a theistic worldview, this is not a wish, but a certainty. But in today's more materialistic, humanistic, post-modern world, it's no longer very supportable.

In the "modern world" (as opposed to the "post-modern world"), the term, "modern", was intended to refer to "reason". Modernism was a philosophical view that held popularity from the late 19th century through the middle of the 20th century. It was the "age of reason", intended primarily to circumvent the earlier times of religion and mysticism. We didn't need God anymore; we had science. And with some clear thinking (instead of simple faith in a deity), we could bring about utopia. Well, at the end of the second World War, it was clear that this wasn't working. Enter the "Post-modern" era. Postmodernism denies definition. There is no overarching truth, no boundaries, no limits. It is "New Age" and "Mother Earth" and "can't we all just get along" philosophies. And we should be able to get along under this view ... because nothing is true, real, or defined in itself. Modernism believed in cause and effect; postmodernism believed in chance. Modernism preferred in-depth analysis; postmodernism sees no point. Modernism liked Natural Law; postmodernism tends pure moral relativism.

It seems obvious that a view that says "there is no truth" can't stand because it has just made a truth claim. It would seem clear that a view that argues "our view means there are no definitions" has just made a definition, a pure contradiction to the view. It would seem as if any thinking person would look at postmodernism, blink their eyes, and conclude, "How in the world could anyone hold to such nonsense?" But ... they don't. Instead, this nonsense rules our current culture.

We all used to believe (and, I think, still do, even if we don't admit it) that things have purpose. What there is, what we are, what we do, everything has a purpose. It isn't merely "there". Everything has an end, an aim. But today's postmodernism suggests otherwise. Things are nothing in themselves. They only have the value and purpose that we give them. And you may not give them the same that I do. I would contend that the Bible argues for the former while our current culture for the latter.

Take, for instance, marriage. Is marriage only of whatever value an individual places on it, or is there a natural, intrinsic purpose? We would say there is a built in purpose. Take sex. Is that whatever you make of it, or is there a natural purpose that we're ignoring?

I'm just using a couple of quick, quite obvious examples. When you think about it, though, a large chunk of today's society has decided that a large chunk of reality is purely relative in value. Does work have a purpose, or is it what you make it? Is money whatever you make of it, or does it have an aim, an end, a goal? When you go down this path, I think, you'll start to see that 1) the biblical view places purpose on everything while the world's view makes everything relative, and 2) the consequences of "no intrinsic purpose"--no natural reason--is almost always sin.

Fat Shepherds

This is a striking passage in Ezekiel. It's addressed to "the shepherds of Israel", but I don't think it's very much of a stretch to read it with the New Testament "shepherd" concept in mind (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Peter 5:1-4).

"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them."'" (Ezek 34:2-6)

The problem: shepherds who feed themselves rather than tend the flock.

The accusation: "You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock." Talk about "fleecing the flock". They clothe themselves with the wool of the flock. More, they fail to strengthen or heal or bind up or gather the scattered.

There is good news in this.

"'Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.' For thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day.'" (Ezek 34:10-12)

Yes, it's bad. The shepherds are failing the sheep. They're devouring their resources and giving nothing back in return. They're banking on the "Do not muzzle the ox" (1 Cor 9:9) line and living out the "wolves among the sheep" (Acts 20:29) line.

The Bible warns repeatedly that "from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30) John warns that antichrists will come from "us" (1 John 2:18-20). Not a question. A certainty. Jesus warned, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1) So, three points.

First, it has come and will come and is here now. Fat shepherds feeding off the sheep rather than feeding them. They have nice, big churches and wear expensive clothes and drive expensive cars ... and their flock goes hungry, especially spiritually (Heb 5:11-14). Antichrists are among us, leading astray (1 Cor 11:3-4) and deceiving (1 John 2:26; Rom 16:18; Eph 5:6). "Among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:6-7) Look for it Expect it. Be ready for it. And don't be deceived by it. The flock is scattered partly because of bad shepherds. Seek, instead, to be fed.

Second, for the shepherds, don't be that shepherd. God doesn't have warm thoughts toward or nice things to say about these shepherds. Don't be one of them.

Finally, for the flock, remember Who it is you can trust to take care of the sheep. Don't give up hope or faith because of the wolves and bad shepherds and antichrists among us. God will take care of them. And He'll tend to us.

Appeal to How I Feel

Forget about logic. Never mind about evidence. Don't bother with reasoning. It's all in the presentation. Or didn't you know that?

In a speech last Saturday the president told us, "There's no greater threat to our planet than climate change." Now, of course, there were no facts or evidence. And, really, I'm not sure we would reasonably expect there to be. No reasoning, either, and that's always a shame. No, here was his tactic. "The world's top climate scientists are warning us that changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe." Do you see how that works? It's not "the air we breathe". It's not "and here's how." It's "our kids". Because you might care about yourself, but who doesn't care about the children?!

Without even addressing the question of climate change, I'm just pointing out that this is the tactic of the day. Do not say, "Here's why marriage should be redefined and here's what it should be redefined to." Cry "Equality!" and "Freedom!" and "Love!" Don't explain why those who believe marriage should remain with its current definition are wrong. Point fingers and respond with, "Hater!" and "Anti-gay!" and "Homophobe!" and "Bigot!" Because a good ad hominem always trumps clear thinking.

Oh, don't think I'm pointing fingers at "those folk". "We" do it, too. We will use the "sodomite" label or the "evil" moniker. Sometimes we think "pagan" is helpful or just "immoral" is enough. And while any of it might potentially be accurate, we do it not as an explanation of the point, but as a pejorative, a disparaging remark without the force of reason or explanation.

It's not a very friendly place for people attempting to reason these days. The only good argument is a non-argument with an emotional epithet. I'm told that it's not good to tell your kids, "Do what I say because I said so," but that's what we're using today as our best approach. "You're wrong because I say you're a jerk." "Oh, yeah? So's your ol' man." Is that the best we can do?

Still Not Getting It

So, you've probably heard. Megan Huntsman, a Utah woman, pleaded guilty to six postpartum abortions. She did it, she said, to spare them from being raised by a meth-addict mother and inheriting their mother's problems. And this, apparently, is a crime.

It is a crime to kill babies in the womb according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, unless, of course, the mother wants to. Because that makes sense. But if a woman with the same motivations as these pre-birth abortions kills her newborns, it is murder. And that makes sense ... how?

Look, I'm not making a call here. "This is right and that is wrong." I'm saying, "Make sense!" Because this doesn't. Never has. And in a society quickly and consciously distancing itself from the Lawgiver, it never will. Either human life has value or it does not. If it does, its location in the birth process does not matter. If it does not, murder does not matter. Of course, if chimpanzees are granted status of "legal persons" (and the unborn are not), then humans are not of particular value and you can all do as you please. If you're going to make this stuff up yourself, America, make a choice here.

Swimming Upstream

You'd think it would be easy. We have one message--the Gospel. We have one story--Christ crucified. Every religion on the planet offers, "Be good and get to a better place," but we have something different to say. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9) Wow! What a difference! What a message! No other religion offers a message like that. Clear. Straightforward. Simple.

So why is it that so many don't seem to get it? Talk to most people and they'll tell you that being a Christian is being good. "Murderers don't get to heaven," they'll tell you because everyone knows that sinners don't go to heaven but good people do. They'll hold up signs about gays going to Hell or they'll warn their friends that suicide is a one-way ticket to perdition. Talk to unbelievers and that's what they think. Talk to Christians and that's what a lot of them think. They'll affirm "saved by faith" on one hand and then assure you on the other that it's a matter of earning your salvation. Oh, my, no, they won't use those words. But that's what it boils down to.

After awhile I begin to realize that I'm swimming upstream against a powerful current. Both proponents and opponents are telling me that Christianity is just another morality code. I can sit down with someone, spell out the Gospel step by step, clearly and without equivocation, absolutely denying "saved by works" and holding firmly and constantly to "saved by faith", and they'll nod and tell me things like, "I'm trying." Trying? What does that mean? How do you try? You believe, or you do not. You place your confidence in Christ, or you do not. It isn't something that can be tried.

Now, of course, I get some of the confusion. In the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46), Jesus tells of the nations gathered in judgment. There are two groups--the sheep and the goats. The sheep are those who cared about Christ by caring about people and the goats are those who ... did not. Sheep are welcomed into His presence, and goats are sent to eternal punishment. What is the difference between the two? One well-known Christian said it was "what they did or didn't do." And there you are ... a "saved by works" gospel. But I say that the difference between the sheep and the goats was that sheep are sheep and goats are goats. The sheep acted according to their character, and the goats according to theirs. Look, "sheep" is not defined as "a furry thing that is a sheep if it is well-behaved or a goat if it is not." That's not how it works.

So when you hear those well-meaning but confused folk who are trying to tell you, "Works have nothing to do with it," you can be sure that they're missing the message. The one born of God assaults sin in his or her life because we have the seed of God (1 John 3:9). We change because it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:13). Because we love Christ, we seek to obey His commandments (John 14:15). Faith produces works (James 2:20). So I get the confusion. There are works involved. Just not works for salvation.

Getting that across seems to be more difficult than I could imagine. The glorious good news of "Saved by grace through faith" seems to fall on deaf ears. The wonderful "It is God who is at work in you" seems to confuse rather than clarify. And I'm not sure what to do.

Jesus spoke of three kinds of people (Matt 11:15). There are, first, two types. Some have "ears" and some don't. Spiritual ears, of course. But of those who have "ears", some hear and some don't. Statistically, then, it's a rather small number who 1) have ears and 2) hear. Or, as Jesus put it, "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt 7:14) So I want to be careful. I want to tell people--Christians and not--that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith. And I need to remember that a large number won't hear it. No amount of wisdom, reason, logic, evidence, or cogent presentation is going to get that across. Blinded by the god of this world, they're just not going to see it. So I'll do my best to make it clear and count on the One who can wake the dead (Eph 2:4-7) to get it across when He plans to do so. Because most of the time I'm just swimming against the current.

Now This is Living!

The Bible tells us that the world is blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). Is it any wonder, then, that this world would turn out strategies for living that feel right, perhaps, but are, in fact, completely wrong?

Take, for instance, the whole "self-esteem" thing. Seems good, but as it turns out God describes us as "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1), "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7), and futile in speculation and darkened in heart (Rom 1:21). Well, now, that doesn't seem ... esteemable. (Okay, I made that word up. You know what I mean). Instead of "self-esteem" we are called to not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think (Rom 12:3). James writes, "Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you." (James 4:9-10) Not quite "self-esteem", is it?

That's just an example. We are surrounded by many others. We know, for instance, that we all are seeking a "soul mate", but the Bible commands us to love regardless of our feelings. We are told to "follow your heart", but God says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) Time and time again the wisdom of this world turns out to be in direct contradiction to God's Word.

One that is patently obvious and still patently wrong is this whole "live life to the fullest" thing. While it sounds wise, what we read in the Word is something different.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (Col 3:5)

If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Rom 8:13)

It is impossible to lay "live life to the fullest" alongside "I die daily!" (1 Cor 15:31) and make sense of it. Because, you see, God's wisdom is not ours. As it turns out the abundant life that Jesus promised (John 10:10) starts with a cross (Luke 9:23). Yes, it is an abundant life. It just may not look like it from the world's standpoint.

Do you want a full, robust, abundant life? Well, of course you do. Who doesn't? That begins with dying to yourself and is maintained by dying to yourself and is the ultimate victory. But just try to explain that to the world.

The Good News

Easter was just a couple of weeks ago. I have an admission to make. I'm not a big "go to church on Easter" fan. I mean, look, you know how that's going to go. "Invite your friends! Bring a crowd! We'll present the Gospel." Because, of course, Easter and Christmas are the two "big days" for churches and it only makes sense that you take your best shot at all these people who come in just once or twice a year. And, to tell you the truth, I've heard it already. I know the Gospel. You're not going to tell me something new.

But then I thought about it. Paul classified himself as "an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1). He told the Corinthians, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." (1 Cor 1:17) I mean, seriously, Paul ... you couldn't at least use cleverness of speech? Just ... the gospel? Yes, just the gospel. Very clear. Very concise. "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2) Very simple. He gives his gospel presentation in the 15th chapter of his epistle to the church at Corinth.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor 15:1-8)

Not a lot there, is it? Christ crucified and resurrected. The gospel.

And I begin to realize that there is no such thing as "I know the Gospel" or "heard it too much." It is, as a matter of fact, our primary message (Mark 16:15). All that stuff about theology and doctrine, about the reliability of the Word and the Sovereignty of God and all that ... it's good stuff, sure, but it's all secondary. And when I start to lose interest in the Gospel because I think "I know the Gospel" or "I've heard it too much", then I am loosing myself from the fundamental moorings of Christianity.

It is embarrassing that so many Christians don't know the Gospel. They can't articulate it. That's sad. Because it was Christ's first concern. But equally sad is the Christian who find himself bored with it. Because it's was Christ's first concern, and because it's Good News. Kind of like the kid who says, "Disneyland is boring", which says more about the kid than the place. There is no better news than Christ crucified and resurrected. Indeed, that's why we meet every Sunday.

Not Getting It

Not connected but still confusing ...

Schrödinger's Cat

You may not have heard of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Schrödinger was actually discussing a whole "atomic decay"/"quantum system" question, but it has decayed since then. Here's the idea.

A cat is placed in a steel box along with a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, a hammer, and a radioactive substance. When the radioactive substance decays, the Geiger detects it and triggers the hammer to release the poison, which subsequently kills the cat. The radioactive decay is a random process, and there is no way to predict when it will happen. Physicists say the atom exists in a state known as a superposition—both decayed and not decayed at the same time.

Until the box is opened, an observer doesn't know whether the cat is alive or dead—because the cat's fate is intrinsically tied to whether or not the atom has decayed and the cat would be living and dead ... in equal parts until it is observed.

That's the idea. Until you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead. The cat is not alive or dead until you open the box.

Mindless as that may seem, we seem to have arrived at Schrödinger's Gender when it comes to your kids. Until you "open the box" (find out what they feel), you can't know what gender they will be. No, checking their body parts will not do. Until they decide, they are both male and female. Or neither. Either or both will work.

Just as incoherent as Schrödinger's both-dead-and-alive cat.

Tragedy

This week a youth pastor, his wife, and their baby were killed when a large concrete slab fell on their pickup truck. "It's a tragic event," their pastor said. "In the blink of an eye, inhale and exhale, and they're in the presence of God."

I'm not getting it. What in the mind of a Christian pastor is the "tragic event" in passing from this life in a blink of an eye into the presence of God?

Killing? Bad. No, Good.

Ardent anti-theist Ricky Gervais tweeted a photo of hunter Rebecca Francis next to a giraffe she had shot in Africa. Facebook and Twitter have exploded with death threats for the hunter because, as we all know, it's wrong to kill a giraffe, but perfectly good to murder a person. We know that because there is no God and ... oh, wait ... ^[1]

Decapitalism

April 15th was both tax day and "Fight for 15" day on which "fast food workers walked off the job in 230 cities, staging the largest-ever strike in their movement aimed at a $15 minimum wage and the right to form a union." This is because times have changed. Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. In America, now, we have some sort of new economic system where a country's trade and industry are controlled by workers for the primary function of providing a living wage. What? You think you need to go out of business because you can't pay them? Well, don't you dare! Dirty capitalist.

So much about this I don't get. I don't understand where the money is supposed to come from. It's not coming from the CEO's. Most of these places are franchises owned by small-time owners making enough to get by. They aren't paying a lot because they aren't making a lot. I don't understand when it became the function of all businesses to "provide a living wage" instead of earning money. I don't understand this theory of economics that says, "Money exists somewhere and I want my share" without any hint of where it will come from. So much I'm not getting.
________

^[1] Because, of course, the only means by which we can consider humans as more valuable than animals or either of any value at all is if we have a Creator who determines it. The materialism of the anti-theist offers no basis for such a valuation, either of the animal or the human.

Legacy

I enjoyed reading Ray Ortlund Jr's article, A Legacy Worth Leaving, about his father, Ray Ortlund. I had the privilege of being part of Ortlund Sr's church in my youth and appreciated his son's sharing. I even followed the link to an earlier piece on the same subject of his father's legacy from his son, Dane Ortlund. Good stuff.

Of course, as you might expect, it got me to thinking about my legacy. What am I leaving behind for my wife and children?

I'm not too concerned about "stuff". I don't think I'm doing them any great favors by leaving behind lots of "stuff". I tried not to endow them with a love of "stuff", so while that may be a common legacy people hope to leave behind, it's not mine. What then?

I have to start with the important matters. Oddly, it seems like we rarely start there. I want my legacy to be to pass on to my wife and children the important matters. The problem is that we tend to have faulty values here. We tend to think, "What's important to me?" rather than "What is important to God?" So when I boil this down--What legacy do I want to leave?--it has to be the question, "Are my values God's values?"

God's Number One value is pretty clear. "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31). (See also Matt 5:16; Rom 3:23; Eph 1:5-6; Eph 1:11-12; Eph 1:13-14; Psa 19:1; Rom 1:22-23; Rom 15:7; Phil 2:10-11; Rev 21:10-11; Heb 1:3 ... well you get the idea.) Everything is about His glory. Nothing is as important as the manifestation and magnification of His glory. So ... is that true for me? Is that what I believe? Is that what I think? Is that how I act? How I live? Is that what others will say about me? "He lived to the glory of God."

Our number one calling in this "glory of God" plan is to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20) Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. Make disciples (not merely converts), baptizing and teaching them. The "Great Commission." Does that describe my life? Is that what I live to do? Do people see that in me?

We have one law: love. It starts with loving God and flows naturally to loving our neighbor. "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:37-40) Do these characterize my life? Do people say of me, "He sure loves God and his neighbor"?

I also have some specific callings. For instance, wives are not, but husbands are called to "love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:25-27) Seriously? Is my life with my wife characterized by this supremely sacrificial love and by the cleansing of the washing of water with the Word? It's not a complicated command, not a difficult to understand instruction. Does it characterize my relationship with my wife? Am I teaching my grown kids by my example that this is how a husband should be?

I don't know about you, but these examples aren't helping me much. I am not in the least satisfied with the legacy I'm leaving. I do not devote enough attention to the glory of God, sufficient effort in making disciples, not even remotely enough time loving God or those around me, or enough of my life to loving my wife. And I'm just standing at four examples of what God wants me to leave behind. Seems as if I should be working a lot harder at this, doesn't it? I think so.

Transgender

Last week President Obama came out of the closet against 'conversion therapy' in a statement supporting "Leelah's Law". The law is the product of a White House petition started to "ban the practice known as ‘conversion therapy’ and name the bill in honor of Leelah Alcorn."

You may not remember "Leelah Alcorn". Joshua Alcorn was the teenager who identified himself as a girl (calling himself "Leelah"). Raised in a "conservative Christian household", he told his parents at the age of 14 that he was a girl and was denied the request to undergo transition. His parents sent him to "conversion therapy" in order to try to "fix" him. Instead, he stepped onto a busy highway and died. His suicide note ended with "My death needs to mean something ... Fix society. Please." The "fix" is to ban "conversion therapy", to normalize abnormality, and to put an end to anyone who thinks otherwise ... by force of law.

I am not writing this in support of "conversion therapy". As I've said before, I don't believe Christianity is about converting homosexuals to heterosexuals. It's not about moral health or mental health. It's about making dead people into living people. And Christianity isn't about being moral. That's a product, not an aim. And it is only accomplished by "God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure", so trying to make bad people into good people before coming to Christ is not part of the scheme.

I'm writing this because I'm wondering if genuine, Bible-believing Christians have thought this through. We are being told--mandated--to drop our beliefs in the sanctity of marriage, in the morality of sex within marriage, and now in our argument that transgender is wrong. Are you ready for this? Are churches ready for this? Here's what I'm asking. Have you thought this through?

Here, let me give you some things to examine. There are, for instance, those who argue, "Transgender is a sin." Why? What is your Scriptural basis? Figure that out^[1]. There are those who say, "God doesn't make mistakes." So what does that mean? Based on that perspective, it's wrong to change genders (no one can change sexes^[2]), but is it not, then, just as wrong to change hair color or other physical conditions? (Note: I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm asking you to think it through.) There are those who argue that "we need to make our churches places where transgender people feel comfortable being among us." Based on what? Should we? This whole "transgender" thing hangs on other issues as well. Are the genders "equal", or are they simply "of equal value"? One answer gives you egalitarianism in which there is no distinction in genders and the other gives you complementarianism where the differences in genders complement (not compliment) each other. If you're of the opinion that there is no distinction in genders, then you have very little to stand on regarding the transgender issue (and, in fact, you'll likely see it as a non-issue). It comes down to a whole "Are men men and are women women, or are there important, God-given distinctions?" and "What are they?" and, more importantly, why do you say so?

Biblical Christianity has been steamrolled on the whole "homosexual" to "gay marriage" thing. Transgender is simply the next big thing. And if you haven't thought it through, you'll likely get overrun ... again. We don't want to be left standing around saying "Ew, that's nasty" without any substantive reasons, biblical or otherwise. I'm not suggesting it will make a difference. I'm just saying that you need to be ready. Our churches need to be ready. The wave is upon us.
________

^[1] Scripture for consideration:
The problem of the human heart: Jer 17:9; Rom 1:21,28; Rom 12:2
The question of gender: Gen 1:27;Deut 22:5; Psa 139:13-16; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 14:40

^[2] Remember, "sex" refers to the physical conditions--"XX" or "XY" chromosomes, bone structure, and other physical distinctives between man and woman--and "gender" refers to "masculine" and "feminine"--those traits and characteristics associated with male and female.

Just Like Every Other

Why, do you suppose, people are so anxious to tell me what I do and don't believe?

"You worship an evil deity." Very popular from more than one direction. The atheist likes to throw that one out because God hasn't cancelled out all bad things. But the anti-Reformed folk will also throw it at me because I believe in a Sovereign God. The problem with the accusation is two-fold. First, it's not true. Second, there is no possible response. Why? Because the only response is "God" and that won't due. I say God by definition is good, and they've already labeled Him "evil", so it's pointless. I say that whatever God does is good, and they've already labeled Him "evil", so it's pointless. I say that humans are by nature sinful and wouldn't know a good God if He sent His Son to die for them, and they've already labeled Him "evil", so it's pointless. But the truth is it's not true--neither from the anti-theist position or the anti-Sovereign position.

"You don't believe the Bible teaches you what you should do. I mean, you don't abide by haircut and slavery rules, do you?" Again, actual accusations. Again, completely amiss. I've explained what I think about the biblical teaching on haircuts (and how it doesn't mean "God commands you to cut your hair a certain way") and I've explained how I understand biblical teaching on slavery (as in "not the same thing"). This is not to say "The Bible is wrong on these points" because I don't believe it is and this is not to say "But we've figured out a better way" because I don't believe we have. I'm saying that it doesn't say what they say it says when you read the text in context. My rule, then, is to follow what it says. So I do believe the Bible teaches me what to do and that doesn't include the necessity of keeping slaves or not cutting the corners of my hair.

"You are anti-women!" Really? This is most often, amazingly enough, from those who are intent on making women more like men in their drive to make us all "equal". It is the error of equivocation, confusing "equality" with "equal in value", "equal in substance", and "the same". So I'm "anti-women" because I believe the Scriptures teach me that women should be honored, respected as joint heirs (1 Peter 3:7), loved sacrificially (Eph 5:28). Seems problematic to me.

"You Christians believe that gays should get the death penalty!" Yes, I've actually heard that. No, I don't actually believe it. I would suppose that there are people out there--even people who call themselves "Christians"--who would argue that they should. I don't. I don't see a biblical demand for it. (The commands for that were to the nation of Israel when it was a theocracy, not to believers in general whenever and wherever they happen to be.) So, they tell me I believe that and I certainly do not.

"You are anti-gay." Well, now, that one takes some examination, doesn't it? Am I opposed to people with desires for sexual relations with the same gender? And that would require further examination. What do you mean by "opposed"? I don't find in my Bible anywhere that tells me that I need to regulate the sins of humanity. I'm not supposed to participate, and I'm certainly supposed to make them aware that they have a sin problem and the answer is in Christ, but nothing at all about stopping anyone from their sinful practices ... whatever they may be. So in what sense am I "opposed"? I think it's a sin. That's it. Those who act on those desires are committing a sin in the same way that I commit a sin when I act on my sinful desires ... to which I'm opposed as well and in the same way. "Well," they will counter, "you're opposed to gay marriage! That's anti-gay." Again, I think you're mistaken. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm opposed to gay mirage. That is, "marriage" has a meaning and "two people of the same gender who love each other" doesn't fall inside that definition. If you are a person who experiences same-sex attraction and wish to marry someone of the opposite sex (because "opposite sex" is part of the definition of "marry"), I'm all for it. "Well, you discriminate based on being gay." In what sense? I "discriminate" between red and blue. "Discriminate" means to differentiate. I differentiate between sexual sin (sex outside of marriage) and moral sexual relations (sex inside of marriage). I don't "discriminate" in the sense of making unjust treatment of people based on their sin.

And so it goes. There are so many bad examples of "Christian" out there. There is the entirely non-Christian Westboro Baptist folks who make unbiblical claims with unbiblical approaches calling themselves "Christians" and I get saddled with their error which I abhor. There are books from "good Christians" that assure us that if we are good enough, we can get to heaven which I find in absolute contradiction to the Scriptures and yet I get to wear that error because I'm a Christian. There are folks labeling themselves "Christian" who call for executing homosexuals and folks labeling themselves "Christian" who call for the end to "all this foolishness about biblical infallibility", and that, too, gets laid to my account. None of this falls in my understanding of what "Christian" means or entails.

So, do yourself a favor. Don't assume that because I'm "American" I'm like every other American you've ever met. Don't assume that because I'm a man, I'm just like every other man you've ever known. Don't assume that because I'm a Christian or a Calvinist or religious at all, I'm just like every one of those you've ever known. I think you'll find distinctives that don't match your stereotypes. If you want to know what I believe, find out, don't assume. I suspect you might be surprised more often than you might have thought. At least, that what people who have been courteous enough to do so have told me.

Owned

God told Moses, "All the earth is mine." (Exo 19:5) God says, "Every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are Mine." (Psa 50:10-12) Paul says, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36) God starts to sound like a kid who hasn't learned to share ... except that it is all His. A fundamental difference.

Authority seems to be a problem with us. It's largely us Americans, of course, beginning with "No sovereign" back in the Revolutionary War, receiving a huge boost in the "question authority" crowd of the '60's, and continuing to this extreme version today. We just don't like authority. But ownership is something else. We despise that concept. I remember being in a Sunday School class reading the very first verse in Philippians where Paul refers to himself and Timothy as "slaves of Jesus Christ". Members of this class--good Christians, one and all--looked up and said, "We're not slaves." Because "slave" suggests "ownership" and if there is anything we are it's free. But God says, "All the earth is mine." How do we fit these together?

Well, we don't. The simple truth is we are all slaves. We might be slaves to righteousness or slaves to sin (Rom 6:16), but we're all slaves. And the truth is that we're all owned. That is offensive to people in general and Americans in particular, but that doesn't make it any less true. "The world and its fullness are Mine."

The thing is if you get this into your head and realize that it's true and right (Doesn't the Creator have the rights to ownership?), it answers some very sticky questions. Like, "How could God allow unpleasant things to happen to people?" Well, He's the owner. He can do with His property what He pleases. Or, "Why does God save some and not others?" Same answer. "How could God create billions of people whom He knows will be going to Hell?" Same answer. But Paul says, "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21) Don't gloss over the question. Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

No, of course we don't like that. We are, after all, prone to serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Defy His authority? You bet. Kick against His ownership? Absolutely! Because "I will be like the Most High." Not a wise position to take. If we are truly His followers, we would rejoice in the notion that "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever." Do you?