"Gay" marriage questions

So, when the definition of marriage is eradicated and homosexuals can "marry" with the endorsement of the government:

1.  Will it become illegal for a pastor to proclaim what the Bible states about the act, that it is sin (like adultery, beastiality, incest)?

2.  Will Christian organizations (and for that matter, Muslim organizations) be permitted to not hire those who do not hold to orthodoxy?

3.  What about non-sectarian businesses?  I really can't imagine this anymore, but if a corporation or mom-and-pop joint felt that such conduct stood contrary to their corporate image, would they be free to not hire those they felt to be morally "suspect?"

4.  Many counter that this will not open Pandora's Box to other and alternative marriages (why can't Bob marry his puppy?), but can someone explain to me that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman (the parts seem to fit, btw), why it can't be between men (plural) and women (plural) or men and trees or men and men and women? And what's so wrong with incest? Or children?  Please don't recoil at such a question.  Many never imagined the homosexual marriage thing would be embraced with such favor or fervor.

Our nation saw fit to reward those who chose to marry (man and woman) in days of yore for very specific reasons.  Little did they foresee the ramifications that so innocuous a governmental endorsement would have upon our nation.

Gay (no, not the happy kind)

I remember an episode of Medical Center from my childhood.  Robert Reed, the man who will be forever etched in my mind as Mike Brady, father of six, husband of Carol, hirer of Alice and sometime architect, wanted to remove his man-parts and become a woman.  That was a little bit weird for a twelve-year old kid in middle-'70's Minneapolis to come to terms with.

Fast forward thirty-five years.  In 2010 America, sexual deviance no longer exists.  You'd be hard pressed to find a television show that does not have a homosexual character.  Showtime had an entire series dedicated to female homosexuality.  HBO has one dedicated to polygamy.  Companies offer benefits to "partners," whatever that means.

Few places remain that hold to husband-wife marriage as sexual normalcy.  Texas won't accept the homosexual marriages performed in other states and as such won't provide a divorce for that which they do not recognize.

Another place where homosexuality remains hotly contested is within the church.  Recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) caved and deemed it peachy for pastors to be involved in a homosexual relationship (here or here), but they still declare that marriage is between a man and a woman (though I can't figure out why).  Fewer and fewer churches recognize biblical authority over cultural authority and affirm homosexuality to be a sin equal to any other sexual relationship outside of marriage.

So why do those within the Church argue with such passion against homosexuality? Because the adulterers of the world are not trying to normalize their rebellion within the church.  While not part of the Christian church, only in fringe Mormonism can you find polygamists trying to make inroads toward religious normalcy.  So the Church stands upon the word of God and proclaims that sin is sin.

Homosexual advocates who try and mainstream into the church take one of two tacks.  First, they argue that the plethora of verses declaring the sinfulness of homosexuality and homosexual relationships really don't address homosexuality at all.  They contend they really point to idolatry or some other cultural taboo and not homosexuality itself.  They divide the Gospels from the rest of Scripture and assert that since Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality it can't be that bad.*

The second group doesn't much care what the Bible says; they cannot deny what they feel, so they just go with it.  Into this group falls Jennifer Knapp.  Ms. Knapp released a couple of CDs over a decade ago with a very folksy sound and heavy Christian themes.  Quite the talent.  And then she vanished from the Christian music scene.  She reappeared in recent days with a new CD (not specifically "Christian") and proclaiming herself to be quite gay...and Christian.

Now, there is a difference between someone who struggles with a sin and someone who declares their conduct to not be a sin.  The person who regularly turns into Dunkin Donuts, buys a dozen and consumes them enroute to work has an issue with gluttony.  If they do this once a week, sometimes twice, and hate what they have done as they wipe the chocolate frosting from their cheek, they struggle with sin.  Those that turn in five out of five days and revel in the sprinkles despite tipping the scales at three-and four-hundred pounds believes themselves (wrongly) to not be in sin.

What about Ms. Knapp?  In an interview with Christianity Today (CT), she stated her position with clarity.

I'm not capable of getting into the theological argument as to whether or not we should or shouldn't allow homosexuals within our church. There's a spirit that overrides that for me, and what I've been gravitating to in Christ and why I became a Christian in the first place.

She doesn't want that theological stuff (God-study stuff) to get in the way of being a Christian.  When we loose ourself from the foundation of the Bible, it's easy to say that all's fair. 

CT then asked her what she thought about those who believed homosexual feelings to be okay but the act to be sinful.  Her reply:

I'm not capable of fully debating that well...If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I'm sorry. I'm going to be a miserable failure.

So is she struggling with sinful desires?  Nope.  She's quite happy, thank you.

The day fast approaches where publically taking the Bible position that sexual deviance is a sin will earn a do-not-pass-go trip to jail time.  That day has arrived in Canada.  In many places in our nation, it's already verboten to refer to such conduct as rebellion against a holy God.

So do we, unlike the ELCA, call the sinner to repentance by exposing sin as sin as John and Jesus did, or do we quietly blend in and deny the faith we profess?

----------------------------------------

*Jesus, the Jew, came as the Messiah of Israel.  Within the Jewish nation, homosexuality was already understood to be an abomination against God; it was not an issue that needed a specific address while he walked the earth.  As Paul went into the Gentile nations where homosexuality was common, he needed to address God's position on such behavior.  To the Corinthian Church he wrote (1 Corinthians 6:9-11):

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Hence, it is not surprising to find the Gospels silent on the matter of homosexuality.

People

There's none righteous.  No, not one.  Not my words.  God, through the heart, mind, and hand of Paul, made that plain.  The reality of the daily newspaper bears it out.  A few thoughts on a few folks making a name for themselves of late.

• Tiger Woods.  Power.  Money.  Fame.  Talent.  None of which sets a person outside the bounds of law or morality.  How often, though, when so much comes to one so young or so old, that they succomb to the lies and the enticements of the serpent.  I cannot cast the first stone, but that in no way excuses or condones his egregious conduct.  It just reminds me of the inkly blackness of my own heart and the pristine grace of a God who's offered himself on my behalf.

• Chris Matthews.  My respect for his journalistic insight has diminished exponentially since Barack Obama's election because he is unashamed in his bias.  Last night, in trying to make a point about the conservative nature of the military, Matthews suggested that the President, in choosing to give this speech at Westpoint, the US Military Academy, had entered the "enemy camp."  Charming (watch it here).

UPDATE:  Since originally posting Matthews original comment, he went on air last night and began with one of the most sincere apologies I have ever seen from one in the public eye.  He need not apologize for leftist political views.  He needn't even apologize for pretending they are journalistic.  But what he said two days ago needed an apology and he did so with a class rarely seen on TV.  Watch it here.

• President Obama.  Nations that make the Russians look conservative have begun to recognize the hollow nature of the President's rhetoric.  Here's a German assessment of our leader's speech.
• Scientists.  Did you know they are human, too?  Did you know that they can be as petty, back-biting, arrogant, deceitful, and hypocritical as you and I?  Do you think we might stop treating them as deity heretofore in the wake of Climategate?  I hope so.  SUVs for all my friends!
• Thomas Sowell.  This from his "Random thoughts on the passing scene" from yesterday (always worth the time...here):

Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara River, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don’t know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.

On that note, here's hoping that the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning is 93 million miles away.

Mortified!

[WARNING: Theological discussion ahead. No animals were hurt during the writing of this post.]

One of the funniest scenes in cinema was apparently not in the script. In the only good Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy is racing through Egyptian backstreets looking for the kidnapped Marion when a scimitar wielding baddie out of nowhere blocks his progress. The hero freezes despair spreads across his face and the crowds part in anticipation of the ensuing donnybrook.

At that moment, you can almost see the Looney-Toon lightbulb pop up over Indy's head. He reaches for his holster, grabs his revolver, and dispatches his foe. Before the corpse hits the ground, the pistol is holstered as Indy rubs his grizzled chin wondering where in this camel-flea-bitten town he'll find his Hepburn.

This scene came to my mind as I frustratedly reran my Sunday school class through my mind. I tried (unsuccessfully) to convey to the class how we are to follow Paul's command to "mortify...your members which are upon the earth," those sins that creep up and entice us again and again. Then I thought of Indy.

As Christians, Paul explains that because of what Christ has done and our association with Him, sin no longers holds mastery over us. Where before our relationship with Christ sin was our nature, now the Christian has a choice to follow after sin or follow after righteousness. Paul urges the Roman church to "reckon yourselves dead to sin," consider yourselves dead in your battle against sin. But how do we do that?

We tend to act like morticians. Rather than kill a thing and move on, we want to study the festering corpse. It grosses us out, but somehow we just can't turn away from our sin. We try to walk from the table but we keep getting drawn back to the icky green stuff oozing out of a particular cavity. Phew, that stinks! Paul does NOT call us to be morticians but mortifiers.

In living the Christian life that by its nature has victory over sin, our lives must be more like Indy in that Egyptian street. When the scimitar-waving sin nature stands in front of us, we don't submit to it. We don't even "fight" it per se. In the spiritual realm, it is already dead, impotent. We simply grab the pistol, see the corpse fall to the street, and move on.

Jesus Christ has so much for us to do. He has an abundant life for us to live. How foolish we are to hang around and examine the corpse, probing the bullet wound, checking for pulse. How much time we waste obsessing in our sin. Turn and walk away from the carcass toward the myriad of things your Lord has called you to do. If another one crops up, slay it and press on.

He's DEAD! Move on in the work Christ has called you to do. There are damsels to rescue.

Addicted?

The other day, I caught a portion of Bob Ley's "Outside the Lines" on ESPN. He put the spotlight on Art Schlichter, a college football phenom who crashed and burned in the NFL. Why? Art Schlichter gambled. He bet football. He bet basketball. He amassed over a million dollars in gambling debts and served more than ten years in prison, none of which is conducive to an NFL career.

What stuck in my ear about the piece was a phrase I'd heard many times before, gambling addiction. "I was addicted to gambling." Addicted? I always thought that addiction meant that if the addicted went without that thing to which they wer addicted, they would suffer horrible withdrawal. Too much alcohol decreased the affect of the depressant and altered the physiology of the human body. So, too, narcotics. But addicted to gambling?

No doubt the heroin addict goes through agony as he becomes unaddicted to the stuff. So, too, the alcoholic. But the term gets bandied about with lots of things that don't alter our physiology. You hear about food addictions, internet addictions, thrill addictions, and pornography addictions. While the rush caused by each of these might very well be real, the body has not been changed in such a way so as to need this thing or this event.

Some go so far as to refer to addiction as a disease. Bob Ley did just that when discussing Art Schlichter's gambling problem. What can you do about a disease? If you catch it, bummer. You don't have any control, do you?

Addiction. Disease. Both terms imply the individual no longer has any moral culpability for their behavior, they have no choice. They only do what the addiction or the disease compels them to do.

That is a lie.

God holds man accountable for what he does and for what he chooses. When man chooses ways contrary to what God has delineated, God calls it sin, rebellion, treason, treachery, wickedness, iniquity, and God holds man responsible. He stirs up his passions by ogling women not his wife? God calls that adultery. Man seeks a thrill by going double-down on a pair of aces? God calls that foolishness. His heart begins to pound when he sees the spread and dives in at Ci-Ci's Pizza? God calls that gluttony.

We have a choice. No gory details, but I know of what I speak having struggled with what many call and addiction. No, I chose, each time, to engage in what I chose to engage. One more Twinkie. One more drink. One more roll of the dice. One more look. Nancy Reagan continues to be mocked for her "Just Say No" campaign against drug abuse, but she had it right. That's what God calls the Christian to do. He asks us to trust him and his ways.

This is especially true for the Christian. Note what Paul wrote to the church at Rome and note especially the words he chose (parentheses mine):

"Therefore do not let (option) sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting (choice) the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present (conscious act) yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace...

"...Do you not know that when you present yourselves (conscious, purposeful act) to someone as slaves (ooh, serious word) for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification."

Personal responsibility continues to die a slow and agonizing death in 2009 America. Using words like disease and addiction when discussing acts of the takes the reigns of moral agency away from each of us. If I don't have moral boundaries by which I must travel, then all bets are off. Civilization degenerates into chaos. Since the individual will not order himself, government will impose order upon him, and his freedom is lost.

So what's it going to be? Are we going to roll the dice or will we man-up and push ourselves away from the table? The choice is mine. The choice is yours. Only through being enslaved to righteousness at the foot of the cross of Christ will man know true freedom.

Josh Hamilton: Just a man

One year ago I wrote a post about the herculean hero of the 2008 All-Star Game, Josh Hamilton. Okay, he was the hero of the Home Run Derby the day before, but his monstrous 28 homers in the first round alone proved the story of all the festivities.

What made Hamilton's story extraordinary was how he frittered away first-round draft pick status on drugs, alcohol, and women only to have his life and his baseball career resurrected by his relationship with Jesus Christ. During his phenomenal success during All-Star Week 2008, Josh Hamilton repeatedly deflected the accolades heaped upon him toward his Lord and Savior Jesus Chris. None could deny that the breath of life his life and career received came from none other than God Almighty.

The quiet, humble Hamilton became a national hero.

On a January evening in Phoenix, Arizona, his humanity reared its ugly head.

For whatever reason the man who went with him whenever he went out on the town to keep him from alcohol and drugs either a) didn't do his job or b) was not with Josh. One drink. Just one drink. But one led to two and then to three. Pretty soon the married and inebriated Hamilton was being photographed with women doing things that would jeopardize any marriage and that would tarnish any hero status.

The photos didn't surface until this week. Hamilton pulled no punches and laid no blame. He accepted full responsibility for his inappropriate behavior explaining that right after the incident he confessed to his wife and confessed to the Rangers.

What's the point? Really, there are lots. Every sports venue is weighing in some comparing the contrition of Hamilton with the "I'm-sorry-I-got-busted" attitude of steroid users (like Big Papi). I've heard nary a peep about the devastating, far-reaching consequences of sin.

A known alcoholic cannot touch alcohol. Can't. Josh knew that. His wife knew that--and trusted him not to touch it. Josh broke that trust.

Let's toss some napalm on the fire. Let's bring a few bar vixens into the mix. And a dude with a camera. Now your wife gets to see you in living color, not jacking homers deep into the Arlington evening, but letting a trio of tarts clinging to the triceps she thought were hers alone. Love? Honor?

What about his kids (does he have kids?)? Want that poster of your dad on your bedroom wall?

And what about Christ? The Bible says Christians are ambassadors for their risen Lord. How's that reflect on Christ? Now, Christians understand that they are not immune to sin, but the world only sees hypocrites.

What else? Who else? Fans young and old? Teammates? Endorsements? Mom and Dad?

One night. One drink. One indiscretion.

Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?
Can one walk on hot coals,
And his feet not be seared?

Now here's the kicker. Josh is high visibility. I am not. The malignant consequences for my sin extend no less far for me than they do for an All-Star Texas Ranger.

Oh, that I would see the fetid nature of my sin as God sees it. To then repent and confess and to receive the cleansing from sin that only the triune God through the blood of Christ can offer.
------------------------------

(This morning, my pastor delivered a searing sermon on the consequences of the hidden sin of one man and our willingness to fondle sin. Listen to it here. It'll run you 35 minutes. It's downloadable, too, if you'd prefer.)

Episcopalian pablum

At their annual meeting, the Episcopal Church (in America. The African Episcopal Church wants nothing to do with the American variety) has moved toward full recognition of homosexual marriage and the ordination of homosexual bishops (here).

This isn't surprising really. The same thing is going down in the Lutheran Church as well (how Martin Luther would shudder to see what's become of the denomination that donned his name). Why are formerly mainline denominations, denominations that are losing membership in droves, embracing as normal conduct that for centuries they rightly labeled sin?

Here's your challenge du jour. First, set aside what you think. Second, go to the Bible and see what it has to say about homosexual conduct. If it gives such behavior a pass, the Episcopal Church is good to go. If it labels such conduct as sin (i.e. rebellion against what God has made plain), then we get to the third part of the challenge. Does the Bible indicate that ordination and a warm embrace are what the church should offer those who practice sin or should the church take a different tack?

Before you label me a homophobe, this indictment would hold for any church that endorses any sinful conduct (gossip, gluttony, and girl-watching are three that come to mind that the church has been mostly silent on, too). But then, the Episcopal Church, et al, is not encouraging a big, wet kiss for those who gorge at the local Luby's.

Rick Warren: The bullseye du jour

Look up lightning rod on Wikipedia (what's an encyclopedia?), and you'll see Rick Warren's picture.

That role has been magnified with Barack Obama's selection of the Saddleback pastor as his inaugural invocator. The bolts are a-flying from the right and the left.

Some on the right see him as the great compromiser, and with regard to the Gospel, that's not a good thing. They see Warren's willingness to pray on behalf of the left-of-liberal president-elect as turning a blind eye or even a condoning of Obama's unbiblical positions on most issues. Betrayal. Compromiser!

The left's none to happy either. Homosexuals and others in favor of sexual aberrance cry out like the Wicked Witch of the West freshly splashed with water. Pro-aborts? No happier. How could the One choose a hate-monger and a bigot, one opposed to women's rights, to ask God's blessing next month at so momentous an occasion? (I hope the lunacy of such a question makes your brain loop-the-loop, too).

My take on the situation? Obama continues to show his political savvy. Within the political process, what's an invocation? What harm will it do? The serpent has pitched a bone to the Religious Right. It affects no law, promises no policy. Count on this: after this momentary appeasement to biblical conservatives, policies and laws that mirror what Obama has favored his entire political life will follow quickly. The morally bankrupt feathers are temporarily ruffled. Soon they'll be turning cartwheels.

Rick Warren? He's never equivocated on positions moral. Pro-life. Pro-marriage. Abortion and sexual misconduct are both sin. He's never wavered on grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. So what gives? By giving Obama an AIDS platform, the body heard first hand the not-quite-right rhetoric of a man pleaser. By offering his church for a political debate, he let the world see that the church has a place in the political arena, and he again, exposed the fact that moral questions were above the future president's paygrade. By praying for the president, he does what we are all called to do (1 Timothy 2:1-3). I don't know that I'd have had the grace to say yes to such an invitation.

Let me back up to his indictment as a bigot, as one who equates incest with homosexuality (here ... this is one of many columns skewering Warren; perhaps the most polite). Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams subbed for Mr. O. Juan Williams sits some where to the left of O'Reilly on the political bench. He was grilling Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of 1st Baptist Church, Dallas about how Warren can state that he loves homosexuals and wants what's best for them when he stands opposed homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, etc.

Jeffress handled himself reasonably well, but a light came on in my mind. On the left, identity is defined by how you have sex. Therefore, if you define a sexual practice as deviant, aberrant or (gasp) sinful, the left believes you have so identified the person as a deviant, aberrant, or (gasp) a sinner.

Well, the Bible agrees with that assessment (here) ...but the Bible does not stop there. All humanity bears the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6), something inherent within the man making him of infinite worth. It doesn't depend upon his sexual preference nor upon whether one likes anchovies on one's pizza. Saint and sinner, young and old, NBA or NHL, red-state/blue-state, Jew and Gentile, all are created in the image of God.

That's why Rick Warren can love those who are homosexual. That's why Rick Warren is not a bigot. He indicts an act of sin. He indicts acting upon sinful lust. And yes, it ought to be equated with incest and even worse. And sadly, those who practice such, those who unrepentantly live the lifestyle, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

A human being is not defined by what he does in bed. It goes so much deeper.

Praise God for the courage of Rick Warren...on a number of fronts. Let's hope he prays in Jesus' name and that his doctrine doesn't turn to much.

(A couple of other articles on Warren and the Inauguration here and here).

QotD: Newsweek's heresy continued

"No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism... to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."

Jon Meachem, editor of Newsweek magazine, commenting (here) on the heretical article that was their cover story (blogged upon here). The rest of his commentary is equally repugnant.

And right before Sunday. During advent. I think I need a shower.

Dudes: I gotta be me!

For those of you who are married, you have, because of your situation, been called by God to marital fidelity.

For those of you who are not married, you have, because of your situation, been called by God to marital fidelity. You see, Hebrews 13:4 is no respecter of persons.

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Seems pretty cut and dried.

Things begin to happen to our reason and to our defenses when our minds and eyes wander (Proverbs 5:7-14, Job 31:1), when we fail to remember our first love and to love our bride as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25-28).

It matters not the object of this new and hostile affection. For Christian singer Ray Bolz ("Thank you, for giving to the Lord"), that object was another man. The escape clause for homosexual adultery is the "sudden realization" for the man or woman that they'd always been "gay." No, the truth is that you have always been a sinner; you are now just acting upon the lusts of the flesh.

Pastors and secretaries. Wives and co-workers. Older and younger. And you can sprinkle in the deviance of your choice (the Bible touches on most of them). Bottom line: It's sin, rebellion against God. Tony Woodlief, in World on the Web, pulls no punches as he speaks about the darkness of the heart that wanders. His agonized column was spawned by Bolz's betrayal of his wife of 30-plus years, but it focuses not on homosexual adultery but on marital infidelity in any hue.

Gents (and ladies), I encourage you to take the time to meditate upon Woodlief's confrontation (here). Cling to the Vine and shore up your defenses.

"Merge, everybody, merge!"

If you become deluded about the nobility of man's basic nature, you have only to drive on a city highway to become resobered to the fact that we're closer to "The Lord of the Flies" than "The Lord of the Rings."

There's an overpass in our town where many are merging in from the right while many in the flow need to get over to the left to exit. The merge/exit takes place within about a quarter mile.

If you are already established in the right lane going up the overpass, you're set. Folks coming in from the right to merge have to yield to you. Folks to your left have to either move ahead of you or work in behind you. At rush hour, two-thirds of the folks are looking to exit, even those who are just merging.

Because of this dynamic, it's the perfect crucible for human nature.

Today, I witnessed a red pick-up 1) accelerate to force the merging traffic to slow/stop, 2) reaccelerate to disallow an accelerating woman in the left lane to position herself for an exit, and then 3) once established on the long sweeping exit, slow as if to exult himself as Lord of the Off-Ramp.

My head almost exploded watching this.

Why do we do this? Why is it when we get into our mechanized cage we devolve into some hideous troll? "HAH! YOU CAN'T GET IN! HA-HA!" we conquer. "I'LL BE A GIRL IN A TUTU IF I'LL LET YOU BEAT ME TO THE OFF-RAMP! HA-HA!"

Repugnant, rapturous rudeness. It's hideous...and we love it! And it spotlights the darkness of our self-absorbed souls.


At the same time, don't hesitate to honk at the fools, gentlemen. Yeah, I know about road rage, and the likelihood that you'll get the redneck salute. Carrying will alleviate a few of those fears, but at the same time, it's poor citizenry to not police our own. If we don't, entropy (sin) will continue to make mayhem of our motorways. I'd just soon my bride NOT have to deal with knuckle-draggers like that when she's toting around the girls (and her little friend).

With a tip of the hat to Brian Regan, "Merge, everybody. Merge!" Ease off, make some space, and show your brother a little grace. (Sorry)

Frodo

Once a year, far too seldom for my sons' tastes, we cart out the Lord of the Rings trilogy for family movie night. Considering we purchased the extended versions, we watch the three over a period of weeks, and each film takes a couple days (dad's early bedtime).

Last night we concluded "The Return of the King."

As I once again sat mesmerized by the climax of the film. The armies of the west led by Aragorn set out to sacrifice themselves against the filth at the Black Gate to distract the evil forces in hope of giving Frodo a chance to destroy the Ring. Sam and Frodo spend every last ounce of what they had to scale Mount Doom. Watching this unfold, I shuddered at the cancerous depth of sin's grasp on the human heart.

While Sam tangled with Gollum, Frodo summoned what strength remained to haul himself into the mountain's darkness. Sam, casting Gollum to the side, witnessed Frodo's entrance and followed his charge, hoping to witness the final victory.

But the victory does not come. Sam stands dismayed as Frodo stands at the precipice of the furnace eying and caressing the Ring, his "Precious."

Tolkien describes it thus:

Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear voice, indeed with a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use, and it rose above the throb and turmoil of Mount Doom, ringing in the roof and walls.

"I have come," he said. "But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. the Ring is mine.!" And suddenly, as he set it on his finger, he vanished from Sam's sight. Sam gasped...

The Return of the King

Frodo knew the ring was evil. He hauled that tonnage over hill and dale to see it destroyed. Upon entry into the mountain's fiery heart, he intended that very purpose.

But the Ring's enticement proved too great. Reason and clarity evaporated like a drop of water on a Phoenix sidewalk. Frodo could not, in his own strength, separate himself from the sin that bound him. He intended to end it, to destroy it, but he could not.

As I look back at my life before Christ, I loved my sin. Having been raised in the church, having been raised with a great knowledge of God's word, I knew that my "Precious" stood contrary to God's design, His will and His plan. Oh, but I loved my sin. Paul describes our inability to separate ourselves from our sin like this:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" (Ephesians 2:1-5)

Dead men do nothing. They have no strength and no power do anything. That's why God is the mover in this passage. Plainly, God's work of grace in our lives breathes into us new life. Resuscitation. Regeneration.

What events does He use? Different for each soul. A book. A person. A circumstance. For some, it requires the gnawing off of a finger to remove the festering blot from his soul. "...And this not of your own doing (the faith that brings salvation); it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8b-9)

As the rest of the movie played out (Peter Jackson should have ended it after the coronation), I thanked God for the lengths He went to (a bloody cross) to redeem an unlovable Hobbit like me from the abyss.

And for those of you who had a hand (or a tooth) in chomping off my finger, thank you, too, for serving as God's agents in my life.

Now the choices begin.

All photos copyright New Line Cinema

Dudes III

Again, lassies, this is for your laddies. Your welcome to continue, but it's intended for men.

Ironic how when God wants to teach a lesson, the same point gets hammered home again...and again...and again. Consider it God's version of boldface, underlining, and highlighting all at the same time. It's a sweet thing that He loves us that much to go to such lengths.

I hadn't intended on writing about this again, but I stumbled upon a superb and simple article from Mike Adams (read here). It's title: "Real Men Don't Do Porn."

What's the big deal? I contend pornography is the single greatest sin in the church today among men. Stats bear that out. I contend it is the greatest destroyer of marriages. It leads to conflict. It brings about financial turmoil. It cripples your ministry. It stains your children. It dishonors your wife. It's an affront to and rebellion toward Almighty God. It is sin.

But there is hope. There is healing. There is forgiveness. There is restoration. But they come through repentance. Turning. Fleeing. Agreeing with God.

I pray that if you need a Nathan in your life, that God would provide a man to get in your chili and say, "You are in sin." Only when confronted with his sin did David repent. Yes, the consequences played out for the rest of his life. What's done cannot be undone. But his shattered relationship with God found renewal.

"Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight."

Psalm 51:4

Man up and run away from it, NEVER to return. Never!