Changing Minds

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

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

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

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

Thus Saith the Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12-Step Christianity

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

Easy -- One Thing

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

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

Marriage

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

Parenthood

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

Church

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

Conclusion

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

Keeping the Law

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

Valid question

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

We are not under the Law

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

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

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

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

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

The New Covenant

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

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

Recap

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

Defending Inerrancy ... Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejoice!

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

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

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

Rejoice always (1 Thess 5:16)

Starting to see a trend?

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

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

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

The Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Supernatural

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

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

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

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

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

Just a couple of examples.

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

The Joy of Pain

Much of our lives are spent in avoiding pain and finding pleasure. I'd venture to guess that most of our lives is spent in those two pursuits. Our two primary questions in life are "What gives me pleasure?" (so that I can pursue that) and "What causes me pain?" (to be sure not to do that). Given the amount of time, money, and effort spent on these two things, it might strike you as odd that the Bible takes a very different point of view on it.

According to Scripture, suffering is not a bad thing. After his sufferings, Job said, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." (Job 13:15) But that's more of an enduring of suffering rather than an embrace. No, Paul said, "I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:10) Now, who do you know who speaks of being "well content" with distress and persecutions? Paul did. James said we are to "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4) That is, real benefit can be found in trials.

In his first epistle, Peter writes about the blessings we have in Christ. He ends that section with "In this you greatly rejoice," which is fine, except that he didn't end the thought there. Sure you greatly rejoice in the marvelous blessings "even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials." (1 Peter 1:6) Oh, now, see? Trials hurt. Suffering is something to be endured. But wait! Peter gives us a reason for the distress. He says it is "so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1:7) Who is it that knows Christ and His blessings and does not want to obtain proof of faith and give praise and glory and honor to Christ? Indeed, Peter says that our sufferings are a revelation of Christ.

Philip Yancey wrote a book entitled Pain: The Gift Nobody Wants. Ain't it the truth? But when the apostles were beaten for preaching the Gospel, their response was not the response of the typical American Christian. "They went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name." (Acts 5:41) You see, they did consider it a gift to suffer for Christ. James did consider it beneficial to endure trials. Paul did find it a positive to suffer weakness and insults and distresses and persecutions and difficulties. The question, then, is will you and I?

The Testimony of the Martyr

It is said that one of the key proofs of the truth of Christianity is her martyrs. I mean, large numbers of people have given their lives for their faith, beginning with every single Apostle except John. It sounds impressive, perhaps even convincing, but given the counter question, you might see the problem. "What about the Muslims? Those pilots that flew airplanes into buildings and the suicide bombers who gave their lives for their faith? Does that mean that Islam is just as true?"

You can see, then, that we need to be more careful when we say that those who gave their life for the faith demonstrate the truth of it. On the surface, the claim isn't accurate. Only when you look a little more carefully will it work.

There is a fundamental difference between a suicide bomber and the Apostles who died for their faith. The key difference is their faith. That is, both died for what they believed to be true, but there they diverge. A long history of Christians gave their lives for their faith as have Muslims for their faith, but the Apostles are a different story. On the surface, it looks the same. They gave their lives for what they believed, but what did they believe? That is the difference. Later Christians and current Muslim suicides gave their lives for a belief system. The Apostles, on the other hand, gave their lives for a truth claim -- a verifiable, testable, falsifiable, empirical truth claim. Peter wrote, "We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16) Paul wrote, "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me." (1 Cor 15:3-8) Notice the list of truth claims here. In effect, Paul is saying, "Don't believe me about the Resurrection? Ask Peter. Ask the other Apostles. Ask those other 500 or so. Ask James. No, really, ask James, the brother of Christ who wasn't even a believer when Christ died. Hey, look at me! I was an enemy of Christ, but I'm an eyewitness myself."

The skeptic would like you to believe that it's a matter of faith against reason. It is, indeed, a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief and where you place your confidence. No doubt. (Play on words, there.) But the Resurrection is attested by eyewitness accounts from people who were either complete idiots making up an outlandish story for which they died without the good sense to recant before being put to death -- "Okay, okay, you got me. It was just a story. We were trying to put together what we thought was a good religion, but dying for a lie makes no sense at all." -- or their deaths for their truth claims itself is evidence that their faith was based on the truth. That is the fundamental difference between those particular martyrs for the faith and every other martyr for their faith. In that sense, these martyrs are compelling evidence for the truth of the Christian faith because they died for things they said they witnessed, not merely believed.

Coercing the Clergy

According to the Associated Press, "Georgia's governor on Monday vetoed legislation allowing clergy to refuse performing gay marriages and protecting people who refuse to attend the ceremonies, after an outcry and threats of boycotts from some large corporations and Hollywood stars." The move was all about "protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." (Just an idle question here ... has there been much discrimination against bisexuals? Never mind.)

As it stands now, with this veto, based on the text of HB 757, it is legal in the state of Georgia to require religious officials to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion (right from the text) and to infringe on the religious freedom of property owners of religious institutions or owners and employees of businesses. You may argue that religious freedom is protected, but the law, along with Coca-Cola, the NFL, other big-name companies, and prominent Hollywood figures and studios all appear to disagree with you.

The governor, a Republican, in vetoing a bill put out by the Republican-led legislature, said, "I do not respond very well to insults or to threats. The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will make sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion." By which he apparently means, "I do not respond very well to threats. I succumb to them." The governor said, "Georgia is a welcoming state; it is full of loving, kind and generous people." I assume that excludes welcoming people with religious convictions. Matt McTighe, executive director for Freedom for All Americans, said, "We thank Governor Deal for doing the right thing." I would guess that "Freedom for All Americans" necessarily excludes clergy or other people with religious convictions. These Christians are saying, "You may believe that it's right to change the definition of marriage, but I don't, so please exclude me from this." The loudest voices in response are saying, "No! You will agree with our view on this and forego your religious convictions -- even the clergy. Or suffer the consequences."

The Attitude of the Heart

In Eugene, OR, in 1957 the son of missionaries to India established the Institute of Church Growth. In 1965 Fuller Theological Seminary asked him to establish the School of World Mission. The Church Growth Movement was at hand. By 1975 people like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren were using classic marketing techniques to increase the sizes of their churches. "Growth," you know. The idea was to structure your church so that the maximum number of people would come. After all, our Lord commanded us to make disciples (Matt 28:18-20), so growth would surely happen, right?

There is, however, a distinct difference between "make disciples" and "grow churches". It might not be readily visible at the surface. If you "make disciples", it would necessarily follow that your numbers would increase (your church would grow). So it was good, right? You'd think so, but there is a difference.

The movement that was called "the Church Growth Movement" is gone, but left in its wake is the marketing of the church. So churches will try to figure out what techniques and methods will bring in the most people. Do people prefer rock bands or choirs? Pick whatever they prefer. Do people not like the term "Sunday School" but do like "Life Groups"? Change the name. Is it more interesting to put a video screen up than to simply preach? Opt for the screen. Stay with the market. Keep up to date. Churches are competing with other things like entertainment and football, so if they're going to keep their numbers up, they're going to have to provide things more interesting than their competition.

This, however, is not "make disciples". Making disciples is oriented not to numbers, but to teaching the truth and building personal relationships. The modern view of success is an accounting-driven method with metrics for evaluating performance. The modern view of "church" incorporates this view. Scripture ... does not.

The attitude called for by Jesus on the part of His disciples is, when you analyze it, radically different. It begins with "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matt 28:18) Notice that this precludes programs and metrics. We don't build the church. He does. Numbers are irrelevant. The command, instead, is to "make disciples of all the nations" (Matt 28:19), not "increase the numbers of people going to your local church." We can, certainly, do the latter without doing the former. I would submit that, in fact, we're very good at this, given the woeful lack of making disciples in most churches. The command is to teach them "to observe all that I commanded you." (Matt 28:20) Again, getting the people in the door is easy. But it seems as if pitifully few churches actually teach "most" let alone "all" of what disciples need to learn. (That, I believe, is a function of the marketing world as well. You need to teach to the lowest common denominator and "make it applicable" because people won't like it otherwise.)

I think that the marketing techniques of most churches in America today reflected in their architecture, modernizations, technology, musical choices, and minimizing of preaching the Word as deeply as they can is a direct result of this idea that we need to "grow the church" and that we can measure our success with this by counting heads. We have missed the point that Christ said He would build His church (compare Matt 16:18 with Acts 2:47, for instance). We have forgotten that we are to make disciples, not numbers, and that we are to teach them to observe all that Christ taught, not just the parts that will make them feel better. The difference between "make disciples" and "church growth" is in the attitude. One aims at the truth and maturing believers and the other aims at numbers. Most churches prefer the latter. The result is a spiritually fat, dumb, and happy group of people that may or may not be the church.

He's Alive!

Perhaps the singularly most important event in the life of Christ is the event we celebrate today -- the Resurrection. Perhaps.

We get that His birth (Matt 1:18), with His Father as God and His mother as the virgin, Mary, was important. It's uniqueness declared a unique event and a unique person. (The term the King James Bible translates "only begotten" is most literally "one of a kind". The μονογενής -- monogenēs -- is the one (mono) kind (genus), the Son of God.) His sinless life (Heb 4:15) was absolutely essential. The one that sins owes his own debt to God (Ezek 18:20); only the One who does not sin is capable of taking on the sin of others (2 Cor 5:21). It was absolutely critical that Christ die on the cross as the Lamb of God. In doing that He fulfilled the prophecies and took on your sin and mine. He bore our curse. No crucifixion, no salvation.

But the Resurrection ... well, imagine for a moment a NASA moon launch in the 60's. When the Apollo 13 capsule, crippled and critical, entered the Earth's atmosphere, both the ground crew and the astronauts had done everything they could to ensure a safe return. Still, when that communication blackout occurred (as it did on every reentry), there were tense moments waiting for a response. It actually was longer than anticipated. It was not until communication was regained that success was known. The same is true with the Resurrection. At that critical moment when the man, Jesus, was executed and buried, there was the (human) possibility that He had been a man who was executed or that He was, in fact, God the Son, taking on the sin of the world. Only when He rose as He predicted did we know which it was. It is said you can't keep a good man down. Since there is no good man but Christ, I suppose it is true.

Paul considered it "the gospel" (1 Cor 15:1), declaring, "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 15:3-8) (Isn't it interesting that Paul felt no compulsion to defend His death. It was His resurrection that required witnesses.) On the Resurrection Paul wrote:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor 15:13-21)

"If Christ was not raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." I think that qualifies as "singularly important". On the other hand, because He lives, we can be confident that He took our sin. Because He lives, we will live. Because He lives, death is overcome.

Maybe you're lackadaisical about Easter. You know, too much commercialism and candy and eggs. Okay, fine, but do not miss the event most worth celebrating -- the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the source of our hope, the point of our certainty. Hallelujah! The Lord is risen!

Anti-bias Bias

Have you heard this one? "You're biased, so your view doesn't count." I've heard it when "scholars" have questioned the use and validity of Scripture. "You know," they'll say, "the authors of the Gospels were biased, so we can't really take their word regarding the stories of Christ." I've heard it among Christians who say, "Don't listen to that theological position; they have their roots in Augustinian philosophy." I heard it recently when the American College of Pediatricians (ACP)¹ put out a report that says that trying to change the sex of a child is harmful to the child. "Oh, no," the detractors say, "that's a group with Judeo-Christian, traditional values, opposed to abortion and gay adoption and even overexposure to electronic media. You can't trust them." See? "You're biased, so your view doesn't count."

The ACP, for instance, made its first mistake in that report with its first claim. "Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: 'XY' and 'XX' are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder." Their premise was clearly faulty: "Facts — not ideology — determine reality." I mean, who thinks this way? What nonsense! Everyone knows that Christians cannot be trusted to present unbiased views on Christian matters and Christians in science cannot be trusted to make scientific comments on matters of science.

It is, of course, nonsense. The skeptic who claims that you can't trust the accounts from authors of the Gospels because of their bias is saying so from his bias. The Evolutionist who argues for Evolution is doing so from his bias. Sure, the Christian is arguing from his bias, but no one is not.

In terms of the news media, lots of people like to think that Fox is biased and CNN is not. (Feel free to fill in your favorite left or right media outlet for those two.) Rest assured, it is not so. It cannot be. Without bias, nothing happens. You are biased. I am biased. Everyone is biased. It is not bias that determines the truth or validity of the position. It is the truth or validity of the position that determines that.

Some of you might be tempted to follow that bad example. "Don't listen to them;" (where "them" may refer to the Christian right or the Christian left or the liberal media or the conservative media or whatever bias there might be) "You can't trust them." It is, to be sure, a convenient means of filtering truth claims where you don't have to evaluate them all, but it will certainly prove to eliminate truthful truth claims in one or more of these statements. Don't be lazy. Do the right thing. Even John said, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." (1 John 4:1)
________

¹ Wikipedia says that the ACP is "a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States." They split from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) over the issue of gay adoption, arguing that a mother and a father are healthier parents than two people of the same gender for the sake of the child. But on one discussion I saw regarding their statement, the argument was that because they are religious and conservative and hold views that are opposed to the popular culture, they are distorting science. For those keeping count, this is what is called an ad hominem argument, attacking the character of the presenter of an argument without engaging the argument.

Crucified

You've seen the pictures, I'm sure. Jesus on the cross is a familiar image. Except I doubt if the ones we see are very accurate.

Jesus's torment began in the Garden of Gethsemane. There He told His disciples, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me." (Matt 26:38) Getting off alone, He prayed to the Father, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matt 26:39) Luke (the physician) reports that His grief was so intense that "being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground." (Luke 22:44) The medical term is hematohidrosis where, under great stress, the blood vessels around the sweat glands can mix blood with sweat. Luke reports that so great was His distress there that "an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him." (Luke 22:43). And so it began.

He was on trial all night between Annas and the Sanhedrin. He was slapped and insulted. His close disciple, Peter, denied even knowing Him ... three times. In the morning He was sent to Pilate, then to Herod, then back to Pilate. He was whipped and beaten. The classic Roman whipping would have torn the flesh from His back. The beatings included fists and a crown of thorns, nail-like spikes that were driven into His head with sticks. They hit Him and pulled out His beard. They beat Him until His face was no longer recognizable as a man (Isa 50:6; Isa 52:14). Finally, they placed that rough-hewn cross piece on His torn and bleeding back and made Him carry it to His crucifixion. He was too weak to complete the job and someone else was pressed into service.

At Golgotha, they stripped Him of His clothing, laid Him on the cross, and drove spikes through His wrists and ankles. They lifted Him up, most likely naked, and displayed His humiliation and agony to all, placed between two thieves. To the Jew, Jesus stood cursed, hung on a tree. His torment would be unendurable to most of us. The usual cause of death in a crucifixion is not the beating or the nails, but asphyxiation. The body hangs with its weight on outstretched, nailed wrists and a spike through the ankles. In this position, breathing is impossible. In order to exhale, He would have to pull His body up on the spikes in wrists and ankles to give His lungs room to operate. (They broke their legs because that would cause faster asphyxiation.) The biblical accounts tell that Jesus spoke 7 times on the cross. Most of them were out of concern for others. In all of the torture, pain, and distress there is only one moment that Jesus is said to have cried out. That was the moment at which the Father laid on His perfect Son the sins of us all. At that moment Jesus's worst agony occurred and He cried, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46)

We don't actually know the horrors of the cross that Jesus faced for us. We get glimpses. The sweat as drops of blood, the all-night trial of an innocent, the beatings and whippings, the cruelty and hate, we can possibly get an idea of that. The crucifixion itself is not part of our experience, but we can imagine the nails, the agony, the physical and emotional torment. But that moment, that point in which the Son of God, in perfect connection with the Father, was separated from the Father ... that one isn't something that connects with our experience at all. And He did it for you and me.

We've seen the art. We know what it was like. Rest assured, it was nothing like that. And no painting or even Hollywood production can capture that moment when Christ bore our sin. It's something we must not forget.

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in His steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:21-24)

Going to Church

I'm going to use a phrase which, I'm pretty sure, will conjure up an image to most of you with reasonable similarity. "I went to church last Sunday." Okay, now, I'm pretty sure that most of you now have some sort of an image that involves a building, a sign on the front, maybe a cross or something, a place in which people gather. And if I were to tell you that phrase, that image would be fairly accurate.

Here's the thing. Nowhere in Scripture can you find anything remotely like that image associated with the word, "church". Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matt 16:18) I'm pretty sure that isn't a reference to a building program. At the death of Ananias and Sapphira Luke tells us, "And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things." (Acts 5:11) I'm confident that he wasn't talking about a frightened cathedral. Paul told the Ephesian elders, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28) I cannot picture these guys being asked to shepherd a building. No, "the church" in Scripture is not the building you think of first when you hear the term.

In the Bible the "church" refers to the Body of Christ (Rom 12:4-5). The word is ἐκκλησία -- ekklēsia. It refers to "the called out ones". The church is not a building or even a place, but people. The term refers to the elect, the people of God. We are called "the temple of God" (1 Cor 3:16) and the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:32). The church is us.

Suddenly, you see, the term takes on a new sense. Why go to church? Because we are the church. Why care about the church? Because we are the church. Why serve in the church? Because we are the church. In the New Testament the church met in houses (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15) and in places of worship. "Where" was not important. Because we are the church. So "church" becomes an investment in lives rather than a building in which we gather and worship. When we "go to church", the church arrives when we do and leaves when we do.

Is it okay to skip church? Not if fellowship means anything. Is it okay to just attend church? Not if "the called out ones", gifted by the Spirit, called by God means anything. Because, you see, the building you think of as church is not the church. We are. An allegiance to a building might be silly, but a failure to involve ourselves in the lives of fellow believers is sin.

Too Close for Comfort

She's crying. He hasn't been kind ... to her or to their children. He has been touchy and, consequently, both oversensitive and overbearing. The slightest offense causes him to lash out which simply serves to cause further offense. They're both Christians, mind you, who know the Lord, but times are tough, emotions are taut, and things aren't looking good.

Who does he go to who can cuff him behind the ear and ask, "What are you thinking? What's going on that is so bad that you're willing to drive away your family? What in your life is so bad that you choose to ignore every command from God about being a good father and a good husband?" Will she go to support structures that will encourage her to trust in the Lord and "be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior" (1 Peter 3:1-2), or will they encourage her to get out with her kids and "head for safety"? You know, "You gotta look out for yourself first."

The answers to those questions will likely depend on your underlying view. Do we go with the world's view, or do we take God's perspective? Unfortunately, for a large number of American Christians, the answer is the former rather than the latter. The Bible says that we are to "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another" (James 5:16). God's Word says we are to "Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal 6:2) That last one, in fact, is on the tails of the verse that says, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted." (Gal 6:1) Jesus told His disciples, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

So how did we get here from there? How did we end up in a largely electronically-connected world that will quickly "unfriend" you if you tell them they're doing something wrong and please, oh, please, don't get so close that you can see my flaws and address them? When did it become a good thing for Christians to walk alone, to violate God's commands and expect no help and no correction? When did this become a "tolerant and loving" thing to do? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that there was a time in the near past when something changed and we're here now. No, I'm pretty sure we've been like this probably since Adam. We're just more blatant today. We're independent Americans who don't need or want any help at least on spiritual or sin issues and we're better off standing on our own two feet ... while we drag down family and friends and the church itself.

I pray a lot for the church, for believers, for myself, because these things shouldn't be this way and I suspect only God can make it any different.

Make What?

When Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He left approximately 120 disciples (Acts 1:15) to do the task that He assigned them, that of being "My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:8) Oh, sure, they would have the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), but just on the face of it 120 versus the world seemed like a big job.

Well, of course, you know the story. In the very next event the disciples were in Jerusalem at Pentecost, received the Holy Spirit, and started sharing the Gospel in every tongue around (Acts 2:1-11). Peter had to explain that they were not drunk and we get Peter's first sermon. As a result of that sermon, the Scriptures say that "those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41) Okay, now we're talking some better numbers, right? I mean, 120 against the world is pretty slim, but 3,120 is much better.

What would have to happen in order to get these 3,000 extra converts up to speed in order to make them part of the job of being witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the remotest part of the earth? These converts would have to be "educated". They'd have to be taught, trained, matured, nurtured, unified. And how does that occur?

The end of the second chapter of Acts gives us the answer.

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47)

I have to be honest. This sounds wonderful. Imagine a church (meaning a gathering of "the called out ones") devoted to the apostles' teaching, to fellowship, to eating together, and to prayer. Imagine that! These people really engaged. They were marked by sincerity of heart, by sharing with each other, by praising God. And the result of this "program" (It's in quotes because no one arranged it; it just happened.) was that "the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47) More workers for the harvest.

Do you see anything different today? I have to say I do. Jesus gave us the Great Commission. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:19-20) Make disciples. Baptize them. Teach them "all that I commanded you." Make converts? Not on your life. Gather proselytes? Don't even think it. Make disciples.

To be sure, a lot of Christians today aren't particularly interested in preaching the Gospel (Mark 16:15). Shame on us. Many of us don't know how. Many don't care enough to find out how. But among the remainder who do know and do care to do it, how many are interested in making disciples? We don't even like to use the word anymore. We don't want to "disciple" someone. Maybe "mentor". That sounds less ... arrogant. But we don't like to do that, either. "Too much work." "Too much time." "I'm not mature enough myself." "We're too busy and too independent and it's clearly someone else's job." Shame on us!

We are commanded by Christ (you know, the One whose name is at the beginning of our term, Christian) to make disciples. We don't really want to make converts. We're pretty sure we're not going to make disciples. When the apostles did it in the first century church, the Word says one of the results was more disciples and another was "favor with all the people." (Acts 2:47) We wonder why the church today is so anemic. We wonder why so many of those outside of the church think of us as hypocrites. We wonder why the church is so culture-saturated instead of Scripture-saturated. We wonder why the church in America appears to be a river 5 miles wide and 1 inch deep. Maybe, just maybe, if we were being obedient to Christ's command to make disciples rather than converts, we'd see a different kind of church (Eph 4:11-16). Instead, we understand quite well why Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

Speaking for God

On more than one occasion by more than one person I've been accused or heard the accusation of "speaking for God". You know how that goes.

Christian: "You know, the Bible says that those who practice homosexual behavior won't inherit the kingdom of God."

Skeptic: "You need to be careful. You're making your own opinions out to be God's words."

Christian: "Umm, no, I'm just quoting the Bible."

Okay, maybe it's not "just quoting the Bible" all the time. It might be an extra step. Like reading, "There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) and concluding, "Jesus is the only way." You know, the exclusivity of faith in Christ. You see, it does not say, "Christianity is the only way to salvation", so concluding that is, well, just an opinion. Right? Or when Jesus gives the option of "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matt 19:4-6) or be a eunuch (Matt 19:12), we are not supposed to conclude that these are the only two choices? Either a man and a woman can marry for life or be celibate. You know, like the Church has understood it since the day He said it. But that's making my thoughts (read "the understanding of all of Christendom since the beginning") God's thoughts.

I'm trying to figure out what's being said here. When they complain that we read and feed back what the Bible says as true and call it "speaking for God", what are they saying? I can only think of a few things.

"I know what God thinks and that's not it."

This, of course, can't be what they're saying. I mean, that's just as arrogant as what they're decrying. Can't be it. Can it?

"I don't know what God thinks but that's not it."

This seems equally ludicrous. If you don't know what God thinks, you can't know what He doesn't think. You can't say with any certainty that this is not what He thinks.

"No one can know what God thinks."

Perhaps "know" is not the right word here. "Be sure"? "State with confidence"? It is, of course, an unprovable position. Isaiah didn't question it when he wrote, "The LORD says, 'I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." (Isa 45:6-7) "Now, now," they'd have to say, "don't be putting words in God's mouth." Paul didn't quibble when he wrote to the church at Corinth, "To the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband." (1 Cor 7:10) "Paul, Paul, who do you think you are? God?" Nor has most of Christendom had a problem with the plain texts of the Bible. It is God's Word. If it is clear, then, it is what God thinks, and saying so isn't putting my words into God's mouth.

Oddly enough, it appears that those who are complaining that a straightforward reading of Scripture -- reading it like it is written and taking it as it appears to mean -- is not a reasonable means of knowing what God thinks are pretty sure that they know what He thinks ... at least enough to know you're wrong. At least enough to know that you shouldn't be saying that you understand the passage or can draw reasonable and correct conclusions from it. They know that God wants you to be humble enough not to know if you know. Only in this day and age is embracing ignorance counted as humility.

First Concerns

It was quite a while in my Christian life before I saw this. English problems.

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.'" (Matt 6:7-9)

Most of us know this text from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. A lot of non-Christians know the Lord's Prayer. In it He teaches His disciples not to pray as the Gentiles do, but to pray "in this way". What way?

The Lord's Prayer (as it is classically known) starts with the proper address: "Our Father who is in heaven." Not some saint or any other useless address. The Father. In heaven. Over all. Good start.

Now, most of us think that the second phrase is part of the address. "Hallowed be Your name." "Yes, we know," they'll typically say. "That means His name is holy." See what I mean? English problems.

First, in English -- at least, in our culture -- a name is a term for something or someone. But in the culture of the time the name represented the person. It represented the power and the authority and the character of the person. Thus, the reference to "Your name" is a reference to all that God is.

But the real problem is in the language itself. The use of the term "hallowed" as well as the verb, "be", all combined with the poetic phrasing, tends to make us miss this. This phrase is not a statement of fact ("Your name is holy."), but actually a prayer request. That is, if the intent was to make a statement of fact, it would have read, "Hallowed is Your name." Thus, this is a request that God's name -- His character -- would be regarded as holy.

Of all the attributes of God, His holiness is on one hand the most intense, as demonstrated by the triple repetition of the term not once but twice in Scripture (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8) and by its repeated use throughout Scripture, and on the other the most difficult for us. Holiness is "otherness", and we are naturally afraid of "other". But God is "other." The psalmist quotes God as chiding us with "You thought that I was just like you." (Psa 50:21) Because we do think that and He is not. He is holy. When Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, were struck dead while performing their duties (Lev 10:1), Moses calmed Aaron by telling him, "It is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.'" (Lev 10:3) With that, Aaron kept silent. Because the holiness of God is over all.

We've tended to lower that bar, so to speak. Keep Him as holy? Well, sort of. Of course, using His name lightly as an expression of surprise or outrage is okay. And, of course, we're pretty sure He's not that "big scary guy in the sky", but more like "the big guy", our pal. We've eaten away at His holiness until it's largely just a shell. Brothers, these things ought not be.

Let's join Christ in praying that God's name -- God's character and person -- would be regarded as "holy, holy, holy." Only with God in His proper place can we properly know Him. And we want to know Him.