Memorize

Really, this is for Christians. If you are not, you are still most welcome to read on.

Tonight, I had a conversation with a fellow believer who said he that while having a conversation with another believer, that man couldn't figure out the big deal with memorizing verses or chapters in the Bible. My jaw slacked. Then my eyebrows raised. This would be like someone who was committed to fitness eschewing cardio.

I didn't know what to say.

John Piper makes clear in this wonderful video that Bible memorization is not commanded in Scripture. Well, okay. It is for the most part assumed as needful:

"I have stored your word in my heart that I might not sin against you." (Psalm 119:11)

Considering most could not afford to have a "Bible" at their disposal during Old and New Testament times, Bible memorization became a normal Christian discipline. Help the poor. Memorize God's word.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

But memorizing God's word has fallen out of vogue. We have an app, after all. I can listen to it on my way to work and one and a half times speed. Nice, but for the one who has toiled to bring God's word deep into their soul, wrestling with that's and which's, they would contend that to struggle with a passage is to better understand God and his grandeur because they better understand that which he has spoken.

So what? I want to encourage you to memorize. AND I want you to encourage me to continue to memorize. I DO NOT want you to memorize simply to memorize. I want you to memorize to:

• Know and love your Savior with a hotter and deeper passion
• Ache for the holiness to which he calls you and to strive thereto
• Seek the Source of sanctifying wisdom given to man
• Be the saint he has gifted you to be in the Church
• Be nourished with the only food that will satisfy your soul
• See God as he has revealed himself in his word

To encourage folks in this endeavor, I have started a Facebook page: 1Chapter. If you would like to be apart of the encouragement that comes from having others spur you on to memorize God's word, let me know and I'll add you to the group. No cost. No gimmicks. From time to time we'll drop some encouragement onto the page to spur you in your journey. We'll provide links and ideas to help you memorize. 

Last June, I encouraged folks to take the next two months and memorize one chapter of God's word. Here we go again. Between now and Thanksgiving you have three months. You can do it. One chapter.

Join the page and let me know your chapter. We can encourage one another.

Homosexual marriage and moral relativism

Rob Bell's in favor of homosexual marriage. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

The former pastor has rejected a biblical view on most issues. His book, "Love Wins," denied a hell for those who have rejected the free gift of redemption from hell through the very expensive death of God the Son on the cross. So to chuck the plain reading of God's word regarding homosexuality should be no acrobatic stretch for him (here).

This is nothing new for those who profess to be leaders of God's people. Long, long ago, God hammered the prophets and religious leaders through the words of Ezekiel.

-- Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing...
-- ...They say, "Declares the LORD," when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word...
-- ...You have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life.

Ezekiel 13:3, 6, 22 

We live in a nation that no longer honors God's word as such. Few in the church adhere to its tenets. Few believe it is his special revelation to his creatures. In fact, if you stand upon God's word, if you truly believe what he has said, if you live your life to honor him and love him in your obedience, you will be mocked, ridiculed, and rejected. The tolerance in America for vocal Bible-believers is wearing thin, and this has caused many church leaders to try and adapt God's word to the culture.

Said Mr. Bell, "I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think … we need to affirm people wherever they are." Affirm away, but I must ask, is it love to encourage and embrace the actions of another if you know such conduct is a direct affront to the God who loves them? As I pled with my dad and my mom as a lad, "Cigarettes will kill you," do I not have a moral responsibility to declare the truth to those careening toward an eternity of torment separated from the God who so loved his creatures that he provided them an off-ramp from that destination?

Every congressman in America may be in favor of homosexual marriage, but that does not make it good or right. Our nation will continue to reject the absolute nature of God's word. I must not. I cannot. If I untether myself from the only sure anchor-point in the universe, the word of God, all becomes relative. 

I believe Mr. Bell is correct. The ship has sailed. America has left its biblical moorings far behind. Without that foundation, marriage becomes a meaningless merging of any number of persons, creatures, or objects. Why can I not marry my sofa?

In reality, though, Love has won. God the Son absorbed the full wrath and condemnation of God the Father on our behalf. Until man takes hold of that gift and lets God reorient him to reality, he still stands in rebellion and in hostility toward God. He stands condemned and his doom is sure, despite his personal enlightenment on issues cultural and political.

We must remain anchored upon the sure foundation. With tears in our eyes we must continue to cry out to our nation, "Please, don't go that way," and point them back to their God and their Savior.

Even if we are the only one left on the dock.

Hearing check

I came across this in my reading this morning and it stuck in my mind like an American in a European round-a-bout. When we read the Bible, what do we hear? Can we hear? And how well do we hear--and I mean really hear?

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God."

Now, most of us will shrug it off thinking we are aware of God in the cosmos, but Jesus drives it deeper.

"The reason why you do not hear them (the words of God) is that you are not of God." (John 8:47)

Again, how well do you hear? As a former fighter pilot, I have a number of friends who cannot hear certain frequency ranges due to decades around jet engines. They hear nothing in that range. God's giving us a very plain hearing test, and it doesn't require sitting in a sound-proof booth and mashing buttons when you hear an imaginary tone.

Here's the test: open the Bible and read it. You'll fall into one of three categories:

1. You REJECT it. You won't even take the test. You probably don't want to stop back by this blog anymore.

2. You're PERPLEXED. As you read the pages of the Bible, you don't understand what all the falderol is about. It's like reading somebody else's mail. But if you'd like to understand, ask the Author. You might be surprised what he'll show you (see John 3). If you think it's stupid, go back to category #1.

3. You're TICKLED. You hear his voice pretty well (John 10:27).

It all hinges upon God's word. Can we hear it? It's either true or it's not. If it's true, the consequences are enormous. It's like learning of a hidden treasure. Would you not do all within your power to obtain it? If it's false, then Jesus of Nazareth and all of his followers are the foulest individuals for selling millions a bill of goods.

So the question still hangs there. How's your hearing?

When Jesus was crucified, Part III

In the last two posts, we looked at the terms "three days" and "the third day" within the New Testament (here) and then why the Church generally recognizes Friday as the day of crucifixion and Sunday as the day of Resurrection (here). Today, we'll look at what the Bible says, and we'll see that there might be an alternative.


And we'll throw this in from the outset:


[NOTE:  None of this should, nor is it intended to, alter anyone's convictions in the inspired and inerrant word of God nor in the doctrine of the literal (and atoning) death, burial, and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.]


Now, on with the show.


If we are to take Christ at his word, that he says what he means and that he means what he says, we have no choice but to think that he really believed he would be interred for three full days when he said:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

The following detective work requires that you have a finger in all four gospel accounts of the death of Jesus and his resurrection (Matthew 27:32-28:2, Mark 15:33-16:3, Luke 23:44-24:3, and John 19:28-20:2).


We have assumed to this point that the Sabbath that was approaching on the day of Christ's crucifixion was the standard weekly Sabbath, that would be Saturday. Notice what John 19:31 says (parentheses included in the ESV):

"Since it was the day of Preparation, and so the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away."

There are other Sabbaths apart from Saturday. Think of it like this. Christmas falls on a different day every year due to the perma-shift of December 25th. We have holidays that fall on different days of the week. Yes, every President's Day is a Monday and every Easter is a Sunday, but neither is always on the same date.  Christmas, though on the same date is not on the same day. The Jewish calendar had holidays, too, or Sabbaths.


Consider, each of the feasts has a holy convocation, a Sabbath, associated with it (Leviticus 16:29-3123:24, 26-32, 39). Leviticus 25 speaks of a Sabbath year! And when God instituted the Passover, the day after the Passover was a Sabbath that started the Feast of Unleavened Bread (note Exodus 12, esp. v. 16).  John's inclusion of the term high day leaves one to think that quite possibly it was a non-Saturday Sabbath that was approaching.

Let's turn to the events that took place between the death and the resurrection, specifically, the women had to get the stuff ready to properly bury Jesus body. You simply didn't have these items lying around the house. They needed to be purchased. Notice what Mark's gospel tells us.

"When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." (Mark 16:1)

Which Sabbath? The one that immediately followed Jesus crucifixion. The Sabbath ended at sundown. Shops would not open at that time; in fact they would not open until the following morning. If Jesus had died on Friday, this would put the women going to market for the supplies on Sunday morning, but the gospels tell us plainly that at daybreak they were on their way to the tomb.  Luke's account states:

"But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb taking the spices they had prepared." (Luke 24:1)

Note the past tense. So in Mark's gospel we see that after the Sabbath the women had to procure the products with which to anoint the body, but immediately after the Sabbath they were on their way to the tomb. That's just not possible if Jesus died on Friday.


So when did he die? For the three-days and three-nights and Sabbaths to work out, he would have had to have died on a Wednesday late afternoon on the day of Passover (which Jesus had eaten the night before that day). That day was also the day of Preparation (John 19:31, 42) for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Three days and nights later, he would have been raised late Saturday afternoon or "early" on Sunday which would have been after sunset of our Saturday.


Would that not provide a plain reading of the text?


Why do I care? One of the most breath-taking things for me as I have grown in my relationship with my Lord is that he speaks plainly in his word. I do not have to set my mind aside to be a believer in the true and living God, the One who spoke the cosmos into being, the One who died for my sin and rebellion. If he did not remain in the tomb for three days and three nights, he did not know what he was talking about when he gave Jonah as an answer to those seeking a sign.


Bottom line, what the Bible says can be trusted. Will I still celebrate the Resurrection on Sunday morning? You bet because that is when he was first seen. I would say it doesn't matter when he was raised--just that he was raised--but that would indict the character of God the Son, not something one such as I is qualified to do.  At the same time, I'll not get my knickers in a knot regarding brothers who celebrate Good Friday or state that Jesus rose on Sunday morning.


He died.  He lives.  And because he lives, because of his completed work, God has made the way for us all to have eternal life. A free gift purchased in blood. Will you take it?

When Jesus was crucified, Part II

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:39-40)

So Jesus stated with enough crystal clarity to satisfy Colonel Nathan Jessup that he would be dead for three whole days (see yesterday's post here).


This raises some questions, then. Try this one on, "When was he crucified?" Then there's the sequel, "When was he resurrected?

Before we troll into those waters, let's look at why we think he was crucified on Friday.


In Mark's gospel, he states that the day on which Jesus was crucified was "the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42). It doesn't take a PhD in Jewish studies to know that the Jewish Sabbath was Saturday. Therefore the day before the Sabbath would naturally be Friday.  Luke's gospel gives us a similar perspective (Luke 23:54).  In John's gospel, we read that because the Sabbath was fast approaching, the rulers wanted the dead bodies off the crosses as opposed to festering up there over the weekend (John 19:31-32).


Nobody doubts that the events of Jesus' first appearance occurred on Sunday morning.  Three of the gospel writers mention specifically that it was "the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1). Mark states that it was "after the Sabbath had passed" (16:1). I've often heard pastors and Christians refer to Sunday as the day that Jesus was resurrected, but did you know that nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week? Many think the earthquake occurred because of the resurrection. Others think that Jesus needed the stone rolled away to let him out. Now, if he appeared in a locked room, I think he can make it through a sealed tomb. Might I suggest that the earthquake and the rolling of the stone occurred to let the witnesses into the tomb, that they might see and testify that he was indeed not there?


So, we have come to believe that he was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday. There appears to be more evidence for the former than the latter, but tomorrow we'll examine the time line with a bit more biblical scrutiny.


In the meantime, he is risen!  He is risen, indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------

[NOTE:  None of this should nor is it intended to alter anyone's convictions in the inspired and inerrant word of God nor in the doctrine of the literal (and atoning) death, burial, and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.]

When Jesus was crucified, Part I

In Matthew 16:21, the apostle tells his reader of the time when Jesus began to teach his followers of his pending death. As it was the primary reason he took on flesh, it should come as no surprise that he would explain to his followers what would take place--whether they got it or not. In the very next chapter, Matthew provides a quotation from the Lord, "The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day" (17:22b-23).


Did you catch that?  The third day.

No doubt you have heard scholars discuss what it was that Jesus meant by the third day, that any portion of a day that an event crosses would be considered part of that day. Therefore, the argument goes, since Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before the Sabbath, the gospel writers are telling us that on the morning of the first day of the week, Jesus rose from the dead.


That's what the Church has asserted this 2000 years. But for many years, other verses about the coming resurrection made me squirm.  Consider these:

• Mark's telling of the events uses "after three days" as opposed to "on the third day" (see Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34)
• Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

Much of the rest of the New Testament points to Jesus being raised on the third day (Acts 10:40, 1 Corinthians 15:4). Reconciliation? Perhaps at the conclusion of the third day.


But then there's this thing that Jesus said when he was asked for a sign by the scribes and Pharisees.

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:39-40)

If not for this one utterance, I would have been content to abide the Friday-to-Sunday-equals-three-days argument, but Jesus had to go and specify three days and three nights and he anchored it to an historical three-day/three-night event, the tribulation of Jonah in the filth of the fish. "As Jonah was three days in the fish, so too will the Son of Man be three days in the earth." Had he said it that way, we might be able to use the it-touches-three-days theory.  But Jesus went and got astronomically specific.


What's the big deal? Well, the truthfulness of Scripture, for one. The ability of God the Son to communicate plainly, for two. Combine those into whether I can believe the Bible as it is written or whether I have to bend it or contort it into something other than the plain reading and you have three.


It's like when God had to go and muddy up what a day was in Genesis by adding, "And there was evening and there was morning the xth day."  If he had just said "On the second day, God created thus and so," we might have been able to abide a day being a thousand years. Or billions. But God went and added that there was the evening and the morning, pretty much nailing it to one axis rotation. In case folks weren't clear on it in Genesis 1, when God gave Israel the commandment to keep the Sabbath, he equated the six days of labor for man with his six days in the creation (Exodus 20:8-11).


I do not intend to muddy Resurrection week. For those of you who merely think of the Bible as a book of fables, you are dismissed. You needn't stick around for the rest of class. But for those who hold to the inspired and inerrant word of God (plenary verbal, etc.) in the original manuscripts, this is something with which we should come to terms.


So tomorrow, we will do just that.

[NOTE:  None of this should nor is it intended to alter anyone's convictions in the inspired and inerrant word of God nor in the doctrine of the literal (and atoning) death, burial, and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.]

The source of your beef

You want to set off fireworks outside the 4th of July?  Bring up the topic of "submission" in the church today.  A couple of preachers are in deep haggis for asserting that a number of the societal problems within Great Britain are due to women not submitting themselves to God's word by submitting to their husbands in marriage.  Color me startled that any churches remained within Reformation Europe that still taught out of the Bible.

...Three...two...one...BOOM!

One woman churchgoer said she was ‘disgusted’ by the sermon, adding: ‘How can they talk that way in the 21st Century?’  Another, who also did not want to be named, said: ‘We’re supposed to let our husbands talk for us and remain silent? What kind of medieval sermon is that?

From the rest of the news story, the Daily Mail didn't get it either (read it here).  In an era when women can be found most anywhere except an NFL offensive line (maybe the Lions?), the idea of biblical submission conjures images of doormats and servitude.  The one brief comment the article allowed in defense of the rectors was:

People misunderstand the word “submit”. In this context it means saying how can I be most beneficial in this relationship as a helper. To submit does not make you an inferior being.

Here's the deal.  That's what the Bible says.

• Ephesians 5:22 - "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."  (Get full context here) 
• Colossians 3:18 - "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."  (Again, context here)

Peter did not counter Paul's writing, either.

• 1 Peter 3:1-2 - "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct."

Now, my point in lighting this powderkeg is not to highlight what the Bible says about the role of men or the role of women within marriage.  I do so to highlight the absolute ignorance of those who claim to be Christians but think the Bible is some Burger King drive-thru menu from which they can pick and choose.  You don't like it, become a Druid, but understand this: rejecting the God of the Bible is a very serious decision, indeed.

God made us.  He knows how best we function as individuals, as societies, and as married folk.  He went so far as to take on human flesh and to undergo a most barbaric death to redeem those who choose to accept the free gift from the maw of hell.  Why do we kick against the goads?

There are plenty of churches across our country and across Europe that will let you have your religion your way.  In favor of homosexual marriage?  You can find a church.  All in favor of abortion?  You can find a church?  Women in the pulpit?  You'd be hard pressed not to find a church.

But to find an uncompromising, Bible-teaching church is becoming more challenging with each new day.

Let me encourage you to hang around a church that actually preaches and teaches from the Bible for a month or two.  You just might find your life changed...forever. 

If you don't like what you hear and if what you hear is coming out of the pages of Scripture, your beef is not with the man in the pulpit.

Some good news for a change

I came across this nugget at the end of my morning reading.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life...

That sounds great, but that's only the first part of the verse.  It's an idea that 99% of Christians can abide.  I will go so far as to assert that most folks with a theistic worldview could agree with the premise.  For many within Christendom, though, believing in the Son is akin to believing in Santa Claus.  They have shifted the mythology of their childhood to a more mature mythology in their adulthood.  He's like a supernatural rabbit's foot, certainly not something real that needs to be feared or reverenced.

Others believe in the teachings of Jesus.  That Son of God stuff is a little hard to get your arms around, but they love those love your neighbor and judge not ideas. 

Others who have different thoughts about getting right with the cosmos or with their god-idea won't besmirch the Christian their belief in the Son.  What works for one might not work for the other, as though the aeronautics that lift my airplane is somehow different than their aeronautics.  Spiritual equivalence.  Unfortunately, it doesn't get close to passing the reality test.

The problem with these three groups comes with a proper understanding of belief.  R.C. Sproul aced the hole this week when, on his radio program, he argued that many who believe in Jesus, do not believe in the biblical Jesus.  This has two prongs.  You have the content of belief and you have the impact of that belief upon your life.  You might like some of the teachings of Jesus, but to believe in the Son, means to believe in the true testimony about him as contained in the Bible.*  And if I really believe in something, like gravity, I will live my life in accord with that which I believe to be true, and in accord with how much that thing matters to me.  If I step off the top of a building, I know I will plummet to the concrete.  As such, I honor gravity though I cannot see it because I know the consequences of ignoring it are mighty steep.  I see the evidence of gravity in the world around me though I cannot see, taste, touch, smell or hear gravity.  And so with God.  Those who have believed him to be true in his word and who have lived their lives in devoted submission to him have experienced him to be reliable (trustworthy, faithful) in their lives as well.  He is true to his word.

That takes me to the second half of the verse, and therein we find good news and bad news.

...whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Wow.  That looks mighty bleak.  So what's the good news?  Look back to the top.  Accepting the free gift of restoration to God through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ moves one from being under God's wrath to being an adopted child and the recipient of eternal life into fellowship with him.  The wrath of God is not upon the one who has eternal life.  That is really good news.

Now for the bad news, and the bad news shatters all the delusional and nonsensical ideas about Jesus.  A mythological Jesus is not one whose lordship you are likely to accept.  And to assert him to be a good teacher and not to follow his teachings to the letter still leaves one guilty before a holy God.  Paul made the point in his letter to the brand new church in Rome that even the most meticulous law-keeper could not attain to perfection through the law.  James, Jesus' brother, said the same thing. 

It rips a hole in the "that's okay for you" mentality, too.  The Bible draws a stark line in the cosmic sand.  In a nutshell, you're either in with the eternal-life crowd or you're in with the wrath-of-God crowd.  What's the delineator?  A biblical belief in the Son.

Let's pretend that the Bible is utterly false and Christianity is a nonsensical belief system.  The line in the sand would not dissolve.  It still asserts that the only acceptable doorway through which to pass for eternal life is the Son.  Folks who believed in the Son would be a camp full of sorry loons.  An aside, If Christianity was a false religion, why would the non-Christian say that it's okay for you to believe it when the "it" is utter nonsense?  That's worse than giving the alcoholic keys to the liquor store.

But God has spoken to man plainly, clearly, and accurately in his word.  The good news?  He still holds out the free gift (Romans 6:23) to any who would turn to him believing on and in his Son.  The bad news?  It's no joke.  The consequences, not seeing life and dwelling with the wrath of God upon you, are most severe.

Forgiveness, fellowship and adoption into God's family or eternal separation and ever crushed by a wrath for which I am most deserving?  For many this is great news.  For others...

---------------------------------------
*I did not intend in this post to get into the issue of the Bible's veracity (truthfulness and accuracy), but it is relevant to the discussion.  Most denominations do not hold the Bible to be inspired and inerrant or if they do, they have so neutered down the definitions of inspired and inerrant to mean anything but.  I offer here some aspects of the unique nature of God's word.

• Authorship:  Penned by God through the hands and minds of some 35+ different men (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:15-17) 
• Claim:  It claims to be true (Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5).  That doesn't necessarily make it true.  If I assert to you that I am a truth-telling man, the proof is in the pudding.  Do I bear that out in your experience?  So it is with God's word.  Is it accurate in its history?  Crazier still, the Bible is a prophetic book.  Did those prophecies bear out?  In vivid and literal detail.
• The historical accuracy of God's word:  One brief example.  Sir William Ramsay, a prominent British chemist, set out to prove Luke's accounts in the book of Acts to be inaccurate from an archaeological point of view.  This would render the rest of the Bible nothing more than a book of fairy tales.  What he found turned the skeptic into a believer.  The artifacts of Greece and Turkey bore out the veracity of Luke's accounts in Acts in breath-taking detail.  He wrote, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."

Many look at the "numerous" contradictions within the Bible.  A modicum of willingness to examine the passages within their contexts and with reasonable amount of textual criticism melts away those apparent contradictions.

Luke 7

Of late I have anchored myself in the physician's account of Jesus, the man from Nazareth.  His historical garnishes provide insights into first century Judea like no other writer.  John MacArthur recognized Luke's penchant for detail by noting his account of Paul's imprisoned cruise to Rome gives nautical historians more information on ancient seafaring in the Med than any other written work (Acts 27).

Anyway, back into the gospel, I was blessed this morning by a number of morsels that I'll be savoring throughout the day.

1. Centurions.  This whole section (Luke 7:1-10) blows the mind in so many ways.  The mutual love between the Roman for the Jewish community he oversaw.  He built a synagogue for the Jews.  His extraordinary faith in Jesus' authority.  What I was left wondering as I feasted upon this section, did he ever get a chance to formally meet his Savior this side of paradise?  They didn't meet in this section.
   
2. The Baptizer.  When Jesus first enters the ministry scene, John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, heralds the Lord's identity and his authority.  As Jesus' fame grew and John's crowds waned, the baptizer accepted this and rejoiced in this (here).  In Luke 7, John has been imprisoned for some time by Herod Antipas.  As he languished in a dank jail, doubts began to creep into his mind.  Was Jesus really the Messiah?  Maybe I was wrong.  So John sends some disciples to ask him.  Jesus didn't rebuke their questioning his identity.  John struggled (as I sometimes do).  He wanted to know (as I sometimes do).  So the Christ provided physical evidence in fulfillment of prophecy and told John's disciples to go and report what they had seen.  As they turned to walk away, I imagine a smile of deep pride cross the Savior's face knowing the love of John, knowing the baptizer would soon die a martyr's death, knowing that he too would soon follow, as he said to them, "Blessed is the one who is not offended by me."
   
3. The Drunkard.  Much of the biblically Christian world has an erroneous view of alcohol.  That's somewhat ironic considering their high view of the word of God and of teaching and understanding it aright.  Oddly, man seems to think Jesus did not consume alcohol during his earthly ministry or that the "wine" spoken of in Scripture was so diluted with water as to have no inebriating effects.  That's not the way Scripture reads.  And I haven't seen that born out historically, except among those asserting alcoholic prohibition.
   
   All that aside, it seems plain in Luke 7 that Jesus did consume wine and wine that could make drunk if improperly consumed.  Christ compared and contrasted his ministry with John's and how they had both been received by the religious of their day.  He said,
   

   For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
   

   Jesus admits to drinking (it was no big deal for that was a normal beverage of the day).  What he drank was of such a quality as to be able to cause drunkenness because his enemies indicted him for being a drunkard because of what he drank.
   
   Am I encouraging you to go out and buy cases of the finest Cabernet?  No.  Just wanting to make sure we're on the same page.
   
4. Love.  The last section of Luke 7 tells of a harlot who lavished the Lord with love.  Real love.  Deep affection.  Heart-broken adoration understanding her filth and the mercy of the One whom she anointed.  After skewering his unloving host, Jesus says,
   

   Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much.
   

   A couple eye-poppers on this one.  Jesus didn't deny or ignore or rationalize her rebellion against God.  Notice his qualifier about her sins, "...which are many."  You can imagine him nodding in concession with his host that, yes, she was a bad woman.  If we simply had this verse, we would think that her actions earned her forgiveness.  That was not the case.  Notice Jesus' words as he turned to the whore.
   

   Your faith has saved you; go in peace.
   

   She knew she had no merit.  She could only trust in the man who reclined at the table.  Her trust in him was manifest in her acts of love.  Her weeping and anointing were the vehicles of her faith.  She could not purchase or procure her right standing with God through her actions.  It was trusting him alone with impoverished hands that established her aright before God.
   

Time to sign off and travel my day in the peace obtained for me by the One who could obtain it.

2010 challenge

Good morning, 2010.  Good morning, friends.

Yesterday I issued a challenge general.  Don't fret the questions.  Just set sail and savor the journey.

Today I issue a challenge specific.  Read the Bible in 2010.

I grew up in a church-going home.  I attended Sunday school as a child and church nearly every Sunday.  My college years, like that of many, brought about a rebellion where I did it my way and left little room for God in my life.  I attended church from time to time and flipped through the pages of the Bible with a bit less frequency.

During those years, God made me acutely aware of my rebellion to Him.  Looking back, I would have to say that it was during those years that I actually became a Christian (that's a hugely weighted statement.  I'll tell you about it if you'd like to know, just e-mail.  Perhaps I'll blog the journey someday).  During that time, my love for Christ's church began, too.

A half-dozen years passed before I embarked one January first upon the most significant journey of my Christian life.  I began to read the Bible.  From that January through December 31st of that year, I read through the Bible.  All of it.  It's really not that daunting.  It's only 3 to 4 chapters a day.  It was extraordinary.

For the non-Christian or nominal Christian, we say we know the Bible and we know Christianity, but we never read it for ourselves.  We think we know, but we don't.  See for yourself.  Read for yourself.  If for no other reason than it stands as one of the most remarkable literary works in the history of man, it should be read by all.  Figures of speech and histories that we use commonly are found within the pages of the Bible.

For the Christian, nothing gives a greater understanding of what Christ has done on our behalf and the life he has calls us to than pouring through his word to us.

Three to four chapters a day.  If you read four each day, you'll be done sometime late October.  When you hit the really long chapters, ease off to three.  When you hit Psalm 119, just read it.  Otherwise, try and knock out 4 per day.

If you go on-line, you can find a multitude of ways to read through the Bible.  You can do as I did and plow through cover to cover.  Some plans have you reading through chronologically (cover to cover is not chronological).  Some plans dip into the Old and New Testaments.  There are even sites where you can tailor your plan.

You want simple.  Start in Genesis and go through the Revelation.  Start today and don't get discouraged.  Some of it is dry reading (the start of Numbers will be tough), but don't let the difficult passages sink your ship.

There it is.  My challenge to you:  Read through the Bible in a year.  Believer or not, you'll be amazed at the treasures you'll find.

Answering the skeptic

My company’s Christmas party – yes, they still call it that – was a nice event. I did not, though, have the greatest of times. A very bright woman at my table made a few comments disparaging the veracity and message of Christianity. I felt it necessary, with as much grace as I could muster considering the festive atmosphere, to provide her evidence for the truthfulness of God’s word and the authenticity of its message.

With every support I erected, she would counter with another argument, factoid, or “what about,” a scenario that would seem to invalidate Christianity in the mind of any thinking person. Israel’s annihilation of the Canaanites is a favorite by which the sophisticate feels free to loathe the God of the Bible.

Anyway, the conversation went on. And on. I don’t feel I upheld the grace of the Christmas message. And I know I didn’t sway the mind of the skeptic.

As the sun’s rotation has moved me further from that day, the conversation continues to haunt me. Yes, I consider my manner. Yes, I consider what I might have said. More than that, I consider the skeptic.

Prior to the time of the Civil War, few in the Western world questioned the veracity or the authenticity of the Bible. Even the “skeptics” of the Revolutionary era, the Jefferson’s, Madison’s and Franklin’s, held a higher view of the Bible than did the skeptic across my table. What has happened? What has brought us to this post-biblical age?

I know the history. I’m familiar with the dismantling of the Bible that began in Europe in the nineteenth century. I also know the history of the men who have successfully dismantled the argumentation of the biblical skeptics. I know the decay and rot within Christendom as denominations have embraced a neutered Scripture. I am also aware of those who continue to hold a high view of God’s word and the power He has to redeem and restore.

Still, the serpent has injected his poison. Most Protestants and many Catholics do not believe that the entirety of Scripture is the word of God nor do they believe it to be true. But many do not know why they believe that. To most, the Church has become suspect; they have an axe to grind or something to hide from the masses. And the feeling continues that if the Church is corrupt, its source-text must be false, too. Any PhD to support that only lends credibility to the argument despite the evidence to the contrary.

An example. During the Christmas party debate, I mentioned fulfilled prophecy as evidence for the unique and amazing nature of the Bible. Taking the season in hand, the skeptic seized the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 which states, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” She noted, and rightfully so, that the Hebrew word for virgin is the same word for young woman or woman of marrying age not necessarily meaning virgin. Still, that Hebrew word is translated as virgin most of the time in the Old Testament and in most translations. Beyond that, a young woman of marrying age if so referenced in the Old Testament era was, unlike our day, presumed to be a virgin. Consider the two synonymous.

The virgin birth is significant for deity to become humanity. Protestants and Catholics differ as to its theological and Christological significance (we can talk about that through another medium if you’d like). Anyway, Matthew in writing to a predominantly Jewish audience cites the Isaiah prophecy, a messianic prophecy, to indicate the identity of the child. Writing in Greek, Matthew uses the specific word virgin in translating the Isaiah prophecy.

Or he quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament done after Alexander the Great Hellenized the world. Seems the Jews, with no axe to grind, translated that troublesome verse in Isaiah 7 as virgin, too.

The point? While many will cite the corruption of the Bible by saying the passage in Isaiah could be translated young woman, it would be textually wrong to do so for a myriad of reasons. This is true for many of the questions and problems skeptics have with the Bible and Christianity.

For the skeptic, there will always be another question.  There will always be the men and women of letters to support their position.  And yet as 2010 dawns, G. K. Chesterton’s challenge to the skeptic remains as powerful as ever. “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Marsh-wigglian philosophy

(or "You can learn a lot about the world around you from a fictional character")

In the climax of C.S. Lewis' The Silver Chair, Jill Pole, Eustace Scrubb, and their Marsh-wiggle guide, Puddleglum had just released Prince Rilian from his decade-long enchantment, when the witch, the Lady of the Green Kirtle, returned to her underworld castle. Despite the ruse of the quartet that Rilian remained under her spell, the witch assessee otherwise and begian to beguile the lot of them.

The potency of her magic? Her incense and the steady, monotonous strumming on her mandolin got them all fuzzy-headed, but her lies began to bind them under her spell. "Do you really know what you know?" Soon she had them doubting the beauty and reality of Rilian's Narnian homeland, convincing them that all that there was was this dark, cavernous underland.

"There is no place called Naria."

"Yes there is though, Ma'am," said Puddleglum. "You see, I happen to have lived there all my life."

"Indeed," said the Witch. "Tell me, I pray you, where that country is?"

"Up there," said Puddleglum, stoutly, pointing overhead. "I -- I don't know exactly where."

"How?" said the Queen, with a kind, soft, musical laugh, "Is there a country up among the stones and mortar of the roof?"

"No," said Puddleglum, struggling a little to get his breath. "It's in Overworld."

"And what, or where, pray is this...how do you call it Overworld?"

On went the thrumming on the mandolin, on continued the deceptions, until Rilian, Jill, and Eustace had succumbed to an entranced sleep. At that point, Puddleglum summoned the last vestige of his sanity and plunged his foot into the fireplace. Not only did this heroic act raise such a stench as to counter the incense and roust the sleepers, but it brought lightning sobriety to Puddleglum's mind.

At this point, C.S. Lewis focused the laser beam of his scholarly mind, a mind that had been transformed by his relationship with Jesus Christ, upon the retort of the humble Marsh-wiggle.

"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Folks continue to posit a world and universe that have come about through machinistic means. Pah. I'm sticking with the Marsh-wiggle and clinging to the Lion and the true Word he has given us.

What must I do to be saved?

Current #1 New York Times best seller in fiction? "Swimsuit." Never heard of it. In non-fiction? "Catastrophe." Well, it's sort of the best seller. The runaway best seller year after year, blowing away all comers in fiction and non-fiction, has been dropped from the list because it's always #1 on the list.

It's the Bible.

I bet you have one in your house. Or two. Maybe eight. Or more. And yet, we Americans are dumb as posts about what the Bible says. We rationalize that we can't really know or that it depends upon interpretation. We don't do that with other works.

For example:

1. Is there any argument about for whom does the bell tolls?
2. Is it open for debate what predator lurks beneath the waves in "Jaws?"
3. Is Lady MacBeth just a misunderstood, desperate housewife?

Ridiculous questions, I know, but not any more silly than what you read regarding the Bible.

Take for instance a recent USA Today piece on the schism (how does one pronounce that word?) in the Episcopal church (here). It's not just the laity who don't know their Bible. The Episcopal church's presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, opined about salvation and made clear to everyone why the denomination is imploding. Regarding how man can stand aright before God, she upchucked that

"...the great Western heresy (is) that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in a right relationship with God."

In genuflecting to Mizz Jefferts Schori, USA Today tosses the question to the masses like that will provide an authoritative solution. Columnist Cathy Lynn Grossman asks you, yes, you,

"All in all this is a revival of an ancient argument -- whether one is saved by works or saved by grace. Theologians have been duking it out forever. What do you say?" (Boldface in the original)

Ancient argument?!? Not much to argue about. Paul, that apostle guy, drove a stake in the heart of the argument almost before it began.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes plain the order.

1. By grace you have been saved through faith.
2. In case you might want to get cocky, he emphasizes that the faith and the grace are "not of yourselves." They are "the gift of God."
3. Almost anticipating the argument, Paul caps it off, "Not of works." Why does he say that? He knows that man wants to have some manner of leverage against God. Man's propensity to deify himself, "lest anyone should boast."
4. Then--only then--does Paul mention works. God created us for good works in eternity past that we, those who have received the free gift of salvation, should walk in those works.

Perhaps I'm not as savvy the pugilistic theologians, but when the apostle who fleshed out Christian doctrine says it's by faith and NOT by works that man is saved, the argument seems settled. Unless to you (and the leader of the Episcopal church) the Bible holds no more authority than the Sunday sports page.

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?," Paul's answer rings as true for us today. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

Capital punishment from the Hollywood experts

I'm not Roman Catholic. That said, I remain amazed at the number of Roman Catholics who are cool with abortion depsite the unwavering teaching of the Catholic Church and the Bible itself. Why bother to call yourself a Catholic if you consider the fundamental teachings of your Church to be optional?

This silliness exists across the religious spectrum. The nominalists. The pick-and-choosers. The syncretists. Despite man's proclivity toward shopping the religious Wal-Mart to basket the aspects they find tasty while leaving the rest upon the shelf, not a religion on the books at its root tolerates such a "free-love" approach.

The God of the Bible is a jealous God. He establishes how man comes to him and not the other way around. He tells man how it is. When you have created the entirety of the universe, it's your word that governs, not the whim of the creature. We can either bow in love and worship or we can run in rebellion.

It's truly amazing the millions who proclaim to be Christian and at the same time, run contrary or believe contrary to what God has spelled out plainly in the Bible. Take for instance capital punishment. Actor (there's always a good source of expertise on any topic) Stephen Collins spoke with a reporter (here) at the annual "We Hate the Death Penalty" Awards dinner in--you guessed it--Hollywood, California. His response when asked, "What about all of the talk about whether Jesus would have supported capital punishment?"

"The death penalty solves nothing except a kind of understandable but misguided sense of justice and vengeance, and certainly Jesus never says anything about executing people. I go to church, I'm a Christian. I think it’s interesting that so many political Christians support the death penalty when Jesus Christ never says a single, slight word about putting people to death, never even slightly. I don't know where they're coming from as Christians. I don't understand."

Well, Mr. Collins, we're coming from that wacky place called the Bible. A few points.

• Jesus does speak of executing people. In John 8, as the Pharisees look to execute the woman caught in adultery (where's the guy, btw?) in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Jesus doesn't dismiss the fact that her sin warrants death, but recognizes the Pharisees' smug self-righteousness and the woman's deep repentance. So he turns the tables upon them. This event (and his seeking forgiveness for his executioners while on the cross, too) does not suggest Jesus' opposition to the death penalty


• An argument from silence is no argument. Simply because Christ does not speak of capital punishment within the Gospels, this does not somehow indicate his opposition to the practice either. Which carries us to the next point.


• God commands capital punishment. Life is sacred because God made it so. It has that value because he sets the value. Man, unlike anything else in the universe, is created in God's image, and so it has a value far surpassing any other living thing (Genesis 1). Because God gave man dominion over the planet, he gave man the responsibility to impute civic justice upon the created order. Therefore, if man has so wanton a disregard for human life, God commands that that individual's life is forfeit. Because he has taken life, so shall he lose his life (Genesis 9). This command came to Noah, apart from the Law, and therefore applies to all of humanity and not just Israel.

More biblical ignorance. If you call yourself a Christian, as Mr. Collins does, you understand that God the Son, Christ, has been around since eternity past with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. That said, when God instituted capital punishment to Noah (and all humanity) and to Moses (and all Israel), God the Son was present. In other words, God the Son has indeed spoken plainly about capital punishment. He instituted it!

Still More. Paul speaks of the government's responsibility to wield the sword as an instrument of justice in Romans 13 and the necessity of the believer to be in subjection to the government. Wielding the sword does not imply a swat across the posterior with the flat of the blade but a 'ka-chunk' across the nape with the really sharp segment.

Attending a hockey game does not make you a hockey fan. Nor does say that you are one. If you attend one game per year, have no team for which your heart bleeds, have no idea what the rules of the game are, make no attempt to determine the standings, then I would aregue, you are not a hockey fan. Despite your pleading. Despite your ticket stub.

God's word remains pretty clear. The problem within Hollywood and within Christendom today is that we are utterly ignorant about what God has said. We call ourselves "Christian" but have no idea what that even means.

Handling the Bible: A contrast

I have no doubt that in the next few days, we will learn who received Sarah Palin's first kiss and how many desks received her bubble gum in first grade. Considering Barack Obama's pastor received such media scrutiny, "it's only right" that Governor Palin's pastor, the Reverend Ed Kalnins, receive as deep an examination.

Do you know what they found? He believes that the world is going to face a horrible time and then Christ is going to come back to the earth (GASP)!

Folks don't get Christians because they don't get the Bible. David Gushee, a "Christian" ethicist at Mercer University in Atlanta, Georgia, said about Palin's biblical understanding of the Bible, "To me, it is highly relevant to someone who potentially has her hand on the nuclear button," he says. "If that is her worldview, I would want to know about that."

Oh, yeah! All of us who believe what it says in Revelation want to hasten Christ's return by nuking the world. Sarcasm aside, how is it that they always find the Christian ethicists who believe nothing of what the Bible says? And how is it that folks think your whacked when you expect God to fulfill the Revelation the same way that He fulfilled the rest of His prophecies (i.e. just like He says He will)?

On one side, the media thinks you're daft for holding to the word of God. On the other side of the ghastly coin, they love you to pieces of you say you're a Christian but disregard the majority of what is written.

The heretical head of the Episcopal Church in America, Katherine Jefforts Schori, received "sunshiney" treatment from the USA Today. While the Episcopal Church had been in tenuous straits for awhile as it drifted left in its ordination of women and views on abortion and marriage, Schori's eleveation to Presiding Bishop has begun a splintering of the denomination already in decline.

How heretical are her views?

She sees two strands of faith: One is "most concerned with atonement, that Jesus died for our sins and our most important task is to repent." But the other is "the more gracious strand," says the bishop who dresses like a sunrise.

It "is to talk about life, to claim the joy and the blessings for good that it offers, to look forward.

"God became human in order that we may become divine. That's our task."

You can mark my words that those churches that have separated themselves from the "bishop" will thrive (in the eyes of God).

Kalnins holds to the Bible and is seen as nutty as a jar of Jiff. Ms. Jefferts Schori does her best Eckhardt Tolle with God's word and is praised for her personalized vestments.

White has become black and black has become white.

If Christ be not raised

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.

If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.

And we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.

If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.

If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

If in this life only we have hope in Christ (if there exists no resurrection), we are of all men the most pitiable.

All that's from Paul (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). Do you think he felt the resurrection a substantial doctrine? Do you think that he put great weight on the historic occurrence of Jesus' resurrection?

Is it any surprise that the most recent attack upon historic Christianity would target this foundational doctrine? An ancient tablet from the region where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found has been interpreted to say that Jewish tradition already had a three-day resurrection account before Jesus came along. Scholars and theologians have taken that to mean that the Messiah's disciples had heard this tradition and simply applied it to the dead Rabbi.

The tablet and its translation remain controversial (remember the James Ossuary or the Gospel of Judas?). Early translations rendered the troublesome section indecipherable. Out of the mist pops a Jewish scholar who can read it plain as day.

It seems the professor held this theory back in 2002 when he wrote "The Messiah Before Jesus" which then makes his translation even more suspicious.

Where are the voices of refutation? They are out there, but to find them, you have to wade either deep into lengthy articles (see Time Magazine's treatment here), or figure out how to strain through the mass of information that Google regurgitates to find the masked nugget.

For many, the damage is done. As the Proverb states, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). Because of articles that give great support to the Jewish professor (here), those who've already rejected God and those in doubt will become further blinded by deception.

Even if the tablet proves to be authentic, such a legend (perhaps a prophecy?) in no way neuters the biblical and extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Rest easy. There is no other event from ancient history so well documented and so replete with corroborative evidence as the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ provides a concise look at that evidence). Pray that the lost would not be deceived.

But let's say the delusion catches fire and many become convinced the resurrection is a hoax. What would happen if, like global warming, homosexuality, and evolution, the resurrection of Christ became a topic that could not be discussed within our society because "the facts are in and the discussion closed?"

And then what would happen if, in front of our instant-anywhere media , a man were to receive a mortal wound but then in front of the camera's lens came back to life? With Jesus dismissed, this man would become a celebrity. He would become a hero. He would become a god.

Is the stage being set?

Who speaks for God, II

Meandering through one of my favorite web-sites the other day, I stumbled upon Michael Medved's blog where he touted a new book by former National Review literary editor and now Discovery Institute fellow, David Klinghoffer, titled "How Would God Vote?"

While the title will rankle no feathers, the subtitle will elicit piercing screams that would impress the melting Witch of the West, "Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative."

First, I have not read the book but look forward to doing so. The premise has been my contention all along. I assume Klinghoffer has taken the time to scour God's word in context to note how the Bible points to conservative vice liberal governance.

Second, Klinghoffer, like Medved, is a conservative orthodox Jew. While we will certainly disagree on the salvation issue, the orthodox Jew and regenerate Christian have much in common in their living out their conviction. It will be interesting to see if he delves into New Testament writings at all.

Finally, I have heard that there are sections that will either raise eyebrows or furrow the brow for the conservative, sections dealing with immigration and gun control.

I've been asked recently about Christian disagreements and denominations. How can two folks look at the same Word and come to such different conclusions? Most of it comes down to the science and art of biblical interpretation. A century and a half ago a movement began in Germany called Higher Criticism that began to chip away at the veracity, the truth, of Scripture. Much of what came out of that movement has led to the atrophy of such bastions of the Reformation Lutheranism, Methodism, and half of Presbyterianism.

Do Christians remain in these denominations? Without a doubt. But rather than a higher view of Scripture, Higher Criticism, by reducing the inspiration and inerrancy of God's word, is a lower view of Scripture and as such, has left many Christians without the proper tools to take God's word and assess our culture, our government, our churches, or our lives.

Sincerity and passion do not make a belief or conviction true. I can be sincere and passionate while at the same time be sincerely and passionately wrong because what I believe stands opposed to the whole counsel of God's word. When I am wrong, I pray that a brother or sister comes to me, with Bible in hand, and shows me the way of truth through the source of Truth.

I appreciate David Klinghoffer having the courage to write such a book. Now let's see if it's worth its ink.

(Klinghoffer has a blog where he has posted what is printed on the book's jacket. You can find it here).

Who speaks for God?

I received this question here recently, but it's not the first time I've heard it. Most often, the question comes from non-Christians trying to back down Christians from their moral certainty. The Christian ends up associated with Falwell or Robertson* because these two men used the pulpits God gave them to expose moral bankruptcy where it touched the church and the community. The weapon? God's word.

To counter another man who has unsheathed God's word to an increasingly godless culture, some pastors have started a website titled "Dobson doesn't speak for us." Charming. If you'd like to go there, Google it.

Here's the rub: if Dr. Dobson does speak for God regarding particular issues, then these pastors defiantly stand opposed to God. Let's buy Enron. Let's vote for McGovern or Dole. Let's play for the Kansas City Royals. But don't get on the team opposed to God.

So who does speak for God?

I do.

The audacity! The arrogance! Typical pig-headed, closed-minded, soda-straw-visioned Christian. Yep, that's me.

But understand, this is my identity and for any who are reading this and know Jesus Christ as Savior, this is your identity, too.

• We are called ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20). The purpose of an abmassador? To represent his Leader in word and deed.
• When on trial, God will speak through the believer (Mark 13:11).
• We are to proclaim the praises of what He did in and through us (1 Peter 2:9).
• The Gospel will bring conviction (Matthew 24:14).
• We are to witness what we see and what we know (John 15:27, Acts 1:8).
• Our presence (the presence of the Holy Spirit within us) becomes the stench of death to the unsaved (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

Do I always speak for God? Well, no. When I act upon my own and contrary to His word, I become an unfaithful servant and an ambassador worthy of recall (thankfully He doesn't do that; He certainly does reassign, though).

When do I speak for God? When I proclaim His word truly. As Christians, we must know God's word for the time has come when many do not endure sound doctrine, and they heap up for themselves teachers to tickle their ears; they turn from truth and turn toward fables (2 Timothy 4:3-4). The Christian must know the truth so he is not deceived.

Peter declared, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). They are here. They are among us.

How do we know when the Christian is speaking for God? Like the Bereans in Acts 17 we compare the speaker's words with God's words. If we find consistency, winner! If not, as is the case with Senator Obama's voting record, we must expose the biblical inconsistency.

This will make you no friends. Good luck finding any with a liberal slant willing to discuss the issues from a biblical perspective. The platforms are untenable. This ought not dissuade us from applying God's word to the issues of the world and to pray that blindness will cease.

So now and with boldness the Christian must speak the truth of God's word in and to a people that is perishing.

Christians, speak on! And expect the spears to fly.

*I have found little to disagree with regarding the doctrine and teaching of Jerry Falwell. While I appreciate his outspokenness on moral issues, Pat Robertson tends to be far less careful with his biblical scholarship.

E'08: Fruitcakes & Liars

James Dobson used "fruitcake" as an adjective to describe Barack Obama's interpretation of the Constitution and suggested the presidential front-runner distorted the Bible. Obama returned serve essentially calling Dobson a liar, that he was just "making stuff up."

What teed up the good doctor was a speech given by Obama to the religious group, "Call to Renewal." Here were the paragraphs that drew the primary focus (I'll include a link to the full speech at the end of the blog):

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Dr. Dobson's point: context is key. Obama missed the contextual boat by a mile. His admonition to "read our (B)ibles" is advice he would do well to follow to understand the purpose and place of the Levitical law or the Sermon on the Mount. His response to such statements:

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Did Dobson make things up? Or did he highlight the chasm between Obama's biblical rhetoric and his biblical application. Cal Thomas, in the week prior to this free-for-all, exposed Obama's walking, talking contradiction in this article.

Obama knows how to bandy religious words (Schaeffer anyone?). Such smooth speech, finally crafted and just slightly off target, puts him in with some unsavory biblical company. Here's the transcript for your study.

Dobson's vitriol has left him without a candidate. He's hammered both McCain and Obama for not upholding godly principles in their governance. For that, he has taken criticism from his friends and cursings from his foes. And still he speaks out.

Sounds a lot like a prophet (Jeremiah 1:17-19 and Jeremiah 8 through 10 for starters, and that guy ended up in the outhouse basement). No telling what treatment Dobson will receive as this saga unfolds. It doesn't matter. His reward is elsewhere.

But will anyone down here hear him?