The short version is Christians have no rights.
None at all. Period. No human rights, no political rights, no social rights, no religious rights, no family rights. Nothing. Not even the right to heaven, itself.
As Christians, what we have are promises and responsibilities. The same is true of those not Christians, actually. But the secular world isn't supposed to have a clue. As Christians, we should know better.
This idea that won't set well with some people. It takes a little thought and a little getting used to, but when you look at it, it's clearly the Biblical view. It's just been corrupted by a society with such a strong sense of entitlement that the idea has bled into the Church as well.
We are slaves, bought and paid for, with no material difference between us and those in the American south – or those in the Roman Empire, to whom the Biblical concept actually refers. Who ever heard of a slave having rights?
"Wait," you say, "didn't Paul exercise his political rights in the Book of Acts?" He did. And Jesus pointed out to the Sanhedrin that his own rights were being violated. So how can I say we have no rights?
Paul exercised his rights when he called for the Philippian city leaders to come personally and let him out of jail. Had Paul allowed the Philippians to release him privately, as they wished, it would have branded Christianity as immoral and unethical, a criminal conspiracy deserving the condemnation of the courts, making further evangelism in that city difficult to impossible. Paul acted not for himself, but to further the mission for which God called him.
Later he used his Roman citizenship to keep from being scourged and to appeal his case to Caesar. But it was also Paul who said to be wronged, rather than press your civil case in court. Neither Paul nor Jesus ever tried to force the government to act legally toward them, and both died by the hand of the government in a complete abrogation of their "rights."
What does all this mean? Of course you can exercise the opportunities you have to influence the world for Christ, including what we think of as "political rights." Just understand that while we can use our political and social rights for the furtherance of God's will, we really can't demand them, and never for our personal benefit.
And when it comes to God, we can't demand anything at all. He owns us. We are His to do with as He pleases. We don't even have the right to go to heaven. We have God's promise that we will, but He is not obligated to promise us any such thing. He does it from His generosity.
If I promise you a dollar you didn't earn, then don't give it to you, I am a liar, but I have not denied you anything you have a right to. So it is with God. He is not a liar, of course, and we can depend on His promises, but that doesn't give us the right to anything, it gives us the hope of things we have no right to.
Our duty – and it should be our pleasure – is to live as God commands, under the circumstances He provides. In this time many are likely to lose jobs and businesses. I hope that doesn't happen, especially to my friends, but it is possible. If our relationship with God is truly servant/master, as it should be, nothing we lose can take away our joy at life or in Christ.
Luke 12:42-44, 22:54-71, Acts 16:14-40, 22:24-28, Romans 1:1, 3:24, 6:16-17,23, I Corinthians 3:5, 7:21-22, II Corinthians 7:4, 12:10, Ephesians 2:8-9, 6:5-7, Philippians 4:11
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Unchanging God
Is God different in the Old and New Testaments? Did He change between the two sections of the Bible? Is the Old Testament God a God of thunder and carnage while the New Testament God is a God whose only attributes are love, mercy and forgiveness?
Some people think so.
But the answer to all these questions is a loud and resounding no! God is completely unchanging and anything more than a cursory reading of the Bible makes that clear.
God says He is the same yesterday, today and forever. When God says something it's true and irrefutable, or He wouldn't be God. How could one who lacks the power to back up his own words create and control the universe?
So what about this Old Testament, New Testament thing?
God's love and redemptive power are on display throughout the Old Testament, beginning as early as creation and becoming really clear by the time of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Even in the middle of such carnage as the destruction of Jericho, God spared the life of Rahab and her family.
Some people assert that God struck down whole peoples seemingly for the "fun" of it, or to help the Israelites steal their land and property. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible makes it clear that in every case God gave those peoples opportunity after opportunity to seek after Him and turn from their wickedness, and they refused until God finally brought His justice to bear against them. That is completely within God's character.
Just so, God's justice is seen in the New Testament. Jesus warned the Jews that the direction they were taking as a nation would bring retribution upon them in their lifetime, and a few years after the crucifixtion the Romans destroyed their country and scattered them over the face of Europe, Asia and Africa.
Judas lost his life and was consigned to hell because his heart was never right. The same is true of the thief on the left hand cross, the Rich Young Ruler and many others. Ananias and Sapphira lost their lives, if not their souls, for the same reason.
One of the problems with religion in our society is that many want God to conform to their will, instead of the other way around. They try to limit the attributes of God to those they prefer, such as love, mercy and forgiveness.
But justice and discipline are also among God's attributes. All these facets of God were alive and well in both testaments, and remain so today. God is a loving, forgiving, merciful God. Accept the plan of salvation He sacrificed so much to offer you, do your best to live as He directs you, and you can expect to see His mercy and forgiveness, even when you momentarily fail.
Ignore His sacrifice and shun His ways and you can expect His wrath, judgment and discipline, just as certainly as those peoples in the Old Testament.
The real question is not whether God has changed. The real question is whether you will.
Genesis 1:26-28, 3:14-15, Exodus 23:23-24, 33, Numbers 23:19, 33:50-56, Joshua 6:17, I Samuel 15:29, Psalm 33:11, 102:27, Mark10:17-22, Luke 21:5-6, Acts 1:14-20, 5:1-10, Hebrews 13:8
Some people think so.
But the answer to all these questions is a loud and resounding no! God is completely unchanging and anything more than a cursory reading of the Bible makes that clear.
God says He is the same yesterday, today and forever. When God says something it's true and irrefutable, or He wouldn't be God. How could one who lacks the power to back up his own words create and control the universe?
So what about this Old Testament, New Testament thing?
God's love and redemptive power are on display throughout the Old Testament, beginning as early as creation and becoming really clear by the time of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Even in the middle of such carnage as the destruction of Jericho, God spared the life of Rahab and her family.
Some people assert that God struck down whole peoples seemingly for the "fun" of it, or to help the Israelites steal their land and property. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible makes it clear that in every case God gave those peoples opportunity after opportunity to seek after Him and turn from their wickedness, and they refused until God finally brought His justice to bear against them. That is completely within God's character.
Just so, God's justice is seen in the New Testament. Jesus warned the Jews that the direction they were taking as a nation would bring retribution upon them in their lifetime, and a few years after the crucifixtion the Romans destroyed their country and scattered them over the face of Europe, Asia and Africa.
Judas lost his life and was consigned to hell because his heart was never right. The same is true of the thief on the left hand cross, the Rich Young Ruler and many others. Ananias and Sapphira lost their lives, if not their souls, for the same reason.
One of the problems with religion in our society is that many want God to conform to their will, instead of the other way around. They try to limit the attributes of God to those they prefer, such as love, mercy and forgiveness.
But justice and discipline are also among God's attributes. All these facets of God were alive and well in both testaments, and remain so today. God is a loving, forgiving, merciful God. Accept the plan of salvation He sacrificed so much to offer you, do your best to live as He directs you, and you can expect to see His mercy and forgiveness, even when you momentarily fail.
Ignore His sacrifice and shun His ways and you can expect His wrath, judgment and discipline, just as certainly as those peoples in the Old Testament.
The real question is not whether God has changed. The real question is whether you will.
Genesis 1:26-28, 3:14-15, Exodus 23:23-24, 33, Numbers 23:19, 33:50-56, Joshua 6:17, I Samuel 15:29, Psalm 33:11, 102:27, Mark10:17-22, Luke 21:5-6, Acts 1:14-20, 5:1-10, Hebrews 13:8
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Choosing Your Own God
I would rather have titled this entry "The Fallacy of Choosing Your Own God," but that title didn't fit adequately in the allotted space, so please forgive if this one is misleading.
The idea for this blog came from an article I read last week in Slate. For those unfamiliar, Slate is an online magazine whose articles are often printed on MSN. It's very liberal and I normally don't read it, but occasionally I see something that catches my eye.
Such was the case last week when I saw an article by an atheist, touting the worth of reading the Bible. Giving the good before the bad, I was pleased and a little proud when he said his research showed the only religious group which routinely read the entire Bible was Evangelical Christians.
If he had stopped there everything would have been great, but of course he didn't. He went on to declare two things that, while I've heard them both before, always leave me shaking my head. The first was that he could not worship a God who would treat people as God had in the Old Testament. The second was that, essentially, God had changed between the Old and New Testaments.
The second of these assertions will be my next blog subject, but for today I wanted to deal with the idea that it's okay to pick and choose what God you serve.
The fallacy of that idea is so broad and so deep that, as I said above, it leaves me shaking my head in wonder. That people who think themselves intelligent could believe such a thing produces even more wonder.
First, every religion preaches exclusivity to some degree. Some, such as Buddhism, accomplish this by simply drawing everyone under their net, including Christianity and Islam, though both religions shudder at the thought. Others, such as many of the ancient or Native American religions, recognized other gods but not for their own people. In any case, no religion can afford to say "worship who you please, we're nothing special" for the obvious reason they would soon die out.
That, alone, seems to me to kill the idea of choosing a religion of convenience. It also makes it vitally important to find and worship the "right" god. Choosing wrong leaves you no better off than following no god at all. That being the case, it behooves every person to search the scriptures and make sure they are secure in the knowledge that God is really God. In the case of Christians, there is ample reason, though beyond the scope of this blog subject, to be satisfied on that score.
Beyond that, however, I want to address the idea of saying that you can't worship God unless He does things your way. I have even heard evangelical Christians say they couldn't worship a God who was not a loving God.
HELLO! PEOPLE!
You will worship God the way He says to worship Him, or not at all. If God demanded child sacrifice and pagan sex rituals, that's exactly what you would, and should, do. You don't get to pick and choose. God made you and, in the end, you have to answer to Him.
Thankfully, God is a God of love and does care for us. But if he didn't it would not matter, we still have to worship Him because He is God and He not only knows what is best, He decided what would be best. The only choice you have is to follow Him, as he commands, or not to follow him at all.
Exodus 20:3, Job 38-41, Acts 17:22-31
The idea for this blog came from an article I read last week in Slate. For those unfamiliar, Slate is an online magazine whose articles are often printed on MSN. It's very liberal and I normally don't read it, but occasionally I see something that catches my eye.
Such was the case last week when I saw an article by an atheist, touting the worth of reading the Bible. Giving the good before the bad, I was pleased and a little proud when he said his research showed the only religious group which routinely read the entire Bible was Evangelical Christians.
If he had stopped there everything would have been great, but of course he didn't. He went on to declare two things that, while I've heard them both before, always leave me shaking my head. The first was that he could not worship a God who would treat people as God had in the Old Testament. The second was that, essentially, God had changed between the Old and New Testaments.
The second of these assertions will be my next blog subject, but for today I wanted to deal with the idea that it's okay to pick and choose what God you serve.
The fallacy of that idea is so broad and so deep that, as I said above, it leaves me shaking my head in wonder. That people who think themselves intelligent could believe such a thing produces even more wonder.
First, every religion preaches exclusivity to some degree. Some, such as Buddhism, accomplish this by simply drawing everyone under their net, including Christianity and Islam, though both religions shudder at the thought. Others, such as many of the ancient or Native American religions, recognized other gods but not for their own people. In any case, no religion can afford to say "worship who you please, we're nothing special" for the obvious reason they would soon die out.
That, alone, seems to me to kill the idea of choosing a religion of convenience. It also makes it vitally important to find and worship the "right" god. Choosing wrong leaves you no better off than following no god at all. That being the case, it behooves every person to search the scriptures and make sure they are secure in the knowledge that God is really God. In the case of Christians, there is ample reason, though beyond the scope of this blog subject, to be satisfied on that score.
Beyond that, however, I want to address the idea of saying that you can't worship God unless He does things your way. I have even heard evangelical Christians say they couldn't worship a God who was not a loving God.
HELLO! PEOPLE!
You will worship God the way He says to worship Him, or not at all. If God demanded child sacrifice and pagan sex rituals, that's exactly what you would, and should, do. You don't get to pick and choose. God made you and, in the end, you have to answer to Him.
Thankfully, God is a God of love and does care for us. But if he didn't it would not matter, we still have to worship Him because He is God and He not only knows what is best, He decided what would be best. The only choice you have is to follow Him, as he commands, or not to follow him at all.
Exodus 20:3, Job 38-41, Acts 17:22-31
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Biblical View of Divorce
If it's hard to think about family without thinking about marriage, in today's society it is, unfortunately, equally hard to think about marriage without thinking about divorce. Divorce has become something of a guiltless sin. We gloss over it, ignore it and excuse it for any reason, biblical or not. And by "we" I mean evangelical Christians, not the lost of the world.
The Bible takes a far different view. According to the Bible, there are only two reasons for divorce. First is adultery and the second is abandonment. In other words, if your spouse leaves and you can't find them, or if they divorce you and you can't keep them from it, you are, as Paul put it, not under bondage.
In any other circumstances, remarriage after a divorce is adultery.
That's not a very pleasant conclusion, but it is the Biblical one. Abuse is not an excuse for divorce. Neither is mental cruelty or incompatibility or any of the myriad other things that are used in the courts today.
I don't mean to say, of course, that a person should stay in the house with an abusive spouse until they or their children are killed. But what I do mean to say is that while separation may be necessary to save lives, divorce is not an option. And separation is an option only in exigent circumstances. That is why it is so important to marry carefully and within the Lord.
Of late there has even been a huge debate over whether ministers and deacons should be allowed to serve while divorced, asserting that Paul was referring to plural marriage in the qualifications for ordination, not divorce. That is a patently self-serving view.
The truth is, plural marriage is an Eastern, not a Western, custom. Although it did happen in the West, it was uncommon. The cultures of Greece, Rome and Israel were all monogamous. And every one of them had a huge problem with divorce – with rates rivaling those in America today. That is the problem Paul was addressing.
If you doubt that, then think on this. The Jews had periodically had issues with plural marriage in the Old Testament. Yet, in the gospels, Jesus never once addressed plural marriage, but repeatedly addressed divorce.
Here's the thing – as evangelicals we either live by the Bible or we don't. If we pick and choose, or change it to suit ourselves, we're doing no different from those we preach to. This is exactly the tactic of the homosexual and abortion lobbies. Jesus said if the salt of the earth has lost its taste, it is good only to be thrown out. He also said to get the beam out of our own eye before we went after the speck in someone else's.
In other words, we can't preach that others should hold fast to the word of God, as written, unless we do it.
As a final word, what about the person who is already divorced? If they have not remarried, they should seek to be reunited with their original spouse. If they have remarried, they should stay with the spouse they are now married to, and cannot ever remarry their original spouse. Beyond that, they should ask God's forgiveness, which He will grant if they are sincere, and accept the limitations God has placed on their activities gracefully and with the understanding that we all must accept God's limitations at some point, and from there seek to live God's will for the rest of their lives the very best they can. This, of course, is the recipe for forgiveness of any sin.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 5:32, I Corinthians 7:15, I Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-6, I John, 1:9
The Bible takes a far different view. According to the Bible, there are only two reasons for divorce. First is adultery and the second is abandonment. In other words, if your spouse leaves and you can't find them, or if they divorce you and you can't keep them from it, you are, as Paul put it, not under bondage.
In any other circumstances, remarriage after a divorce is adultery.
That's not a very pleasant conclusion, but it is the Biblical one. Abuse is not an excuse for divorce. Neither is mental cruelty or incompatibility or any of the myriad other things that are used in the courts today.
I don't mean to say, of course, that a person should stay in the house with an abusive spouse until they or their children are killed. But what I do mean to say is that while separation may be necessary to save lives, divorce is not an option. And separation is an option only in exigent circumstances. That is why it is so important to marry carefully and within the Lord.
Of late there has even been a huge debate over whether ministers and deacons should be allowed to serve while divorced, asserting that Paul was referring to plural marriage in the qualifications for ordination, not divorce. That is a patently self-serving view.
The truth is, plural marriage is an Eastern, not a Western, custom. Although it did happen in the West, it was uncommon. The cultures of Greece, Rome and Israel were all monogamous. And every one of them had a huge problem with divorce – with rates rivaling those in America today. That is the problem Paul was addressing.
If you doubt that, then think on this. The Jews had periodically had issues with plural marriage in the Old Testament. Yet, in the gospels, Jesus never once addressed plural marriage, but repeatedly addressed divorce.
Here's the thing – as evangelicals we either live by the Bible or we don't. If we pick and choose, or change it to suit ourselves, we're doing no different from those we preach to. This is exactly the tactic of the homosexual and abortion lobbies. Jesus said if the salt of the earth has lost its taste, it is good only to be thrown out. He also said to get the beam out of our own eye before we went after the speck in someone else's.
In other words, we can't preach that others should hold fast to the word of God, as written, unless we do it.
As a final word, what about the person who is already divorced? If they have not remarried, they should seek to be reunited with their original spouse. If they have remarried, they should stay with the spouse they are now married to, and cannot ever remarry their original spouse. Beyond that, they should ask God's forgiveness, which He will grant if they are sincere, and accept the limitations God has placed on their activities gracefully and with the understanding that we all must accept God's limitations at some point, and from there seek to live God's will for the rest of their lives the very best they can. This, of course, is the recipe for forgiveness of any sin.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 5:32, I Corinthians 7:15, I Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-6, I John, 1:9
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Biblical View of Marriage
It's difficult to think about family issues and avoid the Biblical view of marriage. I may be wrong, but it seems to me there is hardly any area in Christian life so little heeded, with such dire results.
Let's start with the obvious. A Christian marriage can only take place between two Christians! When segregation was still active in this country, the Old Testament ban on Jews marrying non-Jews was often taught as racial. That's completely incorrect, as even a cursory New Testament reading on the subject will show.
What God actually says is not to marry anyone who doesn't believe in, and follow, Him. You can never completely know the state of another person's soul, but it is a sin to marry a person you don't believe is a Christian. That's right, a sin. Not unwise. Not a poor choice. God says Christians should only marry Christians.
That naturally impacts dating. Christians should only date Christians. Why? Because in its largest sense dating is about finding a mate. In America, almost every serious relationship starts as a casual one.
But what if you didn't heed God's command, or you weren't saved, yourself, until after you married an unsaved person? The Bible says you should live a Christian life before that person, hoping your example will persuade them to accept Christ.
That means you should stay married to them and not respond in kind if the unchristian person acts in an unchristian way. Tough? Absolutely. That's why God commanded that you marry a Christian to begin with. Much of God's discipline in our lives is reaping what we sow. Nowhere have I seen that to be more true than marriage.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the idea of love in marriage. The Bible is clear that we should love our spouse. But we often mistake love for passion. The two are not the same. By marrying for "love," we think loving our spouse will be easy.
Wrong!
After the passion wears thin, we're still married. Passion is not enough to fuel a marriage for a lifetime. Though feelings usually accompany love, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision. "Forsaking all others" and "'til death do us part" – that's what love is. The "romps in the hay" are the easy part. Love is the decision to stick around and do your part, no matter what.
The truth is, while the Bible does not speak against marrying for "love," it doesn't promote the idea, either. In fact, the Bible doesn't even suggest there is a right reason to choose a particular mate. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with marrying for money or power or looks or passion or any other reason you choose, as long as you marry a Christian.
The thing is, though, the Bible says that once you marry – for any reason – the required commitment is the same. Marry for money if you want. But you still have to love your spouse and forsake all others for the rest of the time you are both left on earth. Marry because you think he or she is good looking – same thing. Marry for "love" – same thing.
Knowing this, a wise person would look past the superficial and at least try to base their marriage of things of depth. But that's your call. Your commitment to the marriage, on the other hand, is God's commandment.
Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, I Corinthians 7:2-3, 12-16, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:25-30, Colossians 3:19, I Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4
Let's start with the obvious. A Christian marriage can only take place between two Christians! When segregation was still active in this country, the Old Testament ban on Jews marrying non-Jews was often taught as racial. That's completely incorrect, as even a cursory New Testament reading on the subject will show.
What God actually says is not to marry anyone who doesn't believe in, and follow, Him. You can never completely know the state of another person's soul, but it is a sin to marry a person you don't believe is a Christian. That's right, a sin. Not unwise. Not a poor choice. God says Christians should only marry Christians.
That naturally impacts dating. Christians should only date Christians. Why? Because in its largest sense dating is about finding a mate. In America, almost every serious relationship starts as a casual one.
But what if you didn't heed God's command, or you weren't saved, yourself, until after you married an unsaved person? The Bible says you should live a Christian life before that person, hoping your example will persuade them to accept Christ.
That means you should stay married to them and not respond in kind if the unchristian person acts in an unchristian way. Tough? Absolutely. That's why God commanded that you marry a Christian to begin with. Much of God's discipline in our lives is reaping what we sow. Nowhere have I seen that to be more true than marriage.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the idea of love in marriage. The Bible is clear that we should love our spouse. But we often mistake love for passion. The two are not the same. By marrying for "love," we think loving our spouse will be easy.
Wrong!
After the passion wears thin, we're still married. Passion is not enough to fuel a marriage for a lifetime. Though feelings usually accompany love, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision. "Forsaking all others" and "'til death do us part" – that's what love is. The "romps in the hay" are the easy part. Love is the decision to stick around and do your part, no matter what.
The truth is, while the Bible does not speak against marrying for "love," it doesn't promote the idea, either. In fact, the Bible doesn't even suggest there is a right reason to choose a particular mate. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with marrying for money or power or looks or passion or any other reason you choose, as long as you marry a Christian.
The thing is, though, the Bible says that once you marry – for any reason – the required commitment is the same. Marry for money if you want. But you still have to love your spouse and forsake all others for the rest of the time you are both left on earth. Marry because you think he or she is good looking – same thing. Marry for "love" – same thing.
Knowing this, a wise person would look past the superficial and at least try to base their marriage of things of depth. But that's your call. Your commitment to the marriage, on the other hand, is God's commandment.
Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, I Corinthians 7:2-3, 12-16, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:25-30, Colossians 3:19, I Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Right to Life
Abortion has the support of a couple of the catchiest euphemisms I know. "A woman has the right to do as she pleases with here own body." That's one. The other – "A woman's right to choose."
Choose what?
All of us have some opportunities to choose, I suppose. But we're not talking chocolate or vanilla, here. We're talking about the life of a human being. There may be some question when life begins, but it's certainly before abortion.
Where else is there even the suggestion that a person has the right to kill another person for the sake of convenience? We have laws, and civic groups, to protect animals from that kind of behavior. But that's what the "right to choose" is.
Don't want to take the responsibility for not having illicit sex? Don't want to take even the responsibility of protecting yourself from getting pregnant when you have illicit sex? Don't want to take the responsibility of raising the child your irresponsibility created? Just kill it. After all, if you've never seen it, how can it possibly be wrong? And it's not convenient for your lifestyle.
Such reasoning would be bizarre in any other setting, and it's just as bizarre regarding abortion.
As for the right of a person, woman or not, to do as they please with their own body, also not true. That right is limited by political law (every state has laws against suicide, for instance). It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest such a thing might be within God's law.
But that assumes someone is actually meaning to do something to their own body. The fact is, any damage to their own body is incidental in abortion. What they want is to kill another body. That other body does not belong to them, it only rests within them temporarily.
The whole idea is the moral equivalent of singeing your hands while you burn someone at the stake. The fact that you are slightly injured does not absolve you of the murder of that other person.
The undeniable fact is that abortion is the killing of a person. Another fact, whose only deniability is a bunch of irresponsible people claiming it so, is that such killing is murder, at least morally. The Bible makes itself clear on both issues.
If you don't want children, the responsible thing to do is to avoid having sexual intercourse, not to kill the product of said intercourse.
Some would try to claim an exemption for incest or rape. Sorry, while such a situation elicits sympathy in any reasonable person, that's a no go, too. Even if there were no alternatives but abortion or raising the child, the Bible remains clear. You don't harm an innocent person because of your misfortune. But there are other alternatives, specifically adoption, which can give the child a loving home without making you a criminal as well as a victim.
The only exception – and it's a tenuous one – is when there is a clear choice between losing the child and losing the mother. Such a case is too horrible to contemplate, but occasionally must be contemplated anyway. This, however, is a choice of which life to save, not the irresponsible choice to kill a child for sexual pleasure. Further, it's a choice, which must be made. In that case only, each person must make their choice in accordance with their best understanding of God's will.
Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:30-37, John 9:41, Romans 13:13, 15:1, I Corinthians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 2:3, I Thessalonians 4:3
Choose what?
All of us have some opportunities to choose, I suppose. But we're not talking chocolate or vanilla, here. We're talking about the life of a human being. There may be some question when life begins, but it's certainly before abortion.
Where else is there even the suggestion that a person has the right to kill another person for the sake of convenience? We have laws, and civic groups, to protect animals from that kind of behavior. But that's what the "right to choose" is.
Don't want to take the responsibility for not having illicit sex? Don't want to take even the responsibility of protecting yourself from getting pregnant when you have illicit sex? Don't want to take the responsibility of raising the child your irresponsibility created? Just kill it. After all, if you've never seen it, how can it possibly be wrong? And it's not convenient for your lifestyle.
Such reasoning would be bizarre in any other setting, and it's just as bizarre regarding abortion.
As for the right of a person, woman or not, to do as they please with their own body, also not true. That right is limited by political law (every state has laws against suicide, for instance). It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest such a thing might be within God's law.
But that assumes someone is actually meaning to do something to their own body. The fact is, any damage to their own body is incidental in abortion. What they want is to kill another body. That other body does not belong to them, it only rests within them temporarily.
The whole idea is the moral equivalent of singeing your hands while you burn someone at the stake. The fact that you are slightly injured does not absolve you of the murder of that other person.
The undeniable fact is that abortion is the killing of a person. Another fact, whose only deniability is a bunch of irresponsible people claiming it so, is that such killing is murder, at least morally. The Bible makes itself clear on both issues.
If you don't want children, the responsible thing to do is to avoid having sexual intercourse, not to kill the product of said intercourse.
Some would try to claim an exemption for incest or rape. Sorry, while such a situation elicits sympathy in any reasonable person, that's a no go, too. Even if there were no alternatives but abortion or raising the child, the Bible remains clear. You don't harm an innocent person because of your misfortune. But there are other alternatives, specifically adoption, which can give the child a loving home without making you a criminal as well as a victim.
The only exception – and it's a tenuous one – is when there is a clear choice between losing the child and losing the mother. Such a case is too horrible to contemplate, but occasionally must be contemplated anyway. This, however, is a choice of which life to save, not the irresponsible choice to kill a child for sexual pleasure. Further, it's a choice, which must be made. In that case only, each person must make their choice in accordance with their best understanding of God's will.
Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:30-37, John 9:41, Romans 13:13, 15:1, I Corinthians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 2:3, I Thessalonians 4:3
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Right to Family
This week's news has been all about Nadya Suleman, the mother of the Octuplets, who already had six children. I don't know enough about her to comment directly and this posting shouldn't be taken as such. But there are two issues her story brings to the fore. The one I will deal with today is the sanctity of the family. Next week I will address the sanctity of life.
First, there is nothing wrong with having fourteen children, by choice. In this era of birth control we sometimes forget that. Right and wrong is based on the Bible, and nothing else, and the Bible does not condemn large families in any way.
It does, however condemn irresponsibility.
So when is having children irresponsible? There are at least two circumstances that qualify: deliberately having a child you know you can't provide for or deliberately having a child without a complete family unit.
Let's consider the first. If you bought a corvette and couldn't afford gasoline, you couldn't drive it. You shouldn't be offended if others won't buy these things for you, they are your responsibility.
You can't equate a child with a car, of course. Children are much more important. But that's the very point. If it's irresponsible to buy a car you can't afford, how much more so to bring a child you can't support into the world. Those who did not join in making the decision to have the child with you should not normally be expected to support it. They are responsible for their own families.
That does not mean poor people should not have children! Poverty is not a sin, nor is it abuse. All of us want to do the best we can for our children. But as a society, and as Christians in this society, we've forgotten that the best we can do has little to do with money.
Many poor people have raised families without indifference or neglect. And though it usually takes different forms, many wealthy children are raised with those same two problems. Not being able to buy your children the latest high dollar sunshades, tennis shoes or jeans is not irresponsible. It's not even unfortunate. That's not the same thing as having children and then expecting others to pay their way.
Likewise, no child should be deliberately brought into the world without a family to care for it. By family I mean at the very least a mother and father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Not a person who wants a child but not a spouse. God ordained the family before any other institution. That alone shows its importance. He also defined it, and the definition is no less important than the ordination. Each parent has something important to give the child – something they can't adequately get elsewhere.
Having said all that, I add one caveat. I am talking about choice – sometimes you don't have one. Parent's die or bail. Jobs get lost. The unexpected happens.
Should a single man or woman not take in a child in need? Of course, that's an intensely personal situation, but that type of generosity can never be classed as irresponsible. Likewise, if a family loses its expected income, that doesn't mean they had, or have, no right to their children, or to temporary help in caring for them.
But Biblical responsibility dictates that you don't create subnormal family situations for personal convenience or gratification.
Genesis 1:28, 2:24, 9:1, Matthew 25:1-13, 14-30, Luke 14:25-32, I Corinthians 7:2, II Thessalonians 3:7-12
First, there is nothing wrong with having fourteen children, by choice. In this era of birth control we sometimes forget that. Right and wrong is based on the Bible, and nothing else, and the Bible does not condemn large families in any way.
It does, however condemn irresponsibility.
So when is having children irresponsible? There are at least two circumstances that qualify: deliberately having a child you know you can't provide for or deliberately having a child without a complete family unit.
Let's consider the first. If you bought a corvette and couldn't afford gasoline, you couldn't drive it. You shouldn't be offended if others won't buy these things for you, they are your responsibility.
You can't equate a child with a car, of course. Children are much more important. But that's the very point. If it's irresponsible to buy a car you can't afford, how much more so to bring a child you can't support into the world. Those who did not join in making the decision to have the child with you should not normally be expected to support it. They are responsible for their own families.
That does not mean poor people should not have children! Poverty is not a sin, nor is it abuse. All of us want to do the best we can for our children. But as a society, and as Christians in this society, we've forgotten that the best we can do has little to do with money.
Many poor people have raised families without indifference or neglect. And though it usually takes different forms, many wealthy children are raised with those same two problems. Not being able to buy your children the latest high dollar sunshades, tennis shoes or jeans is not irresponsible. It's not even unfortunate. That's not the same thing as having children and then expecting others to pay their way.
Likewise, no child should be deliberately brought into the world without a family to care for it. By family I mean at the very least a mother and father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Not a person who wants a child but not a spouse. God ordained the family before any other institution. That alone shows its importance. He also defined it, and the definition is no less important than the ordination. Each parent has something important to give the child – something they can't adequately get elsewhere.
Having said all that, I add one caveat. I am talking about choice – sometimes you don't have one. Parent's die or bail. Jobs get lost. The unexpected happens.
Should a single man or woman not take in a child in need? Of course, that's an intensely personal situation, but that type of generosity can never be classed as irresponsible. Likewise, if a family loses its expected income, that doesn't mean they had, or have, no right to their children, or to temporary help in caring for them.
But Biblical responsibility dictates that you don't create subnormal family situations for personal convenience or gratification.
Genesis 1:28, 2:24, 9:1, Matthew 25:1-13, 14-30, Luke 14:25-32, I Corinthians 7:2, II Thessalonians 3:7-12
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The New President
My intention is to write about what is current – how it affects evangelical Christians, what we believe about it and why. As I look at the news over the past week that leaves me with pretty much only one subject. Government.
Given the recent election, the first thing I must say is that the Bible commands us to pray for and respect our leaders. It does not matter whether you voted for Obama or not. Government is ordained by God and governmental leaders deserve our respect and support.
That doesn't mean we must accept his point of view. But we should hear him out and cooperate with him where we can, and we should respect him, publically and privately, and pray for God's leadership and blessings upon him. And, yes, I am one who did not vote for him and who disagrees with almost every decision he has made so far. But that does not change my responsibility.
As for government in general, it's not only the right but the duty of evangelical Christians to participate by voting, debating and even running for office, should they feel so led. Jesus and the apostles ministered where government cared little for the common man and was actively hostile to their work. In that respect we are blessed. We have the obligation to use that blessing to make the world a better, more godly, place.
The Bible is clear about obeying the laws of the land. The only time we can violate the law without sin is when it forces us to do something that is a sin. We cannot intervene illegally otherwise – even if it means we lose our lives or the lives of those we love.
That's right, no bombing abortion clinics or gay bars. In fact, the fanatics who do that should hope no evangelical is on their jury.
But that's just the start. If the government wrongly executes you, or your child, you should not use force to prevent it. That sounds tough, but the words and example of our Biblical Fathers is only too clear. That's why I say we are blessed by our government. We have recourse to laws that are generally obeyed. That hasn't been true in all times and places.
One item remains – separation of church and state. The Bible is neutral on that issue. Men served God, or failed to, under theocracies and under governments that did not believe in Jehovah God and tried to destroy those who did. However, separation of church and state, as envisioned by the founding fathers of our nation, meant two things.
First, government doesn't support, financially or otherwise, any particular religion or denomination. Second, following any religion or denomination – or lack thereof – denies no citizen of their rights. The Bible is perfectly compatible with that stance.
On the other hand, the Constitution was never meant to restrict the practice of any religion so long as it didn't interfere with or overtly harm others. A government where Christians cannot pray publicly may be acceptable Biblically, but not legally. Not in America. Modern efforts to squeeze Christians out of government or unduly restrict their right to worship trample just as certainly on the Constitution as they do on the Bible.
If you're not a Christian the latter might not bother you, but the former should. If Christians aren't allowed to speak their mind and practice their beliefs, what makes you think you will be?
Romans 13:6, Colossians 1:16, 4:6, Titus 3:1, Matthew 5:13, 10:28, 22:34, 24:9, Mark 9:49, Luke 11:49, 12:5, 14:4
Given the recent election, the first thing I must say is that the Bible commands us to pray for and respect our leaders. It does not matter whether you voted for Obama or not. Government is ordained by God and governmental leaders deserve our respect and support.
That doesn't mean we must accept his point of view. But we should hear him out and cooperate with him where we can, and we should respect him, publically and privately, and pray for God's leadership and blessings upon him. And, yes, I am one who did not vote for him and who disagrees with almost every decision he has made so far. But that does not change my responsibility.
As for government in general, it's not only the right but the duty of evangelical Christians to participate by voting, debating and even running for office, should they feel so led. Jesus and the apostles ministered where government cared little for the common man and was actively hostile to their work. In that respect we are blessed. We have the obligation to use that blessing to make the world a better, more godly, place.
The Bible is clear about obeying the laws of the land. The only time we can violate the law without sin is when it forces us to do something that is a sin. We cannot intervene illegally otherwise – even if it means we lose our lives or the lives of those we love.
That's right, no bombing abortion clinics or gay bars. In fact, the fanatics who do that should hope no evangelical is on their jury.
But that's just the start. If the government wrongly executes you, or your child, you should not use force to prevent it. That sounds tough, but the words and example of our Biblical Fathers is only too clear. That's why I say we are blessed by our government. We have recourse to laws that are generally obeyed. That hasn't been true in all times and places.
One item remains – separation of church and state. The Bible is neutral on that issue. Men served God, or failed to, under theocracies and under governments that did not believe in Jehovah God and tried to destroy those who did. However, separation of church and state, as envisioned by the founding fathers of our nation, meant two things.
First, government doesn't support, financially or otherwise, any particular religion or denomination. Second, following any religion or denomination – or lack thereof – denies no citizen of their rights. The Bible is perfectly compatible with that stance.
On the other hand, the Constitution was never meant to restrict the practice of any religion so long as it didn't interfere with or overtly harm others. A government where Christians cannot pray publicly may be acceptable Biblically, but not legally. Not in America. Modern efforts to squeeze Christians out of government or unduly restrict their right to worship trample just as certainly on the Constitution as they do on the Bible.
If you're not a Christian the latter might not bother you, but the former should. If Christians aren't allowed to speak their mind and practice their beliefs, what makes you think you will be?
Romans 13:6, Colossians 1:16, 4:6, Titus 3:1, Matthew 5:13, 10:28, 22:34, 24:9, Mark 9:49, Luke 11:49, 12:5, 14:4
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Unchanging Bible
It's interesting that those who believe the Bible changes with the current social practices always want it to change in favor of their particular anti-Biblical behavior, even while opposing others who would change it in a different manner. Further, it always seems to change to a more liberal theme.
If the Bible were a document that changed meaning, doesn't it stand to reason it would sometimes become more conservative? If we're going to change it, why couldn't we change it to include segregation, or even support slavery? To make certain laws punishable by death without trial? To give a person who feels they've been wronged the right to simply take what they think is theirs?
Crazy? Of course it is. Yet some people support every one of those ideas. Which brings up an important question.
Who gets to decide what changes are made to the meaning of the Bible, anyway? The Pope? Billy Graham? The President? The political party in power? The Supreme Court? The United Nations? Who?
The fact is, if the Bible changes its viewpoint to satisfy whatever people are doing, it's worthless and unnecessary. The whole effort of the Bible is to draw people closer to God, but the idea of a changing Bible merely makes God more like men. Convenient, but hardly fitting the repeatedly expressed purpose of God's word.
There are those who assert that following the Bible, as written, is worshipping the Bible instead of God. They fail to understand there is no real knowledge of God except what is in the Bible. Thus, to worship God correctly and to follow His will correctly, it's necessary to follow the Bible. Without the Bible as truth we are, as the Bible says, the blind leading the blind.
Anyway, how can something be true yesterday and untrue tomorrow? I mean, we're not talking about new discoveries of Biblical truth, we're talking about discarding or changing parts of it.
We discovered that Earth spins on an axis and revolves around the Sun. We discovered the laws of gravity. But we didn’t change those things – they were true all along. Nor does disbelieving them make them less true.
And please don't bring up the Constitution. It's not a truth, it's an agreement. Any agreement can be changed upon the will of the parties involved.
But if the Bible is not true, then God lied, because He said He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And here's the thing – how many times does someone have to lie to be a liar. They can tell you the truth a hundred times, but if they lie to you once, the trust is broken. So if God changes, He can't be trusted and the whole idea of eternal truth and God's word is a bust.
Some people believe just that, of course. But like those who refuse to believe the Earth spins in its axis, what they believe doesn't change what is.
The Bible is either God's word, or it isn't. It is either true or it's a lie. To accept it as the truth means to accept it as written. To suggest any change has occurred in its meaning, or that some part of it is not now relevant, makes it worthless.
Every person must choose for themselves how they deal with those facts. And every person will be held accountable for how they choose.
I Thessalonians 2:13, II Timothy 3:16, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17
If the Bible were a document that changed meaning, doesn't it stand to reason it would sometimes become more conservative? If we're going to change it, why couldn't we change it to include segregation, or even support slavery? To make certain laws punishable by death without trial? To give a person who feels they've been wronged the right to simply take what they think is theirs?
Crazy? Of course it is. Yet some people support every one of those ideas. Which brings up an important question.
Who gets to decide what changes are made to the meaning of the Bible, anyway? The Pope? Billy Graham? The President? The political party in power? The Supreme Court? The United Nations? Who?
The fact is, if the Bible changes its viewpoint to satisfy whatever people are doing, it's worthless and unnecessary. The whole effort of the Bible is to draw people closer to God, but the idea of a changing Bible merely makes God more like men. Convenient, but hardly fitting the repeatedly expressed purpose of God's word.
There are those who assert that following the Bible, as written, is worshipping the Bible instead of God. They fail to understand there is no real knowledge of God except what is in the Bible. Thus, to worship God correctly and to follow His will correctly, it's necessary to follow the Bible. Without the Bible as truth we are, as the Bible says, the blind leading the blind.
Anyway, how can something be true yesterday and untrue tomorrow? I mean, we're not talking about new discoveries of Biblical truth, we're talking about discarding or changing parts of it.
We discovered that Earth spins on an axis and revolves around the Sun. We discovered the laws of gravity. But we didn’t change those things – they were true all along. Nor does disbelieving them make them less true.
And please don't bring up the Constitution. It's not a truth, it's an agreement. Any agreement can be changed upon the will of the parties involved.
But if the Bible is not true, then God lied, because He said He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And here's the thing – how many times does someone have to lie to be a liar. They can tell you the truth a hundred times, but if they lie to you once, the trust is broken. So if God changes, He can't be trusted and the whole idea of eternal truth and God's word is a bust.
Some people believe just that, of course. But like those who refuse to believe the Earth spins in its axis, what they believe doesn't change what is.
The Bible is either God's word, or it isn't. It is either true or it's a lie. To accept it as the truth means to accept it as written. To suggest any change has occurred in its meaning, or that some part of it is not now relevant, makes it worthless.
Every person must choose for themselves how they deal with those facts. And every person will be held accountable for how they choose.
I Thessalonians 2:13, II Timothy 3:16, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Christian Tolerance
Tolerance is a word that gets tossed around a lot these days. To evangelical Christians, it sometimes seems it gets tossed at us more than it does at anyone else. Typically from folks upset at us for holding positions based on a literal reading and understanding of the Bible.
I looked up tolerance in the American Heritage Dictionary. There were several definitions, but the first one was the one relevant to this issue. "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
As evangelicals, we get labeled as intolerant because we don't agree with others. But nowhere is the word "agree," or any similar word, in the definition of tolerance.
Evangelicals recognize there are points of view other than their own. And they respect the rights of people to take those other points of view. While we may try to persuade people of the Biblical truths, no evangelical wants to coerce them to accept those truths. Freedom of Religion is not merely a political right, it is a Biblical right.
We believe the Bible describes a God of love and forgiveness, else none of us would be free from the threat of eternal damnation. We also see where the Bible describes a God of justice and responsibility who will hold all of us, evangelical or not, accountable for our beliefs and choices. But we neither have nor want that responsibility for ourselves.
We further believe that as a part of God's loving nature, His commandments are given to us not to keep us from enjoying life, but to help us enjoy it more fully and more safely. So while we won't try to make anyone believe as we do, we certainly feel justified, Biblically and politically, in taking part in the governmental process and supporting laws and policies that provide a moral support for society.
On the subject of forgiveness, we believe the Bible teaches that when a person seeks forgiveness and turns from their sin, God forgives them. When they give reasonable evidence they have done so, the church also forgives. On the other hand, when a person engages openly in behavior the Bible describes as sinful – claiming such behavior as acceptable, they can hardly claim they are seeking forgiveness. That situation is compounded if they also demand the church endorse their behavior.
This public acceptance of sin requires a response from the church, lest we compromise our own beliefs and our responsibilities to God, our children and each other.
The particular response varies from church to church, of course. But typically it comes in one or more of three forms – separation from the church, public denouncement of the activity or behavior in question and/or support for laws against the egregious behavior.
None of this is anything we enjoy. We take such action only when there is no choice and only with great reluctance. But we are commanded by God in the Bible to take the stand we do.
You see, it's not just those outside the church whose actions we're afraid of, it's us, too. We, all of us, need structure around us that helps us to live to our best, rather than our worst. One role of religion is to help provide that structure.
So tolerant, yes. We can be, and we want to be, tolerant. But our agreement is reserved for those things with which, to the best of our understanding, the Bible pronounces itself in agreement.
Matthew 19:16-22, Luke 16:19-26, John 8:31-36, II Chronicles 7:13-15, I Corinthians 5
I looked up tolerance in the American Heritage Dictionary. There were several definitions, but the first one was the one relevant to this issue. "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
As evangelicals, we get labeled as intolerant because we don't agree with others. But nowhere is the word "agree," or any similar word, in the definition of tolerance.
Evangelicals recognize there are points of view other than their own. And they respect the rights of people to take those other points of view. While we may try to persuade people of the Biblical truths, no evangelical wants to coerce them to accept those truths. Freedom of Religion is not merely a political right, it is a Biblical right.
We believe the Bible describes a God of love and forgiveness, else none of us would be free from the threat of eternal damnation. We also see where the Bible describes a God of justice and responsibility who will hold all of us, evangelical or not, accountable for our beliefs and choices. But we neither have nor want that responsibility for ourselves.
We further believe that as a part of God's loving nature, His commandments are given to us not to keep us from enjoying life, but to help us enjoy it more fully and more safely. So while we won't try to make anyone believe as we do, we certainly feel justified, Biblically and politically, in taking part in the governmental process and supporting laws and policies that provide a moral support for society.
On the subject of forgiveness, we believe the Bible teaches that when a person seeks forgiveness and turns from their sin, God forgives them. When they give reasonable evidence they have done so, the church also forgives. On the other hand, when a person engages openly in behavior the Bible describes as sinful – claiming such behavior as acceptable, they can hardly claim they are seeking forgiveness. That situation is compounded if they also demand the church endorse their behavior.
This public acceptance of sin requires a response from the church, lest we compromise our own beliefs and our responsibilities to God, our children and each other.
The particular response varies from church to church, of course. But typically it comes in one or more of three forms – separation from the church, public denouncement of the activity or behavior in question and/or support for laws against the egregious behavior.
None of this is anything we enjoy. We take such action only when there is no choice and only with great reluctance. But we are commanded by God in the Bible to take the stand we do.
You see, it's not just those outside the church whose actions we're afraid of, it's us, too. We, all of us, need structure around us that helps us to live to our best, rather than our worst. One role of religion is to help provide that structure.
So tolerant, yes. We can be, and we want to be, tolerant. But our agreement is reserved for those things with which, to the best of our understanding, the Bible pronounces itself in agreement.
Matthew 19:16-22, Luke 16:19-26, John 8:31-36, II Chronicles 7:13-15, I Corinthians 5
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Homosexuality: The Biblical Response
This post is directed primarily to the evangelical Christian community. There are certain issues that tend to set Christians off, such as homosexuality and abortion. But there is a proper way for Christians to respond to sin and the sinner, and we need to keep that in mind.
As part of the writing ministry I have taken on, I have begun what is still a somewhat uncoordinated effort at forum writing. I quickly discovered two things that disturb me. The first is the hostility with which some people view evangelical Christianity. I suppose I am naïve, but I had no idea.
The second thing, which disturbs me even more, is the hostility of some who write from the "Christian" perspective. My heavens, people, have we forgotten that we are sinners, too?
To God, sin is sin and there are no degrees. The only issues that compound sin are when there is a victim, because we sin against others and against God, and when we encourage or entice others to sin – which is always the case with sexual sin. But all sin separates us from God. There are no little and big sins. Jesus made that clear at least three times.
The first time was when he told Peter to forgive those who hurt him seventy times seven. The second was when he challenged the church leaders to cast the first stone. The third was the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are to love the sinner just as much as we hate the sin. And we are to hate the sin in our own lives just as much as – nay, more than – we hate the sin in other lives.
That does not just mean we should refrain from "Gay Bashing," bombing abortion clinics and similar things – it means we should treat homosexuals (and abortion advocates and everyone else) with all the kindness and courtesy we would show toward our pastor and his wife. It means we should not hesitate to work beside, touch, speak to and care about the homosexual person just as much as we would our own children.
We can't condone misbehavior wherever it's found, of course. We seek to remove it from our own lives and I don't believe we should allow those who eagerly and willfully profess themselves as participants in any sinful activity that brings ill repute on the church to be members of the church or to hold positions in the church. I do support laws limiting immoral behavior – including not only homosexual behavior but other sexual behavior outside of marriage.
But the Bible teaches we should support and obey not only the laws we agree with, but all laws, unless they directly force us to participate in behavior we believe is sinful or bar us from behavior we believe is commanded by God. It also teaches we should treat all persons with respect and kindness, remembering we are no better than they are.
After all, do you recall the story of the woman at the well? What if Jesus had said to her that He didn't want to be associated with sinners? Indeed, what if He had said that to you? Or to me?
We certainly don't merit His love.
Romans 3:23, Matthew 18:21-22,22:21 John 8:1-11, Luke 10:29-37, John 3:16, Luke 6:27-37, 41-42, John 4:7-30
As part of the writing ministry I have taken on, I have begun what is still a somewhat uncoordinated effort at forum writing. I quickly discovered two things that disturb me. The first is the hostility with which some people view evangelical Christianity. I suppose I am naïve, but I had no idea.
The second thing, which disturbs me even more, is the hostility of some who write from the "Christian" perspective. My heavens, people, have we forgotten that we are sinners, too?
To God, sin is sin and there are no degrees. The only issues that compound sin are when there is a victim, because we sin against others and against God, and when we encourage or entice others to sin – which is always the case with sexual sin. But all sin separates us from God. There are no little and big sins. Jesus made that clear at least three times.
The first time was when he told Peter to forgive those who hurt him seventy times seven. The second was when he challenged the church leaders to cast the first stone. The third was the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are to love the sinner just as much as we hate the sin. And we are to hate the sin in our own lives just as much as – nay, more than – we hate the sin in other lives.
That does not just mean we should refrain from "Gay Bashing," bombing abortion clinics and similar things – it means we should treat homosexuals (and abortion advocates and everyone else) with all the kindness and courtesy we would show toward our pastor and his wife. It means we should not hesitate to work beside, touch, speak to and care about the homosexual person just as much as we would our own children.
We can't condone misbehavior wherever it's found, of course. We seek to remove it from our own lives and I don't believe we should allow those who eagerly and willfully profess themselves as participants in any sinful activity that brings ill repute on the church to be members of the church or to hold positions in the church. I do support laws limiting immoral behavior – including not only homosexual behavior but other sexual behavior outside of marriage.
But the Bible teaches we should support and obey not only the laws we agree with, but all laws, unless they directly force us to participate in behavior we believe is sinful or bar us from behavior we believe is commanded by God. It also teaches we should treat all persons with respect and kindness, remembering we are no better than they are.
After all, do you recall the story of the woman at the well? What if Jesus had said to her that He didn't want to be associated with sinners? Indeed, what if He had said that to you? Or to me?
We certainly don't merit His love.
Romans 3:23, Matthew 18:21-22,22:21 John 8:1-11, Luke 10:29-37, John 3:16, Luke 6:27-37, 41-42, John 4:7-30
Friday, December 26, 2008
Homosexuality
I suppose the brightest way is not to dive right into the deep end, but here goes. Homosexuality is in the news in a big way these days, with four stories currently playing – The infamous Newsweek article touting the Bible as the champion of homosexual marriage, Rick Warren giving the inaugural invocation, the California marriage initiative and picketing the First Baptist Church, Dallas.
I have read the Newsweek article, I haven't heard the sermons. But it doesn't matter, I am not writing a point-by-point refutation or support of either position. Rather, I just want to share the evangelical, and I believe Biblical, position on the issue.
Even the Newsweek article was clear that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, labeling it as a sin and a sexual perversion in both the Old and New Testaments. Arguments otherwise break down into two general categories.
First is biological – I was born that way. The problem with that argument is that there is not a shred of real scientific evidence to support it. As a child abuse investigator I spent a fair amount of time studying the subject.
Generally speaking, there are three or four routes, slightly different for each gender, that a person takes to reach the point of proclaiming their homosexuality, at which time they typically say they have suddenly realized that's what they were all along. I don't know of any other physical trait that we discover in that fashion.
The second argument is cultural. Homosexuality is acceptable in some cultures, so it must not be bad. That argument, too, is weak. You could as easily say that homosexuality is unacceptable in some cultures, so it must be bad. And there are a number of behaviors our culture thinks of as bad, or even evil, that have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures.
Further, trick readings of the Bible don't add up. For instance, the Bible does speak of homosexuality only between men. Can this seriously be seen as supporting, or even permitting, homosexual activity between women? Not by any serious student of the Bible. Such interpretations are an attempt to change the Bible to bring God to men – while the Bible's main emphasis is to bring men to God. When there is a difference between God and men it is always man who must change and never God.
Is homosexuality worse than any other sin? On its face, no. Sin is sin, and all of it is displeasing to God. However, the involvement of other people does compound sin, by adding other sins to the original.
If I overeat, say, well that is a sin (and I certainly don't mean to make light of it). But it does not directly involve anyone else. On the other hand, take murder, theft or rape, each of which has a victim. These are sins against God and sins against the other person, which piles sin upon sin.
But worse than that is enticing another person to sin. Physical sins against another harm them physically or socially. Enticing another person to sin harms them spiritually. There is where sexual sins are more to be condemned than other sin. That applies not only to homosexual acts, but to adultery (sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse) and fornication (sex by any person with someone they're not married to).
The Bible is very specific that helping or encouraging another person to sin compounds the original sin. And it is impossible to be physically involved in a sexual sin of any kind without encouraging a sinful act on the part of at least one other person.
Next week: The Christian Response.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Romans 1:27, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians 6:9
I have read the Newsweek article, I haven't heard the sermons. But it doesn't matter, I am not writing a point-by-point refutation or support of either position. Rather, I just want to share the evangelical, and I believe Biblical, position on the issue.
Even the Newsweek article was clear that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, labeling it as a sin and a sexual perversion in both the Old and New Testaments. Arguments otherwise break down into two general categories.
First is biological – I was born that way. The problem with that argument is that there is not a shred of real scientific evidence to support it. As a child abuse investigator I spent a fair amount of time studying the subject.
Generally speaking, there are three or four routes, slightly different for each gender, that a person takes to reach the point of proclaiming their homosexuality, at which time they typically say they have suddenly realized that's what they were all along. I don't know of any other physical trait that we discover in that fashion.
The second argument is cultural. Homosexuality is acceptable in some cultures, so it must not be bad. That argument, too, is weak. You could as easily say that homosexuality is unacceptable in some cultures, so it must be bad. And there are a number of behaviors our culture thinks of as bad, or even evil, that have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures.
Further, trick readings of the Bible don't add up. For instance, the Bible does speak of homosexuality only between men. Can this seriously be seen as supporting, or even permitting, homosexual activity between women? Not by any serious student of the Bible. Such interpretations are an attempt to change the Bible to bring God to men – while the Bible's main emphasis is to bring men to God. When there is a difference between God and men it is always man who must change and never God.
Is homosexuality worse than any other sin? On its face, no. Sin is sin, and all of it is displeasing to God. However, the involvement of other people does compound sin, by adding other sins to the original.
If I overeat, say, well that is a sin (and I certainly don't mean to make light of it). But it does not directly involve anyone else. On the other hand, take murder, theft or rape, each of which has a victim. These are sins against God and sins against the other person, which piles sin upon sin.
But worse than that is enticing another person to sin. Physical sins against another harm them physically or socially. Enticing another person to sin harms them spiritually. There is where sexual sins are more to be condemned than other sin. That applies not only to homosexual acts, but to adultery (sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse) and fornication (sex by any person with someone they're not married to).
The Bible is very specific that helping or encouraging another person to sin compounds the original sin. And it is impossible to be physically involved in a sexual sin of any kind without encouraging a sinful act on the part of at least one other person.
Next week: The Christian Response.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Romans 1:27, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians 6:9
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Salvation
Hand in hand with the evangelical belief about the Bible is the evangelical belief about salvation. It is impossible to understand evangelicals without knowing the plan of salvation as described in the Bible.
Man was, like everything else, created by God. But man was the crown of creation, made to be God's own companion. Made to be like God, not in his power but in his eternal spiritual existence and in his ability to choose good or evil. Of all God's creation, only man has those two qualities. Man was made to worship and serve God.
Instead, man sinned -- that is, man did that which is displeasing to God and outside of God's commands. First Adam and Eve, but in our own time every one of us. The penalty for sin is death, spiritual and physical.
Physical death is not instant, but it is certain. After physical death follows spiritual death, which is eternal separation from God. Understand, death in this sense does not mean that life ceases, it means that it is lived eternally in hell, apart from God.
Hell is a real place. A place of punishment designed for those who sin. Since we are all guilty of sin, we all deserve hell. But in His mercy God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to earth to live as a man. Jesus did not sin, therefore did not deserve death. But He died anyway, thus paying for our sins.
In concept this is the same as if I got a speeding ticket and you paid it for me out of the goodness of your heart. There was a debt to be paid and Jesus paid it, therefore it is no longer owed.
However, I could refuse your payment. If I did that, I would have to pay the penalty myself, either coming up with the money for the fine or serving a period of time in jail. Thus your gift, however well meant, comes to naught.
Just so, you can refuse God's gift, but that means that you must pay the price yourself. Or you can accept the gift, repent of your sin and turn your life over to God, following His will. In that case, while you still eventually experience physical death, you never have to experience spiritual death. Instead you spend eternity with God in heaven.
Understand, you cannot earn salvation. At the very least that would require you live a perfect life, something none of us can do. The only way to be saved is to accept the gift from God. The only other choice is to pay that fine for yourself -- and that is too horrible to contemplate.
The lone exception is for those who are too young or too feeble minded to understand what God and salvation is all about. For those who die in that condition the term many use is safe, which means that they have all the benefits of salvation without having actually accepted that gift from God, but only because they were unable to do so.
I have seen television interviewers become very agitated with evangelical Christians for this position. Please understand, this is what we believe, not what we wish. We have no more say in this matter than we do about the laws of gravity. We believe if we jump off the Empire State Building we will fall to our deaths. We believe that if we do not accept Jesus, on His terms, we will suffer spiritual death.
We can wish people could fly, or that God would spare the "good guys" who didn't follow His plan of salvation all we want to, but that won't change either thing. In believing the Bible is true, which we do, we must follow what it says or act in a way we believe is sinful and against God. Castigating us for that is shooting the messenger.
Does this make us "elitist," as some have asserted? Not at all, and for two reasons. First, we understand and accept the fact that we are no more deserving of salvation than anyone else. We were, and are, sinners ourselves. It is only by God's grace that we are not headed for the same eternity we warn others of.
Second, God's gift is open to anyone who will accept it. I don't see how anything could be more egalitarian than that. This is not a matter of politics, policy, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, wealth, education, denomination or even religion. It is simply a matter of following the steps outlined in the Bible. Some of these things may change once you accept God's gift and learn more of His will, but if that is the case, those are changes you will desire once you understand they are God's will for your life. The requirements for salvation are inflexible, but they are also simple, finite and available.
Not only is it possible for anyone to be saved, but God, and evangelical Christians, want everyone to be saved. Indeed, the term evangelical is a name we gave ourselves and is based upon our dedication, as a group, to providing for every person on earth the information that will help them understand how to be saved. We don't want to be exclusive or elite, we only want to do that which is right according to God's word.
We would be more deserving of disdain if we failed to say forthrightly what we believe. Not to take this stance is akin to allowing a child who does not know better to walk off the Empire State Building because we don't want to make him, or his parents, angry. What a foolish and mean thing to do, for even if that child does not know he is in danger, or lacks the judgment to appreciate his danger, we do know.
In the same way, by telling others who are unaware of their danger or fail to appreciate the seriousness of that danger, of Christ's only plan of salvation, we offer them the opportunity to avoid that judgment which will come to them upon their physical death if they do not accept Christ and His gift. We believe -- I believe -- that is the single kindest thing we can do for any person.
Genesis 1-2, Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Romans 3:23, 5:12, John 3:16, 14:6
Man was, like everything else, created by God. But man was the crown of creation, made to be God's own companion. Made to be like God, not in his power but in his eternal spiritual existence and in his ability to choose good or evil. Of all God's creation, only man has those two qualities. Man was made to worship and serve God.
Instead, man sinned -- that is, man did that which is displeasing to God and outside of God's commands. First Adam and Eve, but in our own time every one of us. The penalty for sin is death, spiritual and physical.
Physical death is not instant, but it is certain. After physical death follows spiritual death, which is eternal separation from God. Understand, death in this sense does not mean that life ceases, it means that it is lived eternally in hell, apart from God.
Hell is a real place. A place of punishment designed for those who sin. Since we are all guilty of sin, we all deserve hell. But in His mercy God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to earth to live as a man. Jesus did not sin, therefore did not deserve death. But He died anyway, thus paying for our sins.
In concept this is the same as if I got a speeding ticket and you paid it for me out of the goodness of your heart. There was a debt to be paid and Jesus paid it, therefore it is no longer owed.
However, I could refuse your payment. If I did that, I would have to pay the penalty myself, either coming up with the money for the fine or serving a period of time in jail. Thus your gift, however well meant, comes to naught.
Just so, you can refuse God's gift, but that means that you must pay the price yourself. Or you can accept the gift, repent of your sin and turn your life over to God, following His will. In that case, while you still eventually experience physical death, you never have to experience spiritual death. Instead you spend eternity with God in heaven.
Understand, you cannot earn salvation. At the very least that would require you live a perfect life, something none of us can do. The only way to be saved is to accept the gift from God. The only other choice is to pay that fine for yourself -- and that is too horrible to contemplate.
The lone exception is for those who are too young or too feeble minded to understand what God and salvation is all about. For those who die in that condition the term many use is safe, which means that they have all the benefits of salvation without having actually accepted that gift from God, but only because they were unable to do so.
I have seen television interviewers become very agitated with evangelical Christians for this position. Please understand, this is what we believe, not what we wish. We have no more say in this matter than we do about the laws of gravity. We believe if we jump off the Empire State Building we will fall to our deaths. We believe that if we do not accept Jesus, on His terms, we will suffer spiritual death.
We can wish people could fly, or that God would spare the "good guys" who didn't follow His plan of salvation all we want to, but that won't change either thing. In believing the Bible is true, which we do, we must follow what it says or act in a way we believe is sinful and against God. Castigating us for that is shooting the messenger.
Does this make us "elitist," as some have asserted? Not at all, and for two reasons. First, we understand and accept the fact that we are no more deserving of salvation than anyone else. We were, and are, sinners ourselves. It is only by God's grace that we are not headed for the same eternity we warn others of.
Second, God's gift is open to anyone who will accept it. I don't see how anything could be more egalitarian than that. This is not a matter of politics, policy, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, wealth, education, denomination or even religion. It is simply a matter of following the steps outlined in the Bible. Some of these things may change once you accept God's gift and learn more of His will, but if that is the case, those are changes you will desire once you understand they are God's will for your life. The requirements for salvation are inflexible, but they are also simple, finite and available.
Not only is it possible for anyone to be saved, but God, and evangelical Christians, want everyone to be saved. Indeed, the term evangelical is a name we gave ourselves and is based upon our dedication, as a group, to providing for every person on earth the information that will help them understand how to be saved. We don't want to be exclusive or elite, we only want to do that which is right according to God's word.
We would be more deserving of disdain if we failed to say forthrightly what we believe. Not to take this stance is akin to allowing a child who does not know better to walk off the Empire State Building because we don't want to make him, or his parents, angry. What a foolish and mean thing to do, for even if that child does not know he is in danger, or lacks the judgment to appreciate his danger, we do know.
In the same way, by telling others who are unaware of their danger or fail to appreciate the seriousness of that danger, of Christ's only plan of salvation, we offer them the opportunity to avoid that judgment which will come to them upon their physical death if they do not accept Christ and His gift. We believe -- I believe -- that is the single kindest thing we can do for any person.
Genesis 1-2, Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Romans 3:23, 5:12, John 3:16, 14:6
The Bible
Since this blog is based on the Bible and the evangelical understanding of that book, I need to make it clear exactly what I mean, and what I am referring to, when I speak of the Bible.
First, we don't actually have the Bible anymore. The Bible was what was originally written. I understand there are some thumbnail sized pieces of Paul's letters extant, but that is all.
What's more, we don't even have copies of the Bible.
What do we have? We have translations of copies. The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. Those documents which make up the Bible were copied by hand, one at a time, for centuries before mass printing was possible.
It is those copies, or printed versions of them, from which printed translations into other languages were made. Bibles are subject to the same vagaries of translation as any other document.
This brings up two questions. What do I believe about the original? Is what we have any good?
I believe the Bible, as originally written, is the inspired, infallible word of God, completely truthful and relevant for every situation and circumstance and just as real and important today and for the future as at any point in history. I believe every single decision we make should be, in some measure, weighed against it. For instance, while the Bible doesn't tell us directly what we should eat for supper, it does speak to the need for eating in a healthy manner.
I believe the Bible is the sole source of faith and practice. Other writings or teachers may help us understand it better, but no person or writing shares its authority and the worth of all other religious teaching and literature is based strictly upon how truly it conforms to the Bible, itself.
As to the worth of our translations, they are as good as their scholarship. One should take some care in choosing a translation (I use the New American Standard), but if a well translated version is chosen it has all the value of the original.
How can that be?
No book in history has been as studied and researched as the Bible. Scholars have gone to almost impossible lengths to confirm its accuracy and root out such small errors as have crept in. Thus it is pretty much impossible to believe that any well researched modern translation contains, and fails to point out, those small errors.
Can I prove the Bible is true or correct? No. There is no need for that with those who believe it and it is impossible to do with those who reject it. Some parts of it are easily verifiable. Some parts won't be verified until the end of time. In this blog I will not attempt to prove the Bible. The Bible is, in its essence, a book of faith, and it must be accepted on that basis. Evangelical Christianity does just that, and for the purpose of this blog that will suffice.
Romans 15:4, II Timothy 3:14-17, II Peter 1:20-21
First, we don't actually have the Bible anymore. The Bible was what was originally written. I understand there are some thumbnail sized pieces of Paul's letters extant, but that is all.
What's more, we don't even have copies of the Bible.
What do we have? We have translations of copies. The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. Those documents which make up the Bible were copied by hand, one at a time, for centuries before mass printing was possible.
It is those copies, or printed versions of them, from which printed translations into other languages were made. Bibles are subject to the same vagaries of translation as any other document.
This brings up two questions. What do I believe about the original? Is what we have any good?
I believe the Bible, as originally written, is the inspired, infallible word of God, completely truthful and relevant for every situation and circumstance and just as real and important today and for the future as at any point in history. I believe every single decision we make should be, in some measure, weighed against it. For instance, while the Bible doesn't tell us directly what we should eat for supper, it does speak to the need for eating in a healthy manner.
I believe the Bible is the sole source of faith and practice. Other writings or teachers may help us understand it better, but no person or writing shares its authority and the worth of all other religious teaching and literature is based strictly upon how truly it conforms to the Bible, itself.
As to the worth of our translations, they are as good as their scholarship. One should take some care in choosing a translation (I use the New American Standard), but if a well translated version is chosen it has all the value of the original.
How can that be?
No book in history has been as studied and researched as the Bible. Scholars have gone to almost impossible lengths to confirm its accuracy and root out such small errors as have crept in. Thus it is pretty much impossible to believe that any well researched modern translation contains, and fails to point out, those small errors.
Can I prove the Bible is true or correct? No. There is no need for that with those who believe it and it is impossible to do with those who reject it. Some parts of it are easily verifiable. Some parts won't be verified until the end of time. In this blog I will not attempt to prove the Bible. The Bible is, in its essence, a book of faith, and it must be accepted on that basis. Evangelical Christianity does just that, and for the purpose of this blog that will suffice.
Romans 15:4, II Timothy 3:14-17, II Peter 1:20-21
Parameters
When I read a new blog, or anything else, there are certain questions I usually ask myself, and I suspect you ask yourself something similar. In this first post I'd like to address some of those questions and, hopefully, give everyone a clear understanding of what I am doing, why I am doing it and how I hope to accomplish my purpose in it.
1) What is this blog about?
The Faithful Life is, in simplest terms, about relating every aspect of life to God as the reveals himself in His word, the Bible. Politics, religion, work, family -- no subject is taboo and you are likely to see anything here you might see in tomorrow's headlines, and possibly some things you won't.
2) What is the purpose of this blog?
The purpose of this blog is twofold. First, I hope it will help remind Evangelical Christians, including me, of what God expects from us in our daily lives. Second, I would like to help interpret the evangelical understanding and point of view to the non-evangelical world.
This blog is not, primarily, an evangelistic tool, though I suppose anything that expounds a point of view is, to some degree, evangelistic for its cause. Certainly, I would be thrilled to see anyone come to know and understand Christ from these pages, as I would from any other endeavor, and I make no secret of, or apology for, that. But, primarily, it is to help interpret the Bible in its role as a guide for our daily lives.
The blog is also not a doctrinal or belief statement, as such. For a clear and well written statement of my basic beliefs you can see the booklet The Baptist Faith and Message. If you are interested, you can find a copy at www.sbc.net/bfm.
I find doctrinal studies important and fascinating, but I will endeavor to keep this blog on message, which is to relate the Bible to life. That does involve our beliefs, of course, but will not be a treatise of them. The only exception is that my next two posts will address two key evangelical (and I believe Biblical) beliefs, the understanding of which are key to understanding the views of evangelicals in general.
3) Does that mean we won't address controversial questions?
Absolutely and emphatically not! Indeed, much of what is said in this blog is likely to be controversial. It is not my goal to be so, but one could hardly address the questions of this, or any other, day without it. I do not intent to use controversy as a reason to misbehave, but I will not shy away from the hard issues.
3) What are the parameters of this blog?
The single parameter for this blog is the Bible. That is, the sixty-six non-apocryphal books generally accepted as the Bible by the orthodox Christian community. The further explanation of this question will be the subject of my second blog.
4) What is the point of view of this blog?
The point of view is that the Bible is the only authoritative source of knowledge of God or His will and that, as such, it is completely true and wholly relevant to any issue, circumstance or position of any time in history, including the present and the future. Again, this will be addressed in my second blog.
5) What are my qualifications to write this blog?
Certainly not that I am perfect (even good) or have any special dispensation or ability. My only qualifications, such as they are, are completely transparent -- I have lived long enough to have a reasonably good education, raise a family, lead and follow others in various endeavors, read the Bible and hear what others say on that subject, hold most available positions in a church, work at a job and generally have some experience in life and give some thought to how life should be lived and to have failed in the proper living of it on occasion.
6) Why should you believe me or read what I say?
What I say is important only so far as it helps correctly understand what God says in His word. I invite you to read the Bible (if you have not already) and judge my words against that. I also invite you to comment on what you read. Those comments are the best way I know to keep my nose to the grindstone, so far as not allowing my personal feelings and prejudices to interfere with a fair reading and explanation of God's word.
7) What if I don't believe the Bible (or some part of the Bible) is true?
Then we won't have much in common and your comments may not sway me very much. The only argument to which I am consistently susceptible is one made from the Bible -- something that is true for most evangelical Christians. Still, I hope you will read my blog, and even comment on it. It is written for you, too, in hopes of helping correct what the world often misconstrues about evangelical Christianity. In the end, even if we don't agree, we may understand one another better.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible I have this one promise I can make you. Never, in this blog, will you find anything intended to be demeaning, hurtful or rude to those with whom I disagree. Open disagreement, yes, but mean-spirited, no. After all, if I were to spend my time castigating sinners, I could take up all of it dealing with my own shortcomings.
8) How often and how long?
I have a couple postings that I need to get out to set up what I want to do, and I will be trying to get those published quickly. After that, my initial goal is to publish once a week, on Wednesday. As for length, initially my goal is to keep it around five hundred words, which is about one letter sized page, type-written, single spaced. If I find any of that does not work for some reason, I will post the changes in by blog.
9) How do I reference what I write?
At the end of each blog you will find a list of Biblical passages that relate to what I have written. Feel free to check them, or any other passages you feel or relevant, and to comment on what you read.
1) What is this blog about?
The Faithful Life is, in simplest terms, about relating every aspect of life to God as the reveals himself in His word, the Bible. Politics, religion, work, family -- no subject is taboo and you are likely to see anything here you might see in tomorrow's headlines, and possibly some things you won't.
2) What is the purpose of this blog?
The purpose of this blog is twofold. First, I hope it will help remind Evangelical Christians, including me, of what God expects from us in our daily lives. Second, I would like to help interpret the evangelical understanding and point of view to the non-evangelical world.
This blog is not, primarily, an evangelistic tool, though I suppose anything that expounds a point of view is, to some degree, evangelistic for its cause. Certainly, I would be thrilled to see anyone come to know and understand Christ from these pages, as I would from any other endeavor, and I make no secret of, or apology for, that. But, primarily, it is to help interpret the Bible in its role as a guide for our daily lives.
The blog is also not a doctrinal or belief statement, as such. For a clear and well written statement of my basic beliefs you can see the booklet The Baptist Faith and Message. If you are interested, you can find a copy at www.sbc.net/bfm.
I find doctrinal studies important and fascinating, but I will endeavor to keep this blog on message, which is to relate the Bible to life. That does involve our beliefs, of course, but will not be a treatise of them. The only exception is that my next two posts will address two key evangelical (and I believe Biblical) beliefs, the understanding of which are key to understanding the views of evangelicals in general.
3) Does that mean we won't address controversial questions?
Absolutely and emphatically not! Indeed, much of what is said in this blog is likely to be controversial. It is not my goal to be so, but one could hardly address the questions of this, or any other, day without it. I do not intent to use controversy as a reason to misbehave, but I will not shy away from the hard issues.
3) What are the parameters of this blog?
The single parameter for this blog is the Bible. That is, the sixty-six non-apocryphal books generally accepted as the Bible by the orthodox Christian community. The further explanation of this question will be the subject of my second blog.
4) What is the point of view of this blog?
The point of view is that the Bible is the only authoritative source of knowledge of God or His will and that, as such, it is completely true and wholly relevant to any issue, circumstance or position of any time in history, including the present and the future. Again, this will be addressed in my second blog.
5) What are my qualifications to write this blog?
Certainly not that I am perfect (even good) or have any special dispensation or ability. My only qualifications, such as they are, are completely transparent -- I have lived long enough to have a reasonably good education, raise a family, lead and follow others in various endeavors, read the Bible and hear what others say on that subject, hold most available positions in a church, work at a job and generally have some experience in life and give some thought to how life should be lived and to have failed in the proper living of it on occasion.
6) Why should you believe me or read what I say?
What I say is important only so far as it helps correctly understand what God says in His word. I invite you to read the Bible (if you have not already) and judge my words against that. I also invite you to comment on what you read. Those comments are the best way I know to keep my nose to the grindstone, so far as not allowing my personal feelings and prejudices to interfere with a fair reading and explanation of God's word.
7) What if I don't believe the Bible (or some part of the Bible) is true?
Then we won't have much in common and your comments may not sway me very much. The only argument to which I am consistently susceptible is one made from the Bible -- something that is true for most evangelical Christians. Still, I hope you will read my blog, and even comment on it. It is written for you, too, in hopes of helping correct what the world often misconstrues about evangelical Christianity. In the end, even if we don't agree, we may understand one another better.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible I have this one promise I can make you. Never, in this blog, will you find anything intended to be demeaning, hurtful or rude to those with whom I disagree. Open disagreement, yes, but mean-spirited, no. After all, if I were to spend my time castigating sinners, I could take up all of it dealing with my own shortcomings.
8) How often and how long?
I have a couple postings that I need to get out to set up what I want to do, and I will be trying to get those published quickly. After that, my initial goal is to publish once a week, on Wednesday. As for length, initially my goal is to keep it around five hundred words, which is about one letter sized page, type-written, single spaced. If I find any of that does not work for some reason, I will post the changes in by blog.
9) How do I reference what I write?
At the end of each blog you will find a list of Biblical passages that relate to what I have written. Feel free to check them, or any other passages you feel or relevant, and to comment on what you read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)