Stay on Target

Teens & Technology

2012-02-01T00:36:00.001-05:00

Honoring God with your use of technology means more than keeping porn off your screen. Purity is absolutely important, but today's Christian teens also need to consider the ways that texting, smart phones, and surfing can make it difficult to glorify God with what you communicate and how you think. For teens who want to honor God with their use of technology, here are a few quick points to consider:

• Realize the difference between texting vs. phone vs. face to face. Approximately...

10% of communication is words.

30% of communication is tone of voice.

60% of communication is body language.

If this is true, what is the best way to avoid miss-communication or to work out conflict?

• Constant communication leaves no time to think or to process.

• The Internet is giving us attention deficit disorder and makes it harder to concentrate and remember.

• Constant communication means there is no time to cool down.

• People can be very “brave” (foolish) behind a keyboard.

• We have a strange new view of privacy. We’re hidden from the people we should be open to and open and exposed to those we shouldn’t be.

• When we’re never absent from each other it is very easy to get co-dependent.

• When we’re never absent from each other there is never time to stop and evaluate.

• The Internet never forgets.

A few Bible passages that are relevant for teens and technology:

1 Corinthians 6:12
“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.

• Don’t be controlled by technology or become addicted to it.

• It’s healthy to unplug.

• It’s healthy to have limits.

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

• Think before you type. Sometimes a slow response is good.

• The silicon rule: Don’t say anything digitally you would not say to their face.

• Use face to face communication to work things out.

John 3:19
Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

• Sin loves secrecy.

• You are far less likely to sin if you don’t think you’re being secret.

Job 31:1
I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.

• Commit yourself to honor God with your use of technology.

• Embrace accountability.

• Deal with both HEART and HARDWARE to resist sin. Work on your heart but don't be foolish about what you give yourself easy access to.

Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

• Be willing to take drastic steps if necessary.

• Don’t let society tell you what’s normal.

1 John 2:15-17

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

• Don’t let greed control your heart. It is easy to be greedy for the latest and greatest tech.

• For many people technology is a status symbol. Beware of pride.

• Keep your focus on what is eternally important. Stay on target.

Parenting in an Age of Technology

2012-01-26T17:04:00.007-05:00

The average age for a child to receive his or her first cell phone is now 11.6. If that seems young, consider that since this is an average, for every teen who is given a phone several years later than this, there is a child given a phone a few years younger than this.

Technology can be a helpful tool but it also confronts kids and parents with new challenges and dangers: easy access to pornography, online taunting, foolish sharing of information and pictures, constant texting and addiction. Technology also changes how we think, how we process information, and how we relate to people.

I recently taught a three-week class on the topic of parenting in an age of technology. I found that parents have deep concerns about these issues but feel unequipped about how to respond. Technology keeps changing. It is impossible to discuss every piece of technology and every issue, but there are a few foundational principles that can help parents to navigate these waters.

1. Parents need to ask themselves what their ultimate goal is for their kids. Everything else is going to be influenced by this. If the goal is merely to get peace and quiet, then it makes sense to throw a screen in front of a child a as babysitter or to give a him an iPad to keep him out of your hair. If your goal is to have a trophy child, then you will be tempted to equip her with the best technological status symbols. If the goal is mere happiness, you will give your child whatever will make him happy. If your main concern is that your child likes you, it will be hard to enforce any rules that she may resent. On the other hand, if your ultimate desire is for your son or daughter to grow as a disciple of Jesus, then your decisions about the use of technology need to flow from that goal. [See my article: Five Potential Goals for Parents.]

2. Christian families need to think about technology from a Christian worldview. I recommend viewing the film by David Murray titled God’s Technology. In this well-produced video Murray walks parents through four Biblical principles, three possible responses, and a seven step training program for parents to use with their kids. The four Biblical principles are that (1) technology is created by God, (2) technology is not essentially sinful, (3) technology has many good uses, but (4) technology has been perverted and abused by sinners. With these balanced principles in mind, our response should be neither an enthusiastic embrace of all technology, which is foolish, nor a strict separation from technology, which is impossible—even though it is sometimes tempting to go live in a cave. Instead, we need to cultivate what Murray calls “disciplined discernment.” [We used this video in the second session of the parenting class I developed. I also used part of that video in a lesson for the high school teens. I will post the notes from that message shortly.]

3. Think of technology like a rifle. Like a rifle or a chainsaw, technology is a tool that can be useful but can also cause great harm. Parents need to know how technology works and what the potential dangers are before giving it to their kids. For example, parents need to realize that teens can access the internet with an iPod touch or most mobile game systems. Remember that technology is constantly changing and you need to keep up. Sites like CovenentEyes.com (and their blog) & GetNetWise.org can be a great help. It is essential to train your kids before giving them each new tool. Teach them how to use it safely. Would you give your kid a rifle without a safety class?

4. Discuss what is appropriate and inappropriate. Ask your kids to tell you specific examples of ways that technology can be misused. For example, ask them what things they have seen other teens post that they think are a bad idea. By asking for examples you are helping your son or daughter develop discernment. It also helps you see what standards they have or don’t have. Your child isn’t going to think of everything, so be prepared to give your own examples as well. For example, ask your daughter, “Do you think it is good when other girls post bikini pictures to facebook? Why not?”

5. Use a two-fold approach: HEART and HARDWARE. You can’t control your kids with filters and firewalls alone. They can always find a way. Parents need to target the hearts of their children rather than merely relying on hardware and software to do the job for them. As a parent, your goal isn’t just to keep your kids safe now, but to prepare them for eventual release into the world. If your filters were the only thing keeping them out of moral sewage, they will plunge themselves into it the moment they are no longer under your roof. The heart is the real target for discipleship anyway—our loves and desires define who we are. On the other hand, don’t fail to take advantage of help such as filters and parental controls. Blind trust is foolishness on the part of parents. Even the most moral of teens are still sinners with the potential to do very bad things. Wise parents will apply Ronald Reagan’s words, “Trust but verify.” A consistent track record of responsibility leads to greater trust and freedom.

6. Combat unhealthy modern views of privacy. Young people are growing up with a very strange view of privacy. It is an infringement on their right to privacy if mom or dad checks on their internet history, but on the other hand they will share personal and inappropriate information with the entire internet. Today’s ethos of privacy has us hidden from the people we should be open to, and open and exposed to those we shouldn’t be. Instead, young people need to realize that accountability is a good thing. Sin loves secrecy. I recommend using Covenant Eyes on internet devices, especially with teenage boys. Also, start getting your kids to think of any technology entrusted to them as “family technology” rather than private property. Explain to them what it is like in the adult world when a company gives their employee technology to use. The employee usually does not have a right to complete privacy concerning how the technology is used. In the same way, give your kids technology with the understanding that even if they are the primary user it is not their private property. Also consider having them sign a “User Agreement” before giving the technology to them. [I will post an example shortly.]

In some ways, we face challenges unlike any other generation. On the other hand, there is nothing new under the sun. Past generations had to figure out how to handle the introduction of the telephone and the automobile. Every generation from this time forward will be faced with technological game-changers. We need to learn to adapt while we keep our eyes on that which does not change.

Teens and Technology
Family Technology User Agreement (coming soon)

In Michigan it is Illegal to Kill a Dog Using a Decompression Chamber

2012-01-19T01:32:00.003-05:00

I’m not sure what people want to blow up dogs in decompression chambers, but in Michigan it is illegal. There is actually a law specifically against this. I’m not making this up. I quote:

287.279a Killing dog or other animal; use of high altitude decompression chamber or electrocution prohibited. Sec. 19a. An animal control officer or other person killing a dog or other animal pursuant to the laws of this state shall not use a high altitude decompression chamber or electrocution for that killing.

Sure, I agree. If you were thinking about doing this, don’t. No one wants to see Fluffy turned into Puffy. But what amazes me is the fact that someone was concerned about this enough to make sure there was a law against it. Was this once a big problem? Was this what people did to pass time before the internet? Or was there a very forward-thinking State Senator who said, “I know our society needs animal control officers, but we must not allow the possibility of them killing dogs using a high altitude decompression chamber! We need to nip this in the bud!”

This law is fine. As I looked around online, I learned that this really is an issue. However, I doubt that many people would put this law in their top ten. If your state could only have ten laws, would you pick this one or would you save the spot for something more important? My guess is that this one wouldn't make the cut. I think the same thing is true for the Third Commandment, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). If you only had ten laws for mankind, would you pick that one? Why not something that seems more important, like “Thou Shall Not Commit Arson” or “Thou Shall Not Litter”?

We tend to think of the Third Commandment as a throw-away commandment. God doesn’t view it that way. He made it third on His list and He takes it seriously. If you don’t think so, read the account in Leviticus 24:10-23 where God directed a blaspheming boy to be stoned to death for breaking this commandment.

God takes His name seriously because His name is His reputation, His glory. Yes, YHWH is the most sacred name of God, but this commandment goes deeper than merely guarding some set of letters or sounds that identify God. The main point is not about the specific sounds. In English the word “bog” means a swampy area but in Russian it means “God.” As Edward Clowney writes in How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, “Using God’s name is a serious act not because certain sounds are holy, but because God himself is present in his name, and all his works reveal that name” (40).

Consider how the Bible speaks about someone’s “name.” For example, Proverbs 3:3-4 states, “Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man.” Proverbs 22:1 states, “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” Thus when Psalm 8:9 states, “O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” it is talking about God’s reputation, his glory, and there is nothing more important than this.

This commandment diagnoses our disrespect for God’s reputation when we see some of the specific ways that we violate it. For example:

A. False oaths. Leviticus 19:12 states, “Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.” Now, not all oaths and vows are outlawed. (See Deut. 6:13 and 2 Cor. 1:23.) However we need to remember that when we pledge by God’s name, we are staking God’s honor on our faithfulness to this vow.

B. Casual or disrespectful use of God’s name. How dare we use God’s name as a four-letter swear word? We barely even notice it when God’s name is used this way on a show. It’s also wrong when we use His name as a casual exclamation, as if “Praise the Lord” just means, “That’s neat.” When we do that, aren’t we using His name is a vain, empty manner? Finally, what about the constant use of the abbreviation “O.M.G.” by everyone from yahoo.com to Christian teenagers. Christians should not use that abbreviation. No one is going to think it stands for “Oat Meal Gopher.”

“Casual use of God’s name is prohibited precisely because it wears away our sensitivity to the enormous reverence we owe it.” -Michael Horton, The Perfect Lew of Freedom, p. 104.

C. False Prophecy. God does not like it when we put words in His mouth. Deuteronomy 18:20 says that a prophet who falsely presumes to speak in God’s name should be put to death. Jeremiah 14:14-15 declares God’s distain for the false prophets who were preaching “delusions of their own minds.” Their message of peace and safety was popular with the king and the masses, but it wasn’t from God. Today we have politically correct pastors and denominations who would rather proclaim what is acceptable than what is true. They claim God’s authority to justify sin and disobedience.

D. False teaching about God. God is glorified when we see the truth about who He is and what He has done. Instead, false teachers claim that God doesn’t have the attributes the Bible says He has. He hasn’t created what the Bible says He created. He hasn’t done all that the Bible says He has done. False teaching changes God and robs Him of His glory.

E. Manipulative God-talk/ Using God’s name to advance our own agendas. Everyone from politicians to sports fans to Survivor contestants wants to claim God for their cause. Marketers use God to sell their stuff. Everyday Christians claim God’s authority for their own decisions saying, “God told me” or “I’m being led…” Those phrases sound spiritual, and they are conversation stoppers. But in most cases, wouldn’t it be better to say, “I think this is what God wants me to do…”? Don’t pretend you have a direct line to God if you don’t.

This command directs us to honor God’s reputation with our lips and our lives. If you call yourself a Christian, you are identifying yourself with His name. How is God’s reputation being lifted up or dragged through the mud by the way you live your life? If you call yourself a Christian, live like it. Don’t be a jerk or a hypocrite. Don’t put a fish on your car and then drive like you’re the only person on the road who matters. Don’t say you’re a Christian on your business card and do sloppy work or rip people off. Don’t wear a youth group shirt to school and talk like a pervert in the halls. And remember, even the angels see what you do in secret.

Colossians 3:17 says, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” The good deeds you do, do in His name, for hHs reputation, not in your name for your reputation.

The Third Commandment isn’t a throw-away commandment. There are good reasons God make it #3 on the list. God’s glory is worth it.

And ask yourself, if this were the only commandment you had to keep, would Jesus still have needed to go to the cross to save you? If so, remember that His name is also your only hope, for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rm. 10:13).

Five Potential Goals for Parenting

2012-01-13T02:16:00.006-05:00

Every decision parents make concerning their children is going to depend on the ultimate goal they have for them. It doesn’t matter if you’re thinking about the use of technology, or discipline, or whether to encourage your kids to join the school’s ping pong team—every strategy depends on what the goal is.

I’m going to give you five possible goals for parenting. Four of these goals are common, but not great.

False Goal 1: Ease.

There are times when the only thing we care about is how to get a moment of peace and quiet. Sometimes this is understandable, but many times parents make momentary decisions with bad long-term consequences just to keep the kids out of their hair. Having kids is a lot of headache and hardship. Parents with this goal want to get through the process of raising kids with as little difficulty as possible. Convenience is king.

In some cases, parents with this goal see their kids as a burden and as an obstacle in the way of what they really want to do. Parents with this goal will always gravitate toward the easiest acceptable option.

False Goal #2: Trophy

Many parents raise their kids to be their trophy. Some parents want their kids to excel at sports so that they can relive their glory days through them—or live out the glory days they never had. Sports is one example, but there are many others. Parents want their kids to be popular because this makes them look good. Popular kids have popular parents. It doesn’t feel as good to be the parent of rejects. Another trophy is success. A child who grows up to become a doctor or a corporate executive makes a nice trophy for their friends to see.

Some Christians want their kids to be “good Christians” because that is the kind of shinny trophy their peers admire. Parents with this goal want their kids to be good in order to protect the family image. When their children sin, their first thought is, “How is this going to make us look?”

False Goal #3: Happiness

These parents want to shield their children from any type of unhappiness, pain, frustration or disappointment. They can’t bear to see them go through that. They want to see their kids smiling and they will do whatever that takes with little thought to the fact that difficulties build character and constant appeasement leads to spoiled greed and a soft child.

You'll hear these parents talk about their offspring and use the phrase, “At least he’s happy.” This is a give-away that happiness was their goal for them. No matter what else, as long as they are "happy" everything else is fine. Did you ever notice how often this statement is attached to awful life-decisions? She grew up to become porn star and he’s a mafia hit man, but “at least their happy.”

Now, in one sense there is truth to this goal. If your ultimate goal for your child is that he or she would find ultimate happiness by delighting in God—then there is no greater goal. If that is what you mean by happiness, you can find peace even when your child goes through hard times if the experience will bring him closer to God. The miseries of this life do not compare to the unspeakable lasting joy that will follow. Unfortunately, this usually isn’t what people mean. Usually parents settle for the shallow and fleeting version of happiness that this world has to offer.

False Goal #4: Friend

The picture depicted to the right isn’t the image that these parents have in their heads. They see themselves and their kids as BFFs. Moms picture themselves and their daughter going shopping together, hanging out and being mistaken for sisters. Dads imagine themselves just kicking back and popping a beer with their boy. For others, their satisfaction comes from knowing how well-pleased their kids are with them. They daydream about their kids singing their praise with hearts full of love and admiration for their beloved mother or father—perhaps a statue is in order.

In reality, the picture is more like the one shown above. These parents are absolutely dependent on the approval of their children. They want their kids to be happy with them. These parents desperately need to be liked by their kids. Therefore, who is in control? The kids of these parents have tremendous power over their parents. They can withhold their approval like withholding oxygen.

Some parents refuse to be an authority figure over their child because they would rather be a buddy than a real parent. They forget that having a good relationship isn’t the same thing as being a peer to their child. We all desire a good relationship with our children, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of what is really best for them.

Goal #5: The True Goal – Disciple

The real goal, the ultimate goal for Christian parents is to raise children who become authentic growing disciples of Jesus Christ. Our goal is for our children to glorify God by treasuring Christ. We want them to treasure Christ as their Prophet, Priest and King. Their changed life will flow from this as they glorify God in their hearts.

Our goal for our children should be the same goal that Paul prayed for believers in Colossians 1:9-14:

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Spend time dissecting this passage and thinking about the specific things Paul is praying for. Pray for those same things for your children. Make your parenting decisions while asking yourself what is the best strategy for reaching these goals.

There is a grain of truth in each of the false goals. At times, and in the right way, they can be appropriate as long as the true goal always stays higher. For example: There are times when we need quiet. We want our children to be our legacy, in a good sense. We want our kids to have true happiness. And we want a healthy relationship with our kids. However, it is easy for us to justify these goals while they mutate out of control. Some parents are completely sold out to one of these false goals. For all of us, they are always a temptation that we will fall into from time to time.

Most Christians will probably assume that their goal is for their children to be disciples of Jesus, but here is the test: What happens when two of these goals are in conflict? What happens when you are forced to choose between two? What happens when raising your child as a growing disciple is inconvenient? What happens when this goal might endanger the shininess of your trophy in some people's eyes? What happens when living for Christ will put your child through intense pain and heart-ache? What happens when raising your kid the right way makes him or her furious with you?

Which goal gives way? When we can’t have both we see what goal is really on top.

See also:
Parenting in an Age of Technology

Flavel on Keeping a Clean Conscience

2012-01-02T08:01:00.002-05:00

John Flavel (1628?-1691) was an English Puritan who John Piper once refered to as one of the Redwoods of the Christian faith. In his work A Practical Treatisie of Fear, Flavel offers six rules for keeping a clean conscious. Salvation is by Christ alone, but our consciences often plague us because of unresolved sins. The best way for a Christian to keep a clear conscience is to be mindful to avoid the sins that would splatter it. Flavel's wisdom is worth meditating upon, especially at the start of a new year.

1. “Over-awe your hearts every day, and in every place with the eye of God.” Speak and live as someone who knows that God always sees him.

2. Do no action that you dare not preface with prayer. Touch not that you dare not pray for a blessing upon; if you dare not pray, dare not to engage; if you cannot spend your prayers before, be confident, shame and guilt will follow after."

3. “Be more afraid of grieving God, or wounding conscience, than of displeasing or losing all the friends you have in the world.” Remember that sinning to avoid danger is like sinking your ship to avoid pirates.

4. Consider the clear council that you would give another person in the same situation. We're too prone to adjust the standards when our own interests are at stake. On the other hand, King David's judgment was upright when he unknowingly judged himself in Nathan's parable.

5. Be willing to bear faithful reproofs from men as if they were from God.

6. “Be mindful daily of your dying-day, and your great audit-day, and do all with respect to them.”

All quotes from John Flavel, Works, 3:306. Text not in quotation marks is my paraphrase.

A Short Thought about 2012 and the End of the World

2011-12-31T00:27:00.001-05:00

Well, here we are about to say goodbye to boring ol’ 2011 and welcome in awesome new 2012. Unfortunately, according to the Mayans 2012 is the end of the world. However, if the Mayans were so smart, then why is their civilization extinct? Exactly. So, I’m not too worried.

So, 2012 probably won’t be the end of the world—but it could be. Jesus could come back in 2012 just the same as He could in any other year. In fact, He could still come back before the end of 2011.

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” –Matthew 24:42-43

No matter what, don’t wait until the end of the world to make sure that you’re right with your Maker. The Judge is standing at the door.

And for Christians, be awake and alert. Live this year like it might be the last one you spend on earth.

You should still plan as if the world might go on another 10,000 years, but keep reminding yourself that this present type of life that we are used to—a life without the physical presence of Jesus the King—this will one day be considered an unusual little blip on the timeline of history.

The Bible isn’t silent about what the end of the world should mean for us. Spend some of your last minutes of this year—or some of your first minutes of the new year—thinking about what God’s inspired Word tells us about the end of things.

“Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” –Thessalonians 5:1-11

Have a happy New Year!

Angry Birds

2011-12-15T06:00:00.000-05:00

I've been working with the student ministry at my church for a long time now. This fall I thought it would be fun for the high school group to find a way to play live-action Angry Birds. This is the video...

We have a nice archive of videos from past events. If you're involved with student ministry you might be able to get some ideas.

Don't Tell Your Kids Santa is Real

2011-12-07T16:49:00.003-05:00

When I asked my parents if Santa was real, they flat out told me he was. I’m sure that to them they were just dutifully protecting the fun secret of Christmas, but I wanted the honest truth. Santa seemed fake and I wanted the real answer. Instead I got a stone cold lie.

Now, the next time around my parents ‘fessed up and told me the truth and the Santa myth didn’t devastate my future. Nonetheless, the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Kids should be able to trust their parents. My parents are honest people but this thing with Santa seemed jarringly inconsistent with that.

I want to offer a suggestion to new and future parents. For you parents who have already fooled your kids about Santa, my purpose isn’t to make you feel bad or to condemn you as bad parents. I’m also not trying to make the case that Santa is Satan—even though their names have the same letters, they both wear red suits and distract people from baby Jesus on His birthday... No, my only purpose is to give this challenge to new or future parents: Don’t tell your kids that Santa is real.

Let me give you three reasons:

Christmas is about Jesus, not Santa.

You have to admit that Santa distracts kids from the real meaning of Christmas. Christmas is about Jesus; that’s why we call it Christmas and not Santamas. Regardless of when Jesus was actually born, Christmas is when we celebrate the Messiah coming into the world. God became man so that Jesus, the God-man, could live a perfect life on our behalf and die the death we deserved to die. Salvation depends on what we celebrate on Christmas.

Yet, even in Christian homes this can get swallowed up. Secular Christmas has completely lost the real meaning of the holiday, but even in Christian homes it’s an uphill battle. We have four young kids. We do a lot to teach them about Jesus, and they know that Santa is pretend, but it is still hard enough to keep their eyes on the right things. There are still presents under the tree. There are still commercials, and Christmas specials, and school Christmas parties, and decorations, and Christmas songs that have nothing to do with Jesus. It’s hard enough to keep the spotlight on Jesus even without making Santa the star of the show.

Kids should be able to trust their parents.

Kids trust their parents. Parents should do everything they can to honor that trust. Kidding around is one thing, but intentionally fooling your kids for years is another thing. Your kids are going to need your guidance to get them through this world. Don’t do anything that could damage that trust.

As parents, you will need to tell your kids many things that they will find hard to believe. You will need to tell them that many of their desires are dangers and mirages. They need to believe you. Most important, you need to teach your kids about the truth of God. But if they grow up being assured that both Santa and Jesus are real, what are they going to think one day when both of them seem far-fetched? If Santa was just a pleasant myth, why is Jesus any different?

Your kids will still love Christmas.

I have four kids who don’t think that Santa is real. Guess what? They still love Christmas. They love it a lot! I have pictures and video to prove it. Maybe they love it more, since it is more impressive to think about God coming down to earth to give salvation than for a fat guy to come down a chimney—if we had one—to give plastic.

The “magic” isn’t gone. We haven’t killed their imaginations. We still put up decorations. We still have a tree. They still get gifts. And speaking of the gifts, this is another advantage: They know that the gifts are from people who love them, not an anonymous fat stranger.

Why give Santa credit for the gifts you give your kids? I have a very clear childhood memory of one Christmas gift I opened under the tree. It was some sort of puzzle that looked like a dog. The gift itself wasn’t my favorite thing, but what I remember is that while all the other gifts said they were from “Santa” this one—for whatever reason—said it was from “Dad.” My Dad gave me this gift! Sure, now I know that all of the gifts were from my parents, but I didn’t know that then. The gifts from Santa were nice, but the gift from my Dad was special.

Let Jesus be the number one hero of Christmas. Let Mom and Dad be next. Santa can stay out in the cold.

11 Reasons Why I Liked the 180 Movie

2011-11-30T14:27:00.001-05:00

Here are eleven of the reasons I liked the 180 Movie:

1. Ray Comfort had the guts to make a movie about something that isn't the sexiest social justice issue at the moment. Christians who spend their time worrying that their left-leaning friends might consider them unsophisticated knuckle-draggers probably won't give it the time of day. That's too bad.

2. It is aimed at normal people, not just the sophisticated elite.

3. The video is 30 minutes long but seems like it's about 10 minutes long. The pace can keep the attention of the new generation that needs to hear this message. The greatest argument about anything is worthless if people won't give it their attention.

4. I am the Director of Discipleship at my church. Part of my job is to oversee student ministries. We showed the 180 Movie at our high school youth program. The video was absolutely perfect for connecting with high school teens. They were absorbed.

5. The movie compels people to think. Although the movie engages the affections, at the core it is an issue of logic: It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Unborn babies are human beings. Therefore it is wrong to kill unborn babies.

6. Ray Comfort kept asking people--who claimed they valued human life and that it is a baby in the womb--to complete the sentence, "'Killing a baby in the womb is okay when _____________.'" That's gold.

7. If people did have an answer to that question, Comfort helped them think through the consistency and implications of their answer.

8. I have a daughter who many people would have aborted with the excuse that she wouldn't have a good quality of life. That excuse is wrong on so many levels.

9. Bringing up the Nazi Holocaust was not unfair. The main point was not to invoke an emotional response. The purpose was to get people to think consistently about these issues.

10. In America alone, there have been approximately 10 babies aborted to every 1 Jewish person killed in the Holocaust. Comparing abortion with the Holocaust is not illegitimate. Both were legal. Both carried on because people didn't care to stop it. We have to care about protecting unborn humans beings.

11. You can post the whole movie on your facebook page, and you should.

When People are Big

2011-11-16T07:00:00.002-05:00

Every day people make decisions that are controlled by the fear of man. We often don’t admit it to ourselves and this becomes part of our bondage. Not everyone who fears people is hiding under their desk.

We need to understand the fear of man in order to shrink its influence. In When People Are Big and God is Small Ed Welch lists three main reasons why we fear other people:

1. “People will see me.”

We fear other people because they might find out that we are not who we pretend to be. We’re too insecure to deal with that. Think of all the things you don’t try because you don’t want people to see that you aren’t good at it. Maybe your brave at basketball, but you would be terrified to open your mouth at a Bible Study.

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned we’ve been hiding in shame. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves with fig leaves; we try to cover ourselves with our false self-images. We try to present ourselves to the others like we’re something we’re not. We have a wide variety of masks we wear depending on who we’re around and what we think they expect.

We’re posers, we know it, and we’re terrified that eventually someone will see through our masks. So, we keep people at a safe distance. We fear other people because they can expose and humiliate us. Deep down we know that eventually the masks will be thrown off. It cannot last. As Kierkegaard once wrote, “Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when everyone has thrown off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight to avoid this? Or are you terrified by it?”

2. “People will reject me.”

There might be nothing people are more scared of than rejection. Welch writes:

…Sometimes we would prefer to die for Jesus than to live for Him. If someone had the power to kill us for our profession of faith, I imagine that most Christians would say, "Yes, I am a believer in Jesus Christ," even if that meant death. The threat of torture might make people think twice, but I think most Christians would acknowledge Christ. However, if making a decision for Jesus means that we might spend years being unpopular, ignored, poor, or criticized, then there are masses of Christians who temporarily put their faith on the shelf. "Death is not imminent, so why hurry into such a rash decision?" "There will be time later to get things straight with God."

In other words, kill me, but don't keep me from being liked, appreciated, or respected.

Does that sound too harsh? Remember that one word: evangelism. I am sure that many teens would rather die than have their friends catch them hanging around with the church youth group or doing Christian drama on the streets. Aren't the most popular missions trips the ones that take us far from our own neighborhood? Russia is easy; our own neighborhood is a constant challenge...

The sin resident in the human heart (fear of man) wields awesome power. The praise of others—that wisp of a breeze that lasts for a moment—can seem more glorious to us than the praise of God. Jesus Himself told the Jewish leaders, "How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?' (John 5:44)

Today we would be nice and call the Pharisees people-pleasers. We would say they "struggled with peer pressure." Since all of us are affected by it at one time or another, we are almost sympathetic toward such behavior. But this is perhaps the most tragic form of the fear of man. Teenagers are constantly making unwise decisions because of it. Adults, too, look to people for their cues. We wait for others to take the initiatives of love. We spend too much time wondering what others may have thought about our outfit or the comment we made in a small group meeting. We see opportunities to testify about Christ, but we avoid them. We are more concerned about looking stupid (a fear of people) than we are about acting sinfully (fear of the Lord.)" (Edward Welch, When People are Big and God is Small, 37-40.)

3. “People will hurt me.”

We fear people because they can physically harm us. Don’t think that this kind of fear is experienced only by children and perhaps an adult walking down a dark alley. In most of the world today it could cost you your life to claim to follow Jesus Christ. Safe America is the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand, many physically secure Americans crumble with the fear that someone might hurt them financially. Many Christians collapse as cowards because their fear their career or their chance of advancement being hurt. Compromise and get ahead.

These three fears are multiplied by the fact that the world wants us to fear other people. In school and society we’re told, “Play by our rules or you will be rejected.” “You better think that what I think is important is important!” This is how people control and influence each other. Advertisers use it to sell us things. Politicians use it to push their policies. For example, before New York state redefined marriage the state senators who were resisting so-called gay marriage were told, “You don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.” They caved in.

How Jesus is the Antidote for these Fears

If we are honest with ourselves, we can see the straightforward and subtle ways that these three varieties of the fear of man influence our lives. We need to realize what is going on in our hearts in order to change. But even more, we need to see how truth about God answers these fears. Welch listed three main varieties of the fear of man. Let’s now how God’s truth answers each of these fears.

1. God already sees us. He knows us better than we know ourselves and He still chose to go to the cross for us. He covers our shame with His righteousness.

You can stop worrying about being seen when you realize that the One whose opinion matters most already sees you. You can’t hide from God. Psalm 139:1 declares, “ O Lord, you have searched me and you know me.” Hebrews 4:13 states, “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” We can hide from other people, and we can even hide from ourselves, but we can’t hide from God.

The fact that God sees us laid bare is absolutely terrifying except for realization that He chooses to love us in spite of what He sees. While we were still sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-10) Even more, just as He clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, God also chooses to clothe us. Isaiah 61:10 states, “I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

We can drop our fig leaves, because God clothes us in the righteousness of Christ. Ephesians 1:4 states that God “chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” Notice what it says about how God sees believers. Because of what Jesus did for you, God sees you as holy and blameless in His sight.

2. If you have Jesus as your Savior, He has forever accepted you. You have been adopted as his son or daughter. He will never forsake you.

We do not need to fear rejection, because we have been permanently accepted by the One who matters most. Ephesians 1:5 goes on to tell believers that, in love God “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” When someone trusts Jesus as their Savior they are adopted as God’s child. Likewise Galatians 3:26 tells us, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Not only that, but we are also “heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29)

Our adopted Father is a perfect Father. A perfect Father doesn’t abandon or disown His children. God knew ahead of time who He was adopting. He knew what all our struggles and failures would be, and He still choose to go through with it. He will never forsake us. Romans 8:38-39 promises, “neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

3. If you are saved, nothing can ultimately hurt you. Nothing can come into your life apart from God’s permission and purposes.

People can hurt us, but not in the long run. Romans 8:28 gives us God’s sweeping promise, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” God is ultimately in control of all things, including every possibly hurt that could come into your life. People may intend it for evil, but God purposes it for good. (Genesis 50:20)

The Bible does not hide that fact that Christians will face fearful things. Peter told believers, “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.’” (1 Pt. 3:14) Jesus Himself warned His followers that they would be persecuted, hated, and that some of them would even be put to death; yet Jesus had the gall to tell them, “but not a hair of your head will perish.” (Lk. 21:12-19) This life is a speck compared to eternity when God will make all things right. Ultimately, no man can harm you if God is your alley.

Think about what Jesus told us, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” (Mt. 10:28-31)

Fear God Not Man

2011-11-13T13:16:00.001-05:00

I once knew an otherwise normal person who had a fear of cotton. I have no idea what would make someone afraid of cotton, but she claimed she was. I didn’t believe her, so one day I surprised her by throwing a cotton ball on the table in front of her. She screamed, jumped up and panicked. I still don’t understand.

For many people the only thing more harmless than a cotton ball is their idea of God. God is soft and cuddly and certainly should never be feared. Yet, the Bible says a lot about the fear of the Lord. Here are a few verses that talk about it:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” –Proverbs 9:10

“Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” –Proverbs 31:30

“Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” –1 Peter 2:17

“An oracle is within my heart concerning the wicked: there is no fear of God before his eyes. For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate sin.” –Psalm 36:1-2

“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” –Ecclesiastes 12:13

In all, there are about 150 referenced to fearing God in the Bible. No, we shouldn't be afraid of God as if He is some sort of monster, on the other hand the fear of God is lifted up in the Bible as a good thing of critical importance.

FEAR = HEAVY CONCERN

For our purposes here, let’s define “fear” as heavy concern. I am tempted to say "healthy concern" but the problem is that the fear of God is not the only kind of fear out there. Another kind of fear is the fear of man. So, when we talk about fear in this context, it doesn't have to include the idea of terror, although it might. Instead, when we fear God or fear man it means that we have heavy concern about them.

Heavy concern can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. Some things are appropriate to have heavy concern about. Some things aren't. It is strange for a person to fear a cotton ball, but it wouldn't be weird to fear a table-saw. In fact, there is a lot of danger in not fearing a table saw. If you don't have heavy concern about your relationship with a table-saw, your new nickname might end up being Lefty.

The reason I bring this up is because your choices will be determined by what you fear the most. If you have a higher concern for what other people think of you, your choices will be controlled by that. But if your healthy fear of God is greater than your fear of man, then you will choose God. Unfortunately, way too often our fear of man is huge, but our fear of God is small.

We care about the praise that comes from man more than the praise that comes from God. We are like the people described in John 12:42-43,“Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.”

Fear of Man goes by different names. Sometimes we call it peer pressure, people-pleasing, or even co-dependency. Edward Welch describes the fear of man in his excellent book When People are Big and God is Small:

The fear of man is such a part of our human fabric that we should check for a pulse if someone denies it.

In the United States we are on the tail end of a revolution that included scores of books on codependency. For years every book that had the word "codependency" in the title was a guaranteed best seller. Melodie Beattie, for example, made millions with Codependent No More. She obviously hit on a topic that was important to many people, yet it was basically the fear or man in a secular garment. Melody Beattie talked about the problem in terms of being controlled by or dependent on other people, and her prescription was to love yourself more.

That approach sounded a little shallow to the evangelical world, so many Christians responded by saying that a better treatment for codependency is to know God loves you more than you think. God can fill you with His love, so you don't have to be filled by other people.

This certainly is better than the exhortation to love yourself more, but—and this might sound controversial—even this answer is incomplete. The love of God is a profound answer to just about any human struggle, but sometimes we can use it is such a way that it becomes a watered down version of a profoundly rich truth. For example, sometimes, because of shortcomings in us rather than Scripture, this answer misses the call to "consider others better than yourselves" (Phil. 2:3), or it ignores personal repentance. Sometimes it allows us and our needs to be at the center of the world, and God becomes our psychic errand boy given the task of inflating our self-esteem.

We need to go further in searching the Scriptures so that we can truly understand the nearly universal experience of the fear of man… To really understand the roots of the fear of man, we must begin to ask the right questions. For example, instead of "How can I feel better about myself and not be controlled by what other people think?" a better question is "Why am I so concerned about my self" "Why am I so concerned about self-esteem?" "Why do I have to have someone—even Jesus—think that I am great?"

…We need a way to think less often about ourselves…

The most radical treatment for the fear of man is the fear of the Lord. God must be bigger to you than people are . . . Regarding other people, our problem is that we need them (for ourselves) more than we love them (for the glory of God.) The task God sets for us is to need them less and love them more. Instead of looking for ways to manipulate others, we will ask God what our duty is toward them. This perspective does not come naturally to any of us, and many of us need to look at this truth from several angles before we can see it. But the conviction of this book is that this truth is another of Scripture's divine paradoxes—the path of service is the road to freedom (17-19).

For all of us, our fear of man is too big and our fear of God is too small. We hold people in awe and wonder, but God not as much. We are more concerned about losing the pleasure of people than displeasing the God and King who made us.

We all need to learn to fear people less and to fear God more. To do that, we’re going to start with the first three steps listed in When People are Big and God is Small:

Step 1: Recognize that the fear of man is a major theme both in the Bible and in your own life.

Step 2: Identify where your fear of man has been intensified by people in your past.

Step 3: Identify where your fear of man has been intensified by the assumptions of the world.

Part Two: When People are Big

Jesus' Least Impressive Miracle

2011-11-09T21:13:00.000-05:00

Jesus’ least impressive miracle is probably the feeding of the four thousand. Now don’t get me wrong, feeding at least four thousand people with seven loaves of bread and a few fish is amazing. I can’t do it. Still, this miracle doesn’t impress many people and it doesn’t get picked for many sermons. The reason it is unimpressive is in the math: four thousand is less than five thousand.

If you read through the book of Mark you will read about the feeding of the five thousand in Mark 6:30-44. This miracle is more impressive for several reasons. It comes first, there are an extra one thousand people fed, and to top it off Jesus does it with a mere five loaves and two fish instead of a gratuitous seven loaves and a "few" fish the second time around. Then, two chapters later in Mark 8:1-10 Jesus does that anti-climactic feeding of—well, less people.

When reading through Mark, you expect the second feeding to be even bigger and more sensational than the first one—but it isn’t. This makes a person wonder why Mark would bother recording this at all? After all, none of the Gospels list every miracle that Jesus performed. Wouldn’t it have made sense for Mark’s fast-paced Gospel to leave this one out or replace it with something less disappointing?

Four thousand is less than five thousand.

Mark knew what he was doing. He recorded both of these miracles because they actually happened and because he was trying to make a point. The point isn’t just about Jesus’ great power. It is also about the human ability to forget what just happened.

Jesus had just fed five thousand people and now a similar situation arises—with less people—and the disciples still fret. “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?” they ask.

It is amazing how quickly we can lose confidence in God.

Remind yourself of the things God has already done. Remind yourself of the mighty things recorded in the Bible. Remind yourself of the great things He has done in your life. If God can put the stars in the sky and part the sea, He can do the less taxing job of taking care of your needs. If the Father was willing to send His beloved Son to be hung on the cross in the place of you as a sinner, will He not also be willing to care for you now that you are His adopted child? “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also along with him, graciously give us all things? (Rm. 8:32) If God can feed the five thousand, don’t doubt that he can feed the four thousand. If He can do the big thing, He can do the smaller thing.

Four thousand is not five thousand.

Critics love to claim that the Bible is full of contradictions. Any discrepancy in the details is a sign to them that the Bible is in error. For example, John records the cleansing of the temple at the start of Jesus’ career but the other writers put in Jesus' last week. Matthew states that Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount on a mountain but Luke mentions a flat place. The list goes on.

With that in mind, ask yourself what critics would say if Matthew had only recorded the feeding of the five thousand and Mark had only recorded the feeding of the four thousand. Critics would go on and on about contradictions and errors. Now, imagine how thee critics would respond if you tried to explain the inconsistency by suggesting that maybe there were two miraculous feedings—with different details. You would be laughed at.

The fact that Matthew and Mark record both of these miraculous feedings demonstrates that Jesus sometimes did impressive things more than once. In the same way, Jesus probably taught some of his key teachings many times in many places. Why not? Each of us has heard speakers reuse material. With that in mind, is it really absurd to think that Jesus may have cleansed the temple more than once? Is it really a stretch to think that Jesus may have thought the “Sermon on the Mount” was worth teaching to more than one crowd? Certainly, there may be other ways of resolving these apparent contradictions, but one legitimate possibility is that Jesus did some things more than once. For all we know, there was also the still-less-impressive feeding of the three thousand.

Yes, after feeding five thousand people feeding a measly four thousand might not impress everyone, but the fact that Matthew and Mark include it teaches us not to lose confidence in God’s power and not to lose confidence in God’s Word.

The Death Star Song / Princess Leia

2011-10-24T08:00:00.006-04:00

A long time ago, in galaxy far far away... just before the release of the Star Wars Special Edition, I wrote two Star Wars songs that I performed at an event in college. The first is a parody of The Sweater Song by Weezer, the other is an ode to Princess Leia. This is the video of that historic performance in Torrey-Gray Auditorium at Chicago's great Moody Bible Institute.

That night I also met the girl I would marry. It was a good night!

Patience

2011-10-17T17:36:00.002-04:00

I learned from a commercial that we all need cell phones that can download a song before being hit by a missile. Obviously this is important because most people under rocket fire have one thing on their mind: downloading a new Justin Bieber song before exploding. (Actually, this might be helpful because Justin Bieber’s voice could disrupt the missile’s electronics.) Patience was once considered a virtue. Today all it gets you is a blown up cell phone.

Still, patience is a virtue because God is patient. 2 Peter 3:15 tells us to “Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation” and Romans 2:4 asks, “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?” God even gave the Amorites hundreds of years to repent before bringing judgment on them. (Gen. 15:12-16) God wants us to learn patience because God is a God of patience.

Patience is being willing to wait until the right time. Patience is not the waiting itself, but it is the heart’s willingness to wait, even when it is difficult. Also, patience doesn’t mean waiting forever, but it does mean waiting until the right time. God was patient with the Amorites, but eventually their sins “reached its full measure” and time was up.

Do you demand patience now? Get better sleep and bring a book. Advice like that is helpful, but it merely manages the problem without getting at the heart. Instead, here are a few suggestions that can help the heart of the problem.

1. Don’t break the first commandment.

“And God spoke all these words: ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:1-3) The first commandment tells us that the Lord is God and no one else is. That includes you. If you want to learn patience, start by keeping the first commandment. In other words, remember that you are not God.

We are impatience because we want our wills to become instant reality. “Let there be pizza. And then there was pizza.” We want to speak and make it so. God can pull that off, we can’t. We also forget that the universe doesn’t revolve us. There are other people who exist and sometimes they get ahead of us in line. This is always more irritating if you think you are the most important person in the world. God is patient, but is omnipotent and He gets to set the timetables. Embrace frustrations as reminders that you and I are not God.

2. Have confidence in God and His plan.

Let me ask you this: Why is God able to be patient? Part of the answer is that God has confidence in Himself and His plan. Because of God’s wisdom, omniscience and omnipotence God knows that His waiting it worth it. He is able to look ahead to what He considers to be the greater good. We can grow in patience in the same way. I don’t mean that we should have confidence in ourselves and our plan. We’re unworthy of that. Instead, we also need to have confidence in God and His plan. We need to trust that God’s ways are best. He knows what He is talking about and the reward is worth the wait.

Moses in an example of this kind of trust. Hebrews 11:24-26 states, “By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.”

Sex is an example of this. God is not against sex, but He instructs us to wait for this until marriage. Do you trust that God’s plan is best? Sex is meant to cement two people together is a life-long relationship. Sex outside of marriage comes with guilt, dysfunction, potential disease and all sorts of problems. Waiting for marriage let’s sex be what it was meant to be.

In 1972 Walter Mischel conducted an experiment regarding delayed gratification. Children were given a marshmallow and told that they could eat it immediately, or they wait until the instructor came back in the room and then they could have two marshmallows. Settling for sex before marriage is like grabbing one small dirty marshmallow instead of waiting for the bag of marshmallows that God offers.

3. Remember that patience is a part of love.

When Paul describes love in 1 Corinthians 13, the first thing he states is that love is patient. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.” (1 Cor. 13:4) Patience is not merely a matter of our personal tranquility; it is about our relationships. To love others, we must learn to be patient. To please God with a grateful life we must learn patience. We are called to be “completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” (Eph. 4:2)

We should express patience to others because God first expressed greater patience to us. “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:7-9) Without God’s patience all of us would have perished. Patience was part of God’s love for us.

The Thirty Commandments

2011-10-10T15:27:00.003-04:00

Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and Jews all number the Ten Commandments differently. Why are there such variations and what is the best solution?

The commands of God which were written on two stone tablets are referred to several times as “the Ten Commandments” (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4). The Hebrew word translated “commandment” is dabar, meaning “word” or “statement.” Thus, these commands are also known as the ten words. This is translated in the Septuagint in Greek as deka logoi, from which we get the term Decalogue. The commands are recorded in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy 5 but nowhere in Scripture are the commands are specifically numbered. Roman Catholics and Lutherans combine the command to have no other gods before the LORD and the prohibition against idols together as the first commandment. In the Reformed tradition these are the first and second commandments. To offset this, Catholics and Lutherans split the prohibition against coveting into two commandments: the prohibition against coveting your neighbor’s wife as the ninth commandment and the prohibition against coveting your neighbor’s house, land, servants, and the rest as the tenth commandment. In each of these systems, Exodus 20:2 is viewed as a preface to the ten words. However in the traditional Jewish numbering system Exodus 20:2 is considered to be the first word, even though nothing is actually commanded in this verse. The Jews then combine Exodus 3-6 as the second word. After this point, the Jewish and Reformed understanding is the same. The Greek Orthodox understanding is the same as the Reformed understanding.

Abridged Statement (ESV)	Jewish	Roman Catholic & Lutheran	Reformed & Greek Orthodox
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. (Ex. 20:2)	#1	preface	preface
You shall have no other gods before me. (Ex. 20:3)	#2	#1	#1
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above… (Ex. 20:4-6)	#2	#1	#2
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain… (Ex. 20:7)	#3	#2	#3
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy… (Ex. 20:8-11)	#4	#3	#4
Honor your father and your mother… (Ex. 20:12)	#5	#4	#5
You shall not murder. (Ex. 20:13)	#6	#5	#6
You shall not commit adultery. (Ex. 20:14)	#7	#6	#7
You shall not steal. (Ex. 20:15)	#8	#7	#8
You shall not bear false witness... (Ex. 20:16)	#9	#8	#9
You shall not covet…your neighbor’s wife… (Ex. 20:17)	#10	#9	#10
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house… or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s. (Ex. 20:17)	#10	#10	#10

Roman Catholics point to Augustine who agreed with their system. The Reformed are able to point to Josephus and Philo whose systems match their system, except that Philo inverts the sixth and seventh commandments.[1] Calvin writes that Augustine used the same numeration as Calvin in a letter to Boniface, but “for a very insufficient reason” Augustine choose elsewhere to combine the first two commandments so that there would be three rather than four commandments in the first tablet (Institutes, II.8.12). Augustine felt that this better manifested the mystery of the Trinity.

In the Roman Catholic version, the division of the coveting law seems to be arbitrary and unnecessary except for the need to reach a total of ten commandments rather than just nine. A bigger problem is the fact that although the prohibition of coveting your neighbor’s wife is listed first in Deuteronomy 5:21, in Exodus 20:17 the neighbor’s house is listed first and then the neighbor’s wife. In Exodus, wife is sandwiched between house and the remaining items, making it extremely unlikely that it is intended to be isolated as an individual command.

In the traditional Jewish understanding, the preface to the commandments is considered to be the first word. However, the lack of an actual command or “shall” statement weighs against this understanding. In addition, most modern scholars have noticed the formal similarities between the Decalogue and second-millennium Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties.[2] In this format, the stipulations are preceded by a historical prologue. Whether or not Exodus 20:2 is considered to be a preface, the first word, or part of the first word, it is intimately connected with the entire Decalogue and presents these commands in this context as a gift given to God’s people as a way for them to respond in gratitude to what the LORD has already done for them.

One of the theological issues at stake here is the mode of worship. In the Catholic understanding, the prohibition against idolatry might be understood as merely another statement against worshipping false gods. However in the Reformed understanding, the second commandment is not merely about what deity to worship, but the proper manner in which God must be worshipped. Therefore as one Reformed theologian has observed, “Whether to include Exodus 20:4-6 as part of the first commandment has more to do with the interpretation of the second commandment [in the Reformed counting] than with the first.”[3]

Based on these observations, I believe the Reformed understanding seems to be correct. However even Calvin did not regard these divisions as being of great importance, writing that, “each man ought to have free judgment, and ought not to strive in a contentious spirit with one who differs from him” (Institutes, II.8.12).

A related issue is the division of the commands into two tables as indicated in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 5:22 and 10:3. Calvin saw the first four commandments as composing the first tablet of the law, relating to our duty to God; The last six commandments compose the second tablet, relating to our duty to neighbor. The Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 93) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 98) also reflect this same division. However, as Harrelson states, “the reference to two tables was intended from the first to refer to two copies of the entire list of the Decalogue, rather than to a division of them.”[4] In a suzerain-vassal treaty, one copy was made for the suzerain and one copy was made for the vassal. Thus it could very well be that the reference to two tablets is a reference to two duplicate copies of the entire list rather there being some of the commandments written on one tablet and the rest written on the other tablet. Certainly, we can still notice the shift in emphasis between the first four commandments and the final six, but this division may not have been used when they were originally inscribed on stone tablets.

As we have noted, the Roman Catholic numbering does not include the prohibition of graven images as a separate commandment (CCC 1852[5]). In their traditional catechetical formula, the text concerning the making of graven images is omitted (CCC p. 496). This opens Catholicism to the charge that they have combined the first two commands in order to reduce the visibility of the injunction against images. Calvin states that they “erase” or “hide” the prohibition concerning images (Institutes, II.8.12). In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the veneration of images is defended first by noting the Old Testament examples of the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim (CCC 2130). Next, the Catechism points to the judgment of the seventh ecumenical council at Nicea of 787 in which the veneration of icons was justified. It is argued that the incarnation of the Son of God introduced a new economy of images (CCC 2131). Finally, the Catechism appeals to Aquinas and asserts that the veneration given to images does not violate the command since the honor given to the images is transmitted to the prototype of the image, not the image itself, and further because this honor is “respectful veneration” not the adoration due to God alone (CCC 2132). Aquinas distinguishes between latria, which is worship proper to God alone, and dulia, which is “piety whereby we honor our neighbor” (STh II-II, 81, 3-4).[6] Reformed Christians find this distinction to be unconvincing and believe that their own numbering system does a better job of guarding against idolatry and against worshipping God in an improper manner. In this understanding, the first commandment relates to the object of worship while the second command relates to the mode of worship.

In conclusion, there are not thirty commandments even though there are three different systems of numbering the Ten Commandments. The content is the same. Obeying them is more important than numbering them. Evem more, our failure to keep them shows us our need for a Savior.

[1] Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 47.
[2] Walter Kaiser, “Exodus” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:422.
[3] Calvin VanReken, “Response to ‘The Face of Ethical Encounter’” in The Ten Commandments for Jews, Christians, and Others, ed. Roger E. VanHarn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 19.
[4] Harrelson, Ten Commandments, 48.
[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1852. References to CCC will be to the paragraph unless otherwise noted.
[6] Interestingly, the Greek Orthodox venerate icons but number the commandments the same as Reformed Christians.

Why Do You Want to be Like Jesus?

2011-09-29T06:00:00.000-04:00

Never underestimate the diabolical dexterity of the human heart. We have an amazing ability to contort virtue into sin—all the while believing that we are doing what is noble. We have the ability to climb onto God’s throne while simultaneously believing that we are humbly beneath it.

I read a sharp description of this in H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture as he was describing the views of Christians similar to Martin Luther. When we realize the depth of human sin, we start to see the wide variety of ways that we subtly try to replace God as God. Niebuhr writes:

The will to live as gods, hence without God, appears in man’s noblest endeavors, that is, those that are noblest according to human standards. Man whose business it is to reason exalts reason to the position of judge and ruler of all things; they call it the divine element in man. Those who have the vocation of maintaining order in society deify law itself—and partly themselves. The independent, democratic citizen has a little god inside himself in an authoritative conscience that is not under authority.

Thinkers believe the power of their thinking is King. Rule keepers think rules are King. Individualists think their opinions are King. But it is not only the rest of the world that plays these games inside their hearts. Some people who desperately want to be Christ-like want that for the wrong reasons. Niebuhr continues:

As Christians we want to be the forgivers of sins, the lovers of men, new incarnations of Christ, saviors rather than the saved; secure in our own possession of the true religion, rather than dependent on a Lord who possesses us, chooses us, forgives us. If we do not try to have God under our control, then at least we try to give ourselves the assurance that we are on His side facing the rest of the world; not with the world facing Him in infinite dependence, with no security save in Him (155).

Do you want to be kind because you realize that God has been kind to you, or is it because you desperately want to feel that you are a kind person? Or is it because you want other people to believe you are a kind person? It is ironic that many Christians—who think they are supremely loving—end up causing damage because they would rather be thought well of than to tell the truth in love. You can’t out-love God without distorting love.

Why do you want to be Christ-like? Is it so that you can be the merciful hero who heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds? For many of us, we try to live that way because we see that as a more attractive self-image than the reality that we are pitiful and helpless from the self-inflicted wounds of our sin.

The paradox is that we should try to be like Him but we should not try to be like Him. Seek to be Christ-like, but do not seek to be Christ.

Barth Haiku

2011-09-19T21:38:00.000-04:00

God the hidden one

Encountering man by grace

Not by human strength

Apprehension vain

Shipwrecked by efforts to know

God must possess us

Our capacity

By revelation taken

And again bestowed

Ontological

And immanent qualities

Flip sides of one coin

Like the Trinity

Revealed, Written, and Proclaimed

Threefold Word of God

Russian communism

A flute concerto or shrub

Even a dead dog

On sentry duty

Barth shoots all with wrong password

Annihilates friend

No point of contact

Natural theology

Will turn you Nazi

Mysterious truth

The Word of God comes and goes

I have a mistress

-by Nate Archer

Summer & Robots

2011-08-15T15:11:00.001-04:00

There have been too many things this summer that I've had to do or wanted to do more than blogging. Still, to give you a little something, here is a short preview clip that we made for the new Powerman & Mosquitoboy series that we made for our church's custom VBS this summer. We've given out 100+ copies of the full DVD already, but I probably won't put the videos online until I eventually finish the "Special Edition" and I have no idea when that will happen.

So, you can watch this--then go outside before it gets cold again.

See more Powerman & Mosquitoboy videos on YouTube.

Tornados and Locusts, Joplin and Joel

2011-05-27T16:27:00.005-04:00

This past week I started a Bible Study on the Old Testament book of Joel. When I started preparing for chapter 1 I thought it was going to be difficult to help the students see how a description of a locust invasion is relevant to their lives. However watching the news it was easy to see how relevant this is. In chapter 1 Joel describes an unnerving natural disaster. It doesn’t take us long to think of recent natural disasters that have caused massive devastation: the Joplin tornado and other recent killer tornados, the Mississippi flood, the Japanese earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 that killed 230,000 people, and the list continues.

In Joel 1 (read it) the prophet describes a locust invasion of unparalleled proportions. This was not the kind of thing that happened to every generation (see verse 2-3). All vegetation was completely stripped away by the locust army. The crops were destroyed. Food for the people and their animals was gone. Think about the effect this would have on a society in Old Testament times. It isn’t as though they could drive to the next town to buy food. No trucks would be coming with supplies from FEMA. Their animals were going to die. People were going to die. There was no escaping this tragedy. Even the drunkards would not be able to escape by drowning their sorrows in alcohol (vs. 5).

Why did Joel spend so much time writing about this? Joel could have just written, “There was a terrible locust invasion that destroyed all vegetation.” This would have been true, but it wouldn’t have helped others to feel the impact of this tragedy. In the same way, it is one thing to hear a news report about the Joplin tornado. It is another thing look at the pictures. It is another thing to be there, and another thing to actually live it. I think that one of the reasons Joel wrote in poetry is that poetry communicates feeling. This isn’t abstract head knowledge. We need to notice that the Bible does not treat disaster lightly or downplay it as if it really isn’t all that bad. It treats disaster as disaster.

In verse 15 Joel uses the locust plague to remind people that “The Day of the Lord” is coming. The Day of the Lord is a repeated term used in Scripture to refer to the time of God’s intense judgment against sin that will take place at the end of the world. It will be the time when God stops holding back judgment.

The Bible does not let God off the hook for natural disasters. For example, consider Psalm 135:6-7 and 2 Chronicles 7:13-14:

Whatever the LORD pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps.
He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
who makes lightnings for the rain
and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. –Psalm 135:6-7

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. -2 Chronicles 7:13-14

God is in control, although not in a sense that we can “blame” Him for having done anything wrong. We live in a fallen world because of man’s sin. Even in times of disaster, God does not give anyone worse than any of us deserve. The problem is that because God usually gives us much better than we deserve, we start to think that we deserve the good life. We do not. Every day that we are not swallowed up by an earthquake is a day of God’s mercy and grace.

When God permits or ordains disaster, He is doing it for a purpose. Yet this does not mean that the people of Joplin were any worse sinners than the rest of us. We need to remember what Jesus taught in Luke 13:2-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Often God uses these disasters to shake us out of our false sense of security. Like the falling of the tower that Jesus mentions in Luke 13:1-5, disasters can be used by God as a reminder to us of the fate we all would deserve without a Savior. If that is the case, then we need to learn from these events and not let them go to waste. With Luke 13:1-5 in mind, James Boice makes a good observation in his commentary on Joel:

When we listen carefully we hear him [Jesus] saying [in Luke 13:2-5] that those who object to tragedies like Lisbon [the earthquake of 1755 that killed 60,000] or the locust plague do so because they are asking the wrong question. They ask, “Why should disaster fall upon these? Why should God strike such innocent people?” But what they should be asking is: “Why haven’t these disasters come on us? Why haven’t they destroyed us?” Our problem is that we have forgotten how sinful we are. We have forgotten that it generally takes a disaster of unparalleled proportions to wake us from sin’s lethargy (Minor Prophets, 1:126).

Mourn with those suffering from tragedy. At the same time let us be grateful that God gives us time to repent instead of sending all the tornados we deserve.

Whoever Frames the Marriage Debate Will Win

2011-05-24T06:03:00.008-04:00

It is said that whoever frames the issue wins the debate. One of the main reasons why the proponents of same-sex “marriage” are winning the debate in America is because they have been successful in doing this. The language that is used can determine how people think about an issue.

For example, even using the term “gay marriage” puts the debate in the favor of those who want to redefine marriage. In the past, the term would have been considered an oxymoron--like round triangles. The only way to have round triangles is to redefine “round” or “triangles.” In the same way, the only way to have gay marriage is to redefine the longstanding meaning of marriage. Whenever we say "same-sex marriage" we are already redefining marriage just to allow the idea.

Gallup has reported that in 2011, for the first time, a majority of American (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid. This is up from 44% a year ago. This certainly shows a rapidly changing attitude in our society concerning marriage. However, I think that much of this is due to the language that is used and the way the debate is being framed. Look at the question being asked in this poll:

“Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

The question itself already redefines marriage in order to allow the idea of same-sex marriage. It subtly assumes that the union of two same-sex persons already fits within the definition of marriage. I wonder what the poll results would be if the question being asked was: “Do you believe marriage should be redefined to now include unions besides those of one man and one woman?” Even though our cultural attitudes are shifting, I think the poll results would be significantly different and the majority would still not be in favor of redefining marriage.

Wording affects attitudes. For example, National Organization for Marriage stresses the need to avoid the phrase “ban same-sex marriage” at all costs. When this phrase is used in polls it gives a ten point advantage to same-sex advocates. It forces the people who are opposed to this into the negative roll of “denying” or “banning” people from their supposed rights. No one wants to be the villain. In addition, I believe it also subtly gives up ground by already viewing same-sex marriage a legitimate concept rather than an oxymoron.

We need to learn to use language effectively. We must learn to use short, clear statements that make sense and stick. For example: “Marriage is about bringing together a man and a woman so that children can have a mother and a father.” Even a passing statement like this can have a lasting influence. Most people are not going to read a book on this issue but hundreds of people may read your facebook post or your tweet.

According to National Organization for Marriage extensive polling shows that the single most effective short message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

They explain that this statement allows people to express tolerance while opposing a redefinition of marriage. Obviously the first line has to be taken in context since none of us are absolutely free before the state or God. If you think that the first line may be misunderstood, a modified version could simply be: “One group does not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Our cultural concept of marriage is critically important for our country and for our children. We need to speak the truth with courage and skill.

How Do You Resist This?

2011-05-12T06:00:00.003-04:00

This is my daughter Zoe singing an impromptu birthday song to me. At times like this I really love my life.

Also see: Is God to Blame for My Daughtor's Birth Defect?

Why God But Not Thor? (or, "Pagan gods are Marvel Superheroes")

2011-05-09T05:39:00.001-04:00

I was once asked by someone, “What makes your religion more valid than any other one? And also, why [isn’t it] considered myth like the older religions that make the same claims?”

I'd had discussions with this person before, so I could guess a little bit about what was behind his question. He was wondering why Christians will say that the God of the Bible is real but the other gods and goddesses of pagan mythology are not. Since Christianity and pagan religions supposedly all make the same claims, shouldn't we all consider Christianity to be a myth just as easily as we consider the pagan gods to be myths?

Here is part of my reply:

First, this question contains an assumption that I reject. Your question implied Christianity has the same elements, teachings and details as pagan myths. I know that this is a common assertion from some atheists, especially on the internet. People point to supposed parallels between Jesus and other dying and rising gods and suggest Christianity is just borrowing the same themes and therefore isn’t true. If that is what the question meant, then I reject that part of the question because I don’t believe that Christianity actually does make the same claims as pagan mythology. The similarities are very superficial and often forced. Also some of these supposed sources for Christianity actually come after the time of the New Testament. (If there are specific myths and details that you are thinking of, let me know. There are a lot of obscure myths and I can’t guess them in advance to deal with them.) Also, I need to add that even if it were true that Christianity had the same specific details as many older pagan myths, it wouldn’t actually prove that Christianity was false. If there were movies made in the 20th Century about skyscrapers being destroyed by terrorists, that wouldn’t mean that the destruction of the World Trade Center was false or invented based on these stories.

Now, let me give you one major reason why I believe the pagan gods fail as being valid. Simply, the pagan gods aren’t even “Gods.” Sure, they have power and abilities, but they are limited. They are closer to Marvel superheroes than to the God of the Bible.

The pagan gods don’t actually explain anything. They don’t provide a sufficient reason the explain why the world exists. This is because the pagan gods are not eternal. Apollo is the son of Zeus. Zeus was the son of Cronus, and so on. So, none of these gods ultimately explains anything because each of them needs something else to explain them. On the other hand, the God of the Bible is of an entirely different quality. He is not a Marvel superhero. The God of the Bible is not only omnipotent, and omniscient, but also eternal. Because He is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) He has the power and wisdom needed to design and create the world. But even more importantly, He is eternal. Since God did not have a beginning, He did not need anything or anyone to create Him. If you’ve always existed, you don’t need to be created. Because the God of the Bible is eternal, He is a “sufficient reason” for everything else. The pagan superhero gods are not.

If you needed someone else to make you, don’t even claim to be a real God. The real God is in an entirely different category.

Christian Urban Legend: All Sins are Equal

2011-05-03T17:27:00.012-04:00

I want to echo and add a bit to a post that Kevin DeYoung did on the idea that all sins are equal. For some reason this idea has ingrained itself in the thinking of most American Christians. When the topic of sin is brought up, you will quickly hear someone say one of these lines:

"Sin is sin."
"All sins are equal."
"There is no gradation of sin."
or "All sins are the same in God's eyes."

This is said with such confidence and conviction that you would assume there is a clear Bible verse that bluntly states this. But the truth is, there is not. Now, James 2:8-11 teaches us that any sin makes one a lawbreaker--either we keep the law perfectly, or we do not. No one should think they can stand before a holy God and claim that they are okay in His sight because they only committed the "ligher" sins. This passage teaches that all sins have the equal effect of seperating us from God, but it is not teaching that all sins are equal in every way.

The truth is that Jesus Himself taught that not all sins are equal. Jesus spoke of a "greater sin."

"Jesus answered him, 'You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.'" -John 19:11

However you interpret this, it cannot mean that Jesus believed that no sins are greater than any other sins. There are other passages that teach this as well (see Kevin's post) but this statement by Jesus is enough to close the case.

I've had people get very mad at me for even suggesting this. One person clearly jumped to the conclusion that if you believed this you would immediately start judging everyone around you. So, if this concept is new to you, please consider all three points I am about to make before passing judgment on me for being a judgmental person. I believe this because it is what Jesus teaches, not because I like the idea that I am better than everyone else. In fact, the opposite is true. I think that many of my sins are far worse than those of many others people because I know full well what I'm doing.

Let me give a few key points.

1. There is a sense in which all sins are infinitely terrible.

I realize that this goes against what I am arguing, but I believe this is true as well. Every sin, even those we consider light, are sins against an infinitely holy God. This means that even the "smallest" sin is infinitely terrible. Every sin is spitting on God with our heart. Every sin is saying to God and the world, "God, you are worth less than this other thing I choose instead of you." Every sin is infinitely worthy of punishment and this is why none of us could ever finish paying off the penalty for even the "smallest" sin.

2. There is another sense in which some sins are greater than others.

Jesus spoke of a "greater sin." Some sins are judged differently in the Bible. It also makes sense. All other things being equal, it is worse to murder a child someone than to speed. This doesn't mean than either are "okay" but one is obviously worse.

All sins being equal in weight would lead to ridiculous conclusions. Is it really better to kill a child than to speed twice? If all sins were equal in weight, then speeding twice would be worse because it is two sins, while the murder is only one sin. Come on?

Points one and two seem like they contradict each other, but here is how I explain it. In one sense they are the same but in another sense they are different. All sins are infinitely bad, but some are like an infinitely tall stack of pennies or dimes and others are like an infinitely tall stack of quarters. Both are infinite, but there is a difference in magnitude.

3. God does not give us the complete formula for judgment.

It is not a good idea to start ranking sins. God does not give us the formula, or the ability, to calculate the weight of sins. There is no logarithm in Scripture where we can fill in all the variables and crank out a total adjusted value for each sin. We have no way of knowing one sin is a 65 but another sin comes out as a 489. God knows the full weight. We do not. Only God can search the heart of each person to take into account their motives and attitudes. Only He knows how much a person is aware of what they are doing and total circumstances that might mitigate or magnify the rebellion.

This is incredibly important to grasp. It means that you and I are not responsible to be the final judges. It also means that just because someone believes that sins have different weight does not mean that he or she intends to judge everyone else like some sort of spiritual accountant.

Having said that, there are some things we can know which make some sins heavier than others. Many of these factors are internal. Also please note the critical importance of the phrase "all else being equal."

All else being equal, a "high handed" sin is greater than a less intentional sin. (Numbers 15:30)
All else being equal, it is a greater sin to sin against greater light than to sin against weaker light. (See for example Matthew 11:20-24.) The more we are aware of God and the seriousness of sin, the greater the weight of the sin. (Yet no one sins in complete darkness.)
All else being equal, the more responsibility and authority being abused, the greater the sin.
All else being equal, the greater our influence, the greater the sin. (See for example James 3:1)
All else being equal, a sin that is acted upon is a greater than a sin that is just in the heart. (Yet both are sin and neither is okay.)
All else being equal, a sin with a greater scope of damage is greater than a sin with a lesser scope of damage.
All else being equal, a sin that does eternal damage is greater than a sin that only has temporary consequences.
All else being equal, sins of greater unbelief are worse than sins of less unbelief.
All else being equal, some sins are greater depending on the mixture of motives. The list goes on...

Many of the sins we think are small and actually big. The "small" sins of a mature Christian might be more serious to God than the "bigger" sin of someone else. Perhaps this is why Paul thought of himself as the chief of all sinners (1 Tim. 1:15-16). Again, before you try to decide who is worse, the preacher or the prostitute, please remember that only God knows how all of these factors work together.

Although we can't judge sin perfectly on this earth, Church elders are called upon to use Biblical wisdom in matters of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Heb. 13:17). As DeYoung pointed out, we can't let church leadership become paralysed so that "the elder who battles the temptation to take a second look at the racy section of the Lands’ End catalog shouldn’t dare exercise church discipline on the 20-year old fornicating with every co-ed that moves."

Still, the best use of this knowledge is not for others, but for ourselves. All Christians are a mixed bag. None of this is meant to excuse any sin, in others or ourselves. We all need to repent of any known sin, and we need to ask the Spirit to search our hearts to show us the sins hiding in the deep cracks.

Where did this myth come from?

I think there have been good motives and bad motives to see all sins as equal. Some of this originated in response to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins. All sin makes us worth of condemnation apart from Jesus. In addition, other good motives include the need for humility, the need to avoid wrongheaded judgmentalism, and the need to remember that no sin in the Christian life should be tolerated.

On the other hand, I believe there are also unhealthy reasons why this belief is so rampant. Some people want all sins to be equal so that they can think their own sins are less serious than they really are. "Hey, all sins are equal. Therefore my illicit sex is no worse than speeding." Others know the skeletons they have in their closets. And in today's climate, many Christians are petrified at the idea of being thought of as judgmental. For many, the flattening of all sin makes it much easier to feel good about one's self as a warm and non-judgmental person.

All sin is grievous, and some especially so. God will judge everything perfectly in the end.

My Main Criticism of Mike Wittmer's Book

2011-04-28T19:55:00.002-04:00

I have one main criticism of Mike Wittmer's new book Christ Alone: An Evangelical Response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. Tragically, this book breaks Wittmer's streak of books with titles shared with 80's rock songs. His previous books were Heaven is a Place on Earth and Don't Stop Believing. The saddest thing about all of this is that there was an absolutely perfect and obvious choice for a reply to Love Wins...

wait for it...

Love Hurts.

That would have been prefect on so many levels.

Seriously though, a snarky title would have been a terrible idea. One of the strengths of this book is that it avoids attacking Rob Bell as a person even while explaining deep concerns with his theology. It doesn't fight straw men with straw men but instead deals with the deep issues with a combination of respect, insight, and conviction. Christ Alone is an ideal book for people thinking through the eternal issues raised in Love Wins. Wittmer helps us to see that the Bible's message is not embarrassing but a compelling story that fits the reality of God's holiness and the darkness of the human heart.

There are several excerpts from Christ Alone at the book's website http://www.christalonebook.com/.

This books reminds us that any message we give people is only loving if it is true. I've heard a lot of people say that no one should pass judgment on Rob Bell's book without reading it. I hope that these same people have the same openness to Mike Wittmer's reply. If you are someone who has read Love Wins and found it persuasive, I plead with you to read this book as well. Please don't say, "I don't need to read that book. I already know what it says." And if you do say that, please remember that when someone gives you the same reply about not reading Love Wins.

Okay, I admit that the title Love Hurts would have been a bad idea, but I'm still depressed that this book breaks the string of 80's rock songs. Therefore I vow that if I ever invent a time machine and go back in time one of my main priorities will be to join a hair band and record a one hit wonder titled Christ Alone: An Evangelical Response to Rob Bell's Love Wins.

The Epic Finale! (Come on, go ahead and watch it!)

2011-04-21T21:11:00.005-04:00

Okay, here is the deal. I'm a giant dork and I know it. A few years ago we started making superhero videos for the kids in our church for some VBS programs we wrote. Yes, I know that making superhero videos makes a person a giant dork, but hey, it's for the kids and the videos have some good theology embedded in them. (The message comes through the best when you see them all together.) There are a few hundred kids with DVDs of these series and they like them a lot. My own kids are demanding that I make more of these too. Eric is very concerned about what is going to happen to the Princess. We actually have a lot of fun making these, even though it is a lot of work. I write them and do the editing and effects as well. It's fun seeing what we can pull off on our own. For what it is, I think they're actually decent. If you're even moderately impressed I would be happy.

So, the epic conclusion to the newest Powerman & Mosquitoboy saga is now online. You should watch it, eh. You'll make me feel good if you do.

This is the 10th and final part of the last series that we did. (There were five episodes, split in half for YouTube.) You can see the whole thing from the start at http://www.youtube.com/PowermanMosquitoboy. You can also be a fan of Powerman & Mosquitoboy on facebook.

Sentimentality Wins: A Short Summary of Rob Bell's Love Wins

2011-03-28T20:32:00.010-04:00

There are more detailed reviews of Rob Bell's Love Wins online, but I am writing this one to give a brief summary for those who are curious to know what Bell is really saying and what he isn't in Love Wins. Some accuse Bell of being a universalist, but Bell himself denies it. Some say that Rob Bell denies the existence of hell, but Bell says he affirms a real hell. It can be hard for people to know what the real issues are. Bell's position is more specific than what is often presented--by others or by Bell himself in interviews. We need to make sure that we do not accuse him of things he is not saying nor give him a free pass for what he does teach. There is more that could be said, but I intend this post to be a survey of the main issues rather than a critique.

The bottom line is that Bell is promoting the idea that every single person will eventually be reconciled to God either in this life or the next. Some people will exist in some sort of "hell" both in this life and the next until God melts their heart and they accept His love. Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least in some sense. However, Bell's idea of hell and his view of how Jesus saves us might be very different from what you would consider a correct Biblical understanding.

Universalism

Bell is adamant that he is not a universalist. However, this all depends on what we mean when we use this term. This term does not have positive associations in many of the circles that Bell is still influential in and so it is understandable that he would want to distance himself from it. Bell must mean that he is not a universalist in the sense of other universalists who teach that all people will be saved despite their relationship to God, or that this salvation can come through all (or at least many) religions apart from Christ. However, the entire thrust of Love Wins is that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God, either in this life or the next. The logic that Bell presents in chapter 4, "Does God Get What God Wants" is that God always gets what He wants, and that since God wants everyone to be reconciled to Him, eventually every single person will eventually be reconciled to Him. Love wins. So, if by universalism you simply mean that every single person will eventually be reconciled to God, then yes, Rob Bell is a universalist. However, to be fair, Bell is not teaching that everyone is automatically spared from "hell" when they die, regardless of their relationship to God. He is also not teaching that Christ is unnecessary for salvation.

Hell

Bell affirms that hell is real and that many people will spend time in hell. He also affirms that there is some sort of future hell beyond this life, although not in the traditional sense. For Bell, hell starts in this life with the misery that comes from being apart from the life of God. Bell defines hell as "the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us" (95). For example, Bell states:

"People choose to live in their own hells all the time. We do it every time we isolate ourselves, give the cold shoulder to someone who has slighted us, every time we hide knives in our words, every time we harden our hearts in defiance of what we know to be the loving, good, and right thing to do" (114).

Therefore Bell's hell in the afterlife might not be all that much different than the type of "hell" he believes people live in during this life. For Bell, hell is clearly not punishment from God. He mocks the idea that God is saving us from God's anger. Hell is not punishment from God, but is more like a self-imposed "time out" whereby we force ourselves to sit in the corner and be miserable until we're ready to come to the birthday party. Eventually, everyone will warm up to God and come out of the corner. The consequences for rejecting God's love are basically self-imposed and temporary. Although the Bible uses terms like "eternal punishment" Bell attempts to argue that this should be translated as "a period of pruning" or "a time of trimming" (91). So Bell affirms some sort of future hell, but it is neither eternal nor punishment.

In his chapter on hell, Bell claims to deal with every single mention of the word hell in the Bible (69). Amazingly, despite this claim, nowhere in this chapter does Bell even mention Revelation 20:15 which states, "If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." The only mention of this comes in a later chapter. Bell mentions the lake of fire, states that Revelation was written in a heavily symbolic way, and moves on (112).

Jesus Christ and the Cross

Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least in some sense, although maybe not like you would assume. Commenting on John 14:6 (“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me") Bell writes,

"What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (154). [I have to point out that Bell writes this as if this statement is detached from all the other statements about belief in the Gospel of John.]

Bell is not teaching that absolutely all roads lead to God, but he does think that the road is wider than Christianity. Bell states, "He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain him, especially the one called 'Christianity'" (150). People need Jesus, however, "He is present within all cultures" (151). Bell states, "There is an energy in the world, a spark, an electricity that everything is plugged into" and that Jesus, as the creative Word of God, is "the energy that gives life to everything" (144-5). Bell leaves it open that people may be saved with an idea of "Jesus" that might be no clearer than this. As Bell states at one point, "Sometimes people use his name; other times they don't" (159).

Another question is how Christ saved us? The fifth chapter of Love Wins focuses on the importance of the cross. Over several pages Bell lists and describes many of the things that the cross is about: the end of the sacrificial system, reconciliation, justification (in some sense at least), victory over evil, and redemption (123-9). Bell is correct that the cross is about many things, but conspicuously absent from Bell's list is the idea that Jesus took our penalty as a substitute. Propitiation would imply that "the gods are angry" which of course God is not. For Bell, God does not have wrath toward sinners, but always and only love. Bell states that when Jesus spoke of "the coming wrath" and "judgment" He was referring to the wrath of the Romans if people provoked them (81). God never punishes, but only seeks to restore. In another place Bell writes:

"Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sins, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let's be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God" (182).

If Jesus didn't die on the cross as our substitute to satisfy God's holiness and justice, then what was the purpose of the cross? Yes, it accomplished reconciliation and redemption and other effects, but how? Why couldn't Bell's God do these things without the cross? Bell doesn't explain. The closest thing I have found to an explanation is Bell's statement that, "The resurrection of Jesus inaugurates a new creation" (133). This statement comes after a long description of the mysterious death-to-life pattern embedded in fabric of creation. Jesus died so he could rise and inaugurate a new creation . . . whatever that means.

In Conclusion

There is much more that could be said, but I would like to keep this a thumbnail sketch. If this were intended to be a critique, I would have included many reasons why the views Bell is promoting are in error. In a perfect world Christians would be well grounded enough in the Word of God that these errors would be self-apparent once they understood Bell's position. Sadly, this is not the case. May God use Rob Bell's book to drive Christians to the Scriptures.

Bell is right when he states that the bigger issue behind all of this is the question "What is God like?" May we look to the Bible to see all that God has revealed to us about Himself. When that happens, we will see that the Love that wins in the end is God's holy and just love. God is love, and He does win in the end--although not as Bell presents it. Because of that, I don't even want to concede to Bell the title of his book. What Bell describes as "love" is a distortion of man. A more accurate title for Bell's book would be Sentimentality Wins.

Asking Questions and Questioning

2011-03-25T16:19:00.003-04:00

Amazon finally delivered my copy of Rob Bell's Love Wins. I hate the thought that I spent money on this, but I know that I need to read it in order to better interact with people about it. The first thing I noticed about the book is that it has a waterproof dust jacket. That might be a good thing.

The first chapter is mostly questions. Questions are great. Questions are wonderful, especially when they are being asked in the sense of faith seeking understanding. Unfortunately, questions can also be asked in another way. Sometimes questions are nothing more than rhetorical devices being used to make a point, and that is what Bell is doing here.

Some people ask questions in the sense of faith seeking understanding. Other people ask questions in the sense of doubt seeking influence.

There is a difference between asking questions and questioning. More precisely, there is a difference between asking questions about what God as told us and questioning what God has told us. What is annoying is the sly and ingenuous way that some people shift between these two meanings. They want to retain the nobility of asking questions, but slip in the subversiveness of questioning that which they disagree.

For example, consider this statement from Methodist pastor Chad Holtz who was recently fired by his church after he voiced his support for Rob Bell's view on hell:

"The people at my church are good, decent people," he told FoxNews.com. "They’re simply feeling a little threatened by a pastor who is asking questions that they don’t want to ask right now. I hope some seeds are planted and that God will bring some good about it."

This is sly and manipulative. He wants people to receive the impression that he is innocently asking question--faith seeking understanding--when in fact he had already landed on his conclusions. According to the article, he "lost the idea of hell" and now believes that "God has saved everyone." This church did not dismiss this pastor because they felt threatened by honest questions. They dismissed him because he was trying to persuade others to disbelieve what they saw taught in God's Word. This is the same thing that Rob Bell is doing with his questions.

Questions are great. I love it when students ask hard questions. Any theology or worldview that does not allow for honest hard questions is not worth believing. Questions lead to answers. Honest questions are great because they can lead us to honest answers. The difference is that some questions are asked to generate answers; others are asked to generate doubt.

When the serpent asked, "Did God really say...?" he wasn't looking for an answer.

Powerman is Doomed!

2011-03-20T16:18:00.000-04:00

This is the second to last clip from the current series. It's very dramatic and oscar worthy. You should watch it so that you're ready for the big finish.

Go to www.youtube.com/PowermanMosquitoboy and watch them all from the beginning. We're gearing up to make another series for this summer.

Rob Bell & Another Note Attached to a Portrait

2011-03-15T17:23:00.004-04:00

If you have seen Rob Bell's video trailer for his book Love Wins, you might be able to imagine an artsy postmodern video with dialogue something like this:

---

"Several years ago we had an art show at our church. There was this one piece that was a portrait of Jesus with a quote on it that many people found compelling. The quote read, 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' Lots of people found it compelling. They would stop and sort of stare at it and take it in and reflect on it."

"But someone wrote something below that quote. Attached to the portrait of Jesus it was written, 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.'”

"People who don’t believe in the Son go to hell?"

"They do??"

"And someone knows this for sure???"

"And felt the need to let the rest of us know?!"

Apparently.

Missing the Point of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

2011-03-10T14:29:00.006-05:00

The one thing that most people know about Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is that he preached an infamous sermon called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” This sermon was used by God in what is called The Great Awakening, a surprising work of God in which great masses of people in colonial America realized their need for a Savior and fled to Jesus Christ. In these revivals, some people were gripped so deeply with the reality of their situation that they would shake uncontrollably. But what people today usually associate with this sermon is hellfire, brimstone, and a sick and cruel portrait of God.

I recently heard an audio clip in which a pastor spent a large part of his sermon railing against “New Calvinists.” He described these Young, Restless, and Reformed people as a new wave of fundamentalists who wear t-shirts saying things like “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy.” He then explained to his congregation that this is bad because Jonathan Edwards preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” He then read this excerpt:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment.”

After reading this clip the pastor stated, “There goes that whole ‘friend of God' thing right? Because I don’t think someone is your friend who is holding you over the pit.”

Most people completely misunderstand the point of this sermon. They assume that God is holding us over the pit to mentally torment us like some sort of sadist. That is what the quote above—part of one paragraph from the middle of the sermon—seems to imply. What they don’t understand is that Edwards’ point in the full context of the sermon is that it is out of God’s grace that He is holding us over the fire. God is holding us over the fire rather than dropping us into the fire.

In fact, in the same paragraph as quoted above, Edwards states that, “there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up.” Being in God’s hands is better than being dropped into the pit.

Edwards’ text for this sermon was Deuteronomy 32:35, “Their foot shall slide in due time.” His point for the unsaved is that their present security will not last. They are like a man walking on a slippery surface who could unexpectedly fall at any moment. Eventually, they will slip. Edwards described them as walking over the pit of hell on a covering of rotted wood that could give way at any moment. When that happens, they will fall by their own weight.

The point is that every moment that we draw breath in this life is an undeserved moment that we are not in hell. While we still live we have an undeserved opportunity to come to Christ to be saved. However this life, and that opportunity, will not last forever. There will come a time when we slip from this life.

This sermon is addressed to those who are still outside of Christ. It is a passionate plea for them to realize the eternal danger they are in and to flee to Christ for salvation while they still have the opportunity. Edwards is not describing saved people as being held over the pit. Those who have genuinely trusted Christ as their Savior are forever safe. The ones who are still in danger are those who do not have a Mediator between themselves and God. But even for these men and women, it is by God’s grace and mercy that God’s hand upholds them now. God is rightfully angry with them because of their sin and rebellion. God would be perfectly righteous if He removed His hand and allowed justice to take its course. It is not surprising for a righteous Judge to judge the guilty. It is surprising for an offended God to continue to hold the guilty in His hands.

This is difficult for us to grasp because we live in soft times. We expect church to soothe us and for people to live until their 80s. In Edwards’ time most people died young.

Hell is real. Hell is terrible. Hell is eternal. It is not the preacher who pleads with his people to escape the danger of hell who is unloving. It is the preacher who soothes the minds of the perishing who does not love his people. A fireman who brings a pillow to a child in a burning building is not a loving person.

“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a sermon about God’s surprising mercy. Near the end of the sermon Edwards proclaims:

“And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day!”

Leadership: Character, Connection and Direction

2010-12-02T10:49:00.000-05:00

Leadership is the ability to influence others to move in a certain direction.

There are many books filled with leadership principles and long lists of the qualities that make for a good leader: courage, vision, compassion, perseverance, and the list continues. Others have lists about what a leader is and what a leader does. But in my thinking about leadership I have come to the conclusion that all these attributes and axioms can be grouped under three heads. A person's effectiveness as a leader will be determined by (1) character, (2) connection, and (3) direction. All leadership qualities fit under one of these categories, and each of them is essential. No one will be an effective leader who is strong in only one or two of these areas.

Character

Leaders lead others. They exert influence. This influence is driven by the power of their character. A leader's character is their strength to pull others toward a goal. A train with no engine goes nowhere. Weak character is like a puny train engine, but strong character is a mighty engine. The Lord told Joshua, "Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people" (Joshua 1:6). To grow as a leader you must consistently develop traits such as integrity, courage, honesty, initiative, humility, consistency and perseverance. You cannot grow as a leader without the hard work of focusing on the growth of your own moral character.

Connection

It has been said that if you think you lead but no one is following, you're just going for a walk. A driven visionary who sets forth on his own is not a leader unless there are other people he is causing to move with him. By definition you cannot be a leader on your own. Connection is like the coupler on a train that connects the engine to the cars. Without connection the strongest engine is a worthless leader. This is why leaders cannot be self-oriented or isolated. Connection grows through relationships with people as you care about them, pour time and energy into them, and cast your lot with them. Think of the connection that Joshua had with the people of Israel after spending 40 years wandering the desert with them.

Direction

Not all good leaders are good leaders. Hitler was a good leader, but not a good leader. In Numbers 13 most of the leaders were successful in influencing the people... to disobey the Lord by not moving forward to take the Promised Land. Thus you can have powerful character (or a sort) and an iron connection to everyone around you but fail miserably as a leader because you influenced them in the wrong direction. Leaders need to have a vision of the right goal and they need to know the wisest way to get there. This is why God told Joshua, "Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; mediate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful" (Joshua 1:7-8).

People follow leaders when they want to go where the leader is going. Make sure you are heading to the best destination and inspire others to come with you.

There is a lot more to say about leadership. In a recent series of talks, I was able to pull several dozen bullet points on leadership from the passages I was working with. However I wanted to find something simple and memorable that would tie everything together. What I came up with was character, connection, and direction illustrated by a train. If this is helpful to anyone reading this, I am glad! I realize that some of these qualities often amplify each other; for example good character should help strengthen connection with others. Still, I haven't been able to think of any leadership quality or principle that doesn't fall under one of these three heads. However I want to test this hypothesis, so if you can think of something, let me know!

Martin Luther and Anfechtungen

2010-10-30T12:12:00.007-04:00

For all you who love both the Reformation and techno-industrial music, here is something I put together that I think all five of you will enjoy.

Happy Reformation Day!

Just Like Earth?

2010-09-30T21:14:00.004-04:00

an artist's interpretation of the
newly discovered planet,
complete with visible oceans
(of which there is no evidence)

Are we alone in the universe? Is earth nothing all that special?

There is an assumption by many naturalists that since there is life on earth, life must be easy to come by. But for life to be easy to come by, you need planets that are at least potentially capable of developing life. The problem is that we haven't found any. Out of the 500 planets that have been found outside our galaxy, none of them have been found to be enough like earth to potentially support life. Gas giants in close rotation to their stars just won't work.

But it is now claimed that this this has all changed. A planet "just like earth" has been found.

In a recent article AP science writer Seth Borenstein describes the recent discovery of a earth-like planet by astronomers R. Paul Butler and Steven Vogt. The article states:

Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right.

Not too far from its star, not too close. So it could contain liquid water. The planet itself is neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere.

It's just right. Just like Earth.

Well, maybe not. Before you head up to the roof to wait for the Vulcans to beam you up, let's think through some of the details in this particular article. If anything, this is a good opportunity to notice how facts are sometimes presented in a way to lead people to a conclusion that is assumed ahead of time.  For example, in this article there are a few things that you might find strange.

Strange comparison

Just like earth?

This new planet is three times the mass of earth and much closer to its star. While earth is 93 million miles away from our yellow star, this planet is 14 million miles away from Gliese 581, a red dwarf star. The planet, "g" orbits Gliese 581 every 37 days.  Because it is so close to the star the planet's orbit is locked so that it does not rotate.  One side is constantly exposed to the sun with estimated temperatures, according to this article, of 160 degrees and the other side always away from the sun with temperatures of negative 25. This means that the best chances life supporting temperatures and for liquid water--if there is any water--would be at the thin rim between the permanent-night half and the permanent-day half... just like earth.

In The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards point out many of the problems for a planet with a close orbit around a M dwarf star, the coolest type of dwarf stars.  The dark side of the planet would act as a cold trap "not unlike cold traps used in vacuum pump systems to extract water from the air" and would eventually trap and freeze all the water--if there was any--on the planet's cold dark side, leaving the bright side hot and dry (133-4).  The thin rim between the two halves would experience indirect and weak starlight which would only leave a potential for very weak biological productivity. Further, M dwarf stars exhibit flares just like our sun. Fortunately for us, we are 93 million miles away rather than only 14 million miles away.

Strange math

Out of the other 500 planets outside of our solar system that have been found, this is the first one that seems to be somewhere in the habitable zone. Yet the article later states that, "Vogt and Butler ran some calculations, with giant fudge factors built in, and figured that as much as one out of five to 10 stars in the universe have planets that are Earth-sized and in the habitable zone." That is 10 to 20% of all stars! Yet none of the other 500 planets discovered so far are potentially habitable.

These astronomers seem more influenced by the "Principle of Mediocrity" than by actual data on hand. The Principle of Mediocrity is the assumption that earth is a fairly ordinary planet orbiting a fairly ordinary star, thus there must be a countless number of life supporting planets out there as well.  On the contrary, others such as Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, the authors of Rare Earth, discuss the multitude of factors that are needed for a planet to be even potentially life-supporting. These include everything from being the right distance from the right star, in the right part of the right type of galaxy, with the right mass, plate tectonics, a large moon, liquid water, the right tilt, the right atmosphere, the right amount of giant impacts, and many more. If any of these have a factor of zero, the chances for potential life to develop on that planet is zero.  Factored together, the odds are so miniscule that even with billions of galaxies with billions of stars, we should be surprised that there is even one planet in the universe that is capable of supporting life.

Yet according to Vogt and Butler's calculations the odds are 10 to 20% for each star.  Perhaps the "giant fudge factors" had something to do with that? Magic fudge, after all, is the essential ingredient for life.

Strange optimism

These astronomers deeply want to believe that earth-like planets are common and that life evolves easily. If not, that might seem to suggest some sort of intelligent designer for the planet earth and human life, and that is not a popular option in some circles.

Here is the most amazing part of the article. You don't need the Hubble telescope to see the galaxy-size presupposition in this paragraph:

It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."

This astronomer is actually telling us that if there is water there is a 100% chance there will be life. That means that if there is water, there is 0.00% chance of not finding life! Why? Because there seems to be life everywhere on earth where there is water, of course.

And as Vogt is quoted as saying, ""It's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions."

You see, once you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent designer, then since life does exist we know that it must be easy to come by. The logic is as tight and circular as this planet's orbit around Gliese 581.

Also notice that the artist's rendering of planet g shows it complete with oceans. I've seen some news reports now that haven't even mentioned that this is merely an artist's interpretation. It gives people the impression that we've actually been able to see the planet through a telescope. That isn't the case. Astronomers detect these planets by noticing the periodic dimming of the star because of the planet passing in front of it blocking some of the light.

Keep Looking

In April of 2007 Gliese 581c, another planet orbiting this same star, was hailed as an earth like planet in the Goldilocks zone. However it was later concluded that planet c would have runaway greenhouse conditions like Venus, making it an impossible host for life. The conclusion about planet g might end up the same. But if and when that happens, I doubt that it will make any headlines. (Do you remember any headlines when planet c was discredited?) All of this leaves the public with the impression that earth like planets are a dime a dozen.

Let's keep looking to see what can be discovered, but don't assume ahead of time that earth is not something special.

Universe, Create Thyself

2010-09-02T16:36:00.004-04:00

Very smart people can say things that make no sense. For example, Stephen Hawking is reported to have written in his new book The Grand Design, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. . ." Because of this, a Creator God is redundant and unnecessary.

Hawking is dealing with the deep question of why there is something rather than nothing. This question is more profound and troubling that it may first appear. If something--anything--exists, then we are forces to ask why it exists. Things would be much simpler if nothing existed. But since things do exist, what is the sufficient cause of everything?

Hawking's book doesn't come out until next week, but for now let's look at some of the difficulties in the quotation above. (1) It violates the law of non-contradiction to say that the universe created itself. (2) If the laws of gravity exist, then it is not true that nothing exists.

First, Hawking states that the universe created itself. This cannot be true because it violates the law of non-contradiction. This law states that something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and with the same meaning. For example, a bird cannot be dead and not-dead at the same time and in the same way. It can be both of these in different times and different ways, but not at the same time and in the same way.

So, in order for the universe to create itself it would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. Why? If the universe needs to be created, then it must not exist. This is obvious, because if it already existed at that time, then it didn't need to be created. But if it doesn't exists, then it can't do anything since it isn't around to do anything. Nothing can't do anything! So for the universe to create itself, it would need to exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same way, which is impossible.

Second, Hawking states that the universe can create itself from nothing "[b]ecause there is a law such as gravity. . ." But how does the law of gravity exist if nothing exists? If the law of gravity exists, then how can someone say that nothing exists, since at least this law exists? Is there a sufficient reason for this law to exist? And even if the law of gravity exists--without anything at all to act upon--how does help get anything going at all?

If you are looking for reasons to push God out of your mind, you can take comfort in the fact that an incredibly smart person like Stephen Hawking has said that God isn't necessary. But please be aware that for whatever reasons, very smart people can say things that make no sense.

Eric vs. the Volcano

2010-09-01T00:01:00.001-04:00

Last year at school one kid from Eric's kindergarten class ot to bring home Eeyore the stuffed donkey. They were supposed to take some pictures and write about what they did over the weekend and bring it back the next week for the teacher to read to the class. This is what we wrote:

Today is Eric's seventh birthday, so I post these today in honor of him.

A Long Time Ago...

2010-08-08T00:01:00.004-04:00

Today is our twelfth wedding anniversary, and why yes, we did have Han Solo and Princess Leia on the top of our wedding cake.

Hope also agreed to walk down the aisle to the Throne Room March from the end of Star Wars: A New Hope. Wow, I love her!

The Court is Wrong About the Health of Children with Same-Sex Parents

2010-08-05T19:03:00.004-04:00

This week a United States district court ruled against California’s Proposition 8 which specified marriage as being between one man and one woman. Among other problematic statements, the court asserted in it’s “finding of facts” that “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology” (finding #70, p. 95). This is a misleading and incorrect assertion. Children with same-sex parents are statistically much more prone to have behavioral and psychological problems compared to children being raised by two biological parents.

Numerous studies have consistently shown that children do best when being raised by two biological parents. This is documented “not in tens or hundreds but in thousands of published studies over the past decades.”1 For example, Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer in the Journal of Marriage and the Family report that “Evidence over the past 30 years shows that children raised in single-parent households generally have lower average levels of psychological well-being and socioeconomic achievement than those raised by two biological parents.”2 Sociologist James Q. Wilson wrote, “Almost everyone—a few retrograde scholars excepted—agrees that children in mother-only homes suffer harmful consequences: the best studies show that these youngsters are more likely than those in two-parent families to be suspended from school, have emotional problems, become delinquent, suffer from abuse, and take drugs.” Although some of the difference can be explained by income, “[T]he rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband.”3

Same-sex advocates often point to a 2002 technical report made by the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated that, “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”4 However, this report produced by an eight-member committee received the strongest negative reaction from its members on any issue. The report also cautioned that, “The small and non-representative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve.”

Importantly, although the AAP report states that these children do “as well as” children in heterosexual homes, the comparison is actually being made between children in same-sex households and “stepfamilies formed after heterosexual couples divorce”.5 Thus it is highly misleading to give the impression that children raised in same-sex households do as well as children raised with their biological mother and father.

There are exceptions, but unfortunately stepfamilies are statistically associated with a host of serious behavioral and emotional problems, equal to or greater than the problems of children in single-parent families. One researcher concluded, “The best strategy for dealing with them is to do everything possible to minimize their occurrence.”6 Judith Wallerstein, in her twenty-five-year study concluded that children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward parents and teachers, experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, have more problems with their peers, are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help, more often end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings, have earlier sexual activity, more children out of wedlock, less marriage, and more divorce.7

If children raised in homes with same-sex parents “closely resemble stepfamilies formed after heterosexual couples divorce” this does not indicate a healthy environment for these children. On the contrary, the sharp difference between stepfamilies/same-sex families and families with intact biological parents is so striking that the AAP report actually confirms that strengthening heterosexual marriage is in the best interest of children. We must remember, “It is not just marriage between any two adults that benefits children, but the marriage of their own mothers and fathers.”8

Since it is to the benefit of society for marriages to be strong since children do best in all aspects of life when raised by their natural father and mother, it would be wrong for society not to treat these unions specially. As Allan Carlson comments:

To extend the same honor and special benefits [of marriage] to gay and lesbian couples (or, by logical extension, to bisexual arrangements and ‘polyamorous’ households) undoes, by definition, the very point of granting special status. If all group living arrangements enjoy equal ‘honor’ and ‘special benefits,’ then no arrangement has recognizable honor or special status. And in this case, the only proven, effective incubator of new and healthy human life would be cast aside as merely another lifestyle choice.9

Although advocates of same-sex marriage insist that same-sex marriage would not devalue heterosexual marriage, James Spiegel likens this to giving the purple heart to all military personnel who see battle, not just those who are wounded or killed. Whatever the intent, this would necessarily devalue the special significance of the Purple Heart. Spiegel argues that to deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust; therefore, gay marriage is unjust.10 There is something special about the time-honored arrangement of marriage as being a man and a woman. We are not doing children or our country a service by devaluing it.

1 Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 73.
2 Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer, “Family Structure and Children’s Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (May 2000): 534.
3 James Q. Wilson, “Why We Don’t Marry,” City Journal, Winter 2002, < http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_why_we.html>
4 Ellen C. Perrin, “Technical Report: Coparent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics 109, no. 2 (2002):341.
5 Perrin, “Technical Report,” 341.
6 David Popenoe, quoted in Stanton and Maier, Marriage on Trial, 83.
7 Judith Wallerstein, quoted in Stanton and Maier, Marriage on Trial, 86.
8 Stanton and Maier, Marriage on Trial, 109. Emphasis added.
9 Allan C. Carlson, Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of Marriage (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2007), 112. Carlson also states, “. . . public policy on marriage must be built on this ideal family structure, and not on some lowest common denominator” (44).
10 James S. Spiegel, “Why Gay Marriage is Unjust,” Paper delivered at the National Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 2009.

Is God to Blame for My Daughter's Birth Defect?

2010-07-25T00:01:00.012-04:00

Today my daughter Zoe turns four year old. The following is something I wrote shortly after she was born:

Sometime about three weeks after conception—before my wife even knew she was pregnant—the small ribbon inside her that should have become our baby’s spine didn’t form correctly. By the time we found out about the spinal bifida, the damage was already done. When the specialist told us there was very little chance that our unborn child would ever be able to walk without assistance I got clammy and lightheaded and I had to sit down. I felt like all my blood had just evaporated.

The car was very quiet as I drove my wife home. By God’s grace, she was being very strong. I was having a harder time. Suddenly a thought ran in front of my mind. “Did God plan this? Some people would say that if God is responsible for this then He is to blame for this.”

Rewind one year: I had just finished my master’s thesis on God’s sovereignty, using Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will to critique openness theology. One openness theology book is titled Is God to Blame? Its author, Gregory Boyd, says no. God does not know the future until it happens. God does not plan our pain and suffering. If they were part of God’s plan, then God would be to blame for them. We can’t get God off the hook by appealing to some higher purpose that supposedly makes pain acceptable. Boyd writes, “If every evil event could have been avoided had God so willed, how are we to avoid thinking of God as a conspirator in evil?” (Boyd, 56.)

This was the theology I had examined and rejected. After years of studying this subject, I had come to some settled conclusions. But now it wasn’t abstract. Theology can look different when you are driving home after a doctor’s appointment.

As I drove, the question suddenly divided like the lanes in front of me. Is God responsible? Is He to blame? There are two questions, not one. “Is God responsible?” is not the same question as “Is God to blame?”

Was God responsible for the spinal bifida? Did He plan it? Yes. Was God to blame? No.

Yes, God was in control of my baby’s problem. God has revealed too much in His Word for me to believe anything else. If a sparrow can’t fall without his permission, how can a human be born paralyzed apart from His ordination? I couldn’t deny God’s sovereign plan just because I didn’t like part of it.

But was God to blame? No. Definitely no! That is a completely different question. Being blamed for something means having done something wrong. It means being blameworthy.

Thus Greg Boyd and I agree that God is not to blame for my child’s birth defect—but for different reasons. Open theists say it is because God does not control the situation. I say it is because God has done nothing wrong. God has committed no fault. As I continued to drive, I felt indignation—not at God, but at the idea of accusing God of guilt.

God knows what He is doing with our lives. I’ve heard some say not to throw Romans 8:28 at people in pain. They say it’s glib, insensitive, and unhelpful. Now, we need to be careful how we use Scripture to counsel people—but isn’t it true that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose? Painful times are when we need God’s truth the most. The promises of God are not placeboes. They are only glib clichés when they are not believed. When believed, they are a fortress.

Pain and tragedy force Christians to ask ourselves if we really believe what we say we believe. Be sure of what you believe before hurt hits home. To do otherwise is like waiting until the car crash to strap your seat belt.

As the c-section grew closer I grew in experiential—not just theoretical—knowledge of God’s providence and goodness. I pray that Zoe might someday be able to walk, but even more that she would walk with Christ. I don’t know God’s plan, but it is up to Him to decide how He wants to be glorified. I don’t say this as if it’s not hard. God knows it’s hard. The Father is no stranger to the pain parents experience when their children suffer. My daughter was born with a hole in her back. God’s Son was born to have holes in His hands and feet.

For the Kids... kinda

2010-07-20T11:32:00.001-04:00

I don't know what you did last summer, but we made another 65 minute superhero video series for the kids at our church called Powerman and Mosquitoboy. We used it for VBS and gave away a few hundred copies of the DVD. The kids really seem to like them a lot.

I have at least four segments of the videos online. You should check them out at http://www.youtube.com/PowermanMosquitoboy or http://www.powermanandmosquitoboy.com/. You might enjoy them too. They're really not just for the kids.

Death is Such an Ugly Enemy

2010-07-19T01:01:00.001-04:00

This is an excellent section from D.A. Carson's book Scandalous. John 11:33 says that when Jesus saw Mary and others weeping over Lazarus' death He was "deeply moved" in His spirit. Carson stresses that the phrase “deeply moved” really should be translated as “outraged” because the language communicates anger. Part of what Jesus was experiencing was anger. Jesus was angry because death is always ultimately because of sin, the ultimate tragedy. Although God brings good out of the death of a believer, death itself is something evil. Carson writes:

“There is a compassion in these tears, but there is also outrage. Jesus is outraged not because he has lost a friend but because of death itself. Death is such an ugly enemy. It generates endless and incalculable anguish. And for anyone steeped in the entire biblical heritage, death itself is a mark of sin. How is death introduced to the [human] race? Death itself is nothing other than God’s insistence that human hubris [prideful arrogance] will go so far and no farther. It is God’s judicial response to our warped rebellion. Whether death afflicts us at five or ten or thirty or fifty or seventy or eighty years, it comes and it is implacable [it can not be bribed away]. We are sinners, and we will die. Every time there is death, it still hurts. It is still painful. It is still ugly. And it is still the result of sin. This is not the way God made the creation in the first place. Jesus is outraged by the whole thing. He is outraged by the death that has called forth this loss, by the sin that lies behind that, and by the unbelief that characterizes everyone’s response to it. . . [The Bible] dares to recognize death as the last enemy. Death is an enemy, and it can be a fierce one. Death is not normal when you look at it from the vantage point of what God created in the first place. It is normal this side of the fall, but that is not saying much. It is an enemy. It is ugly. It destroys relationships. It is to be feared. It is repulsive. There is something odious about death. Never pretend otherwise. But death does not have the last word. It is the last enemy, but more to be feared is the second death. Thank God for a Savior who could claim, ‘I am the resurrection and the life’” (132-2.)

What Would Jesus Say to an Agnostic?

2010-07-07T21:44:00.004-04:00

What's An Agnostic?

Every person is either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic depending on how you answer the question, "Does God Exist?" These terms come from Greek.

Theos = God
a = no
Gnosis = knowledge

Therefore…
Theist: believes God exists
Atheist: believes God doesn’t exist*
Agnostic: doesn’t know if God exists

Two Types of Agnostics
There are two types of agnostics. So, if you claim to be an agnostic, which kind are you? One kind of agnostic personally doesn't know if God exists or not, but the other kind also believes that no one can possibly know!

"Can't Know" agnostics believe not only that they don’t know if God exists, but that no one can possibly know. They believe that because God is beyond this world there is no way we could find out anything about Him even if He did exist. But is this right? How can they be sure that no one can know if God exists? First, it is a contradiction to say that we can't know anything about God. If someone says that God is completely unknowable, they are saying that there is at least one thing that we can know about God… that He is unknowable. But if we know this about God, then He really isn’t completely unknowable! Second, even if it is true that there is no way that we can gain knowledge of God from our end, there is no reason why God couldn't make Himself known to us. We may not be able to peer through the "great divide" but an all-powerful God would have no problem making Himself known to us if He wanted to. Third, I believe that there have been times in history where God has made Himself known. Just because they don't know doesn’t mean that other people can't know.

So, I don’t think it is a good idea to be a "can’t know" agnostic. But what about "don’t know" agnostics? If you’re a "don’t know" agnostic, here is the main thing I want to ask you… When are you going to find out!?

What Would Jesus Say?
Now, I don't really know exactly what Jesus would say to each agnostic. People are different and I am sure that Jesus would say different things to different people depending on what is in their heart and what they need to hear. But on the other hand, Jesus doesn't contradict Himself. He might say different things to different people, but He wouldn't say contradictory things to different people. Also, Jesus taught that He was God and that the Bible was God’s Word, so Jesus would agree with everything that the Bible teaches. So, although we might not know exactly what Jesus would say to each individual agnostic, we can know, from the Bible, for certain what He could say. Therefore, if you are an agnostic, the following are five things that Jesus might say to you. All of them are true and I hope you spend some time thinking about them.

1. If you doubt, find out!
There weren't too many agnostics around in Bible days. Almost everyone believed in God or gods. (The only question was, which one?) However, I think that what Jesus said to Thomas would apply to agnostics. After Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after being put to death, He appeared to his disciples. Thomas wasn't there at the time, but the other apostles told him about it. But Thomas doubted. He said, "Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger were the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." (See John 20:20-29)

Thomas has his doubts. Jesus told him to examine the evidence. Yes, Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" but he didn’t stop Thomas from examining the evidence. In fact, He commanded Thomas to do touch His wound, and to stop doubting and believe.

No, Jesus isn't going to appear to you to touch, but that doesn’t mean that there is no evidence out there for you to examine. No one will be able to stand before God and claim that they didn’t believe because of lack of evidence. I think God will ask, "Oh? How hard did you try to find out?" There are great books. There are people you can talk to. If you are honestly seeking to find out, there is enough evidence out there for you. If you doubt; find out!

2. I have revealed Myself to mankind in and through the Scriptures.
God has not kept Himself hidden. He has revealed Himself to mankind, especially through Jesus Christ. The Bible is truth from God and it is a record of the times God has shown Himself. John 20:30-31 says, "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His Name." The Bible was written to bring people to belief. There is something very powerful about God’s Word. Seek Him there. The Gospel of John is a good place to start. It specifically said that it was written so that you would believe that Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be, God in flesh.

3. The most unwise thing you can do is to ignore God.
Now, you might get offended by this, but let me explain. Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'" The Bible has a lot to say about wisdom. Wisdom is living skillfully for the best long-term results. The opposite of a wise person is a fool. According to the way that the Bible uses the word "fool" a fool might be someone incredibly smart, who makes unwise choices. And the most unwise thing that you can possibly do is to blow off the God who rules the universe, who made you, who must judge you, and who died to offer you forgiveness and true life. If God exists, it is an incredibly unwise thing to pretend He doesn't. Don't be a fool!

4. I didn’t just create you to know about Me, I created you to know Me.
Jesus told the religious leaders of His day, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life." (John 5:31-47)

It is one thing to know about someone. It is another thing to know them. For example, I know about George Bush. I do not know him. Jesus is reminding us that He doesn’t just want us to know about Him, as if He is just some character from ancient history. He wants us to have a relationship with Him. God isn’t an abstract theory to study. He is a person to have a relationship with.

5. I love you.
Simple, but true. God wants you to know that He loves you. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If you are an agnostic, I think that Jesus might be saying to you, "I loved you enough to go to the cross and die for you. I already did. I died in your place to take your punishment for your sins… that is, unless you don’t want me as your God and sin-bearer. I have made my feelings clear about you. Your future depends on whether or not you reject or accept me."

God in the Dock
One last thing...

C.S. Lewis has a book titled God in the Dock. For a long time I thought it was called God in the Duck, and that didn't make sense to me, but then I realized I was reading the title wrong. But God in the Dock didn't make sense to me either until I read it.

One of the chapters in the book is actually called God in the Dock. As I read it, I figured out that in a British courtroom, the "dock" is where the person who is on trial sits. With that in mind, C.S. Lewis' words were very profound. He wrote,

"The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock."

If you are an agnostic, look into the reasons for believing that God exists and that Jesus Christ is God. I believe that if you honestly look into these things, you will find the answers. However, please take C.S. Lewis' words to heart and consider the attitude in which you are doing it. It is one thing to have faith that seeks understanding, or to discover the evidence for belief... but it is another thing to force the Judge of the Universe into the dock and to take His place as His judge. James 4:10 gives some good advice, "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will lift you up."

*Some atheists believe that the word "atheist" should refer to anyone who doesn't believe that God exists, not just people who believe that God doesn't exist. Did you catch the difference? There is a subtle difference between not believing that God exists, and believing that God doesn't exist. The first way means that you don't believe in God, but you don't claim to know for sure that He doesn't exist. Therefore, you don’t know either way. The second way means that you specifically believe that He does not exist. Now, I think that the word atheist should specifically refer to someone who believes that God does not exist, because the word agnostic fits better for people who don't know either way. But no matter what terms you use, there are four categories that each of us fall into: (1) people who believe that God exists, (2) people who believe that God doesn't exist, (3) people would don't know either way, and (4) people who believe that no one can know either way.

The Hard Thing and the Easy Thing

2010-07-02T07:00:00.002-04:00

In Romans 8:31-32 Paul wrote, "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?"

For those who have trusted the Lord Jesus as their Savior, this verse gives us solid confidence that the Father will always be for us and never against us. The logic of this verse is that if someone can do the hard thing, we know that he will be able to do the easy thing. If God was willing to do the hardest thing imaginable for Him--delivering His Son to the cross--then we know that He will be able to do the easy thing--freely giving us all things that we need.

I recently preached a message on this passage at our church. Here is a portion of that message and a weightlifting illustration we used to drive home the point.

But if you want to listen to what is perhaps the greatest sermon on this passage ever preached, listen to John Piper's sermon God Did Not Spare His Own Son. My wife and I happened to be in the audience that Sunday.

Touchdown Jesus Burns to the Ground

2010-06-15T17:00:00.002-04:00

If your church has an extra $250,000 sitting around doing no good, you can use it to build yourself a sweet six-story statue of Jesus that makes Him look like a football referee. Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio, had one of these, built to inspire drivers along Interstate 75 just north of Cincinnati. This colossus was made of plastic foam and fiberglass over a steel frame and on Monday it was hit by lightning and burned to the ground. The steel frame is all that is left.

So, how should we interpret it when God in His wisdom ordains lightening to burn down your expensive giant Jesus statue? I'm sure that people have different theories.

Perhaps God did not want to be represented as something that I would be inescapably tempted to kick a field goal through. Or perhaps God is trying to send a subtle message that there are better uses for a quarter of a million dollars. It's hard to say.

If I were an atheist I would find it very deliciously ironic and satisfying that "God" choose to burn down His own statue. Seriously, if there is a God, how could he choose to dishonor himself like that?

This isn't an explanation, but here is a thought: God the Father didn't treat this statue of His Son any worse than He treated His real Son.

God the Father "did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all" (Romans 8:32). Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be "stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:4). Although He was innocent, "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer" (Isaiah 53:10). We, as sinners, are the ones who have rebelled and like sheep have gone astray, but "the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

This is not "divine child abuse." Although God the Father delivered up the Son, Jesus also did this willingly (John 10:17-18). Yet the Bible states "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:23-25 ESV). A propitiation is a sacrifice that satisfies and absorbs the righteous wrath of God against sin. God treated His Son as a sinner so that He could treat sinners as His sons.

The state of the Son was struck by lightning. The real Son was struck by the wrath of God, for our salvation.

Death as an Argument for God

2010-06-05T07:00:00.001-04:00

Death is usually viewed as an argument against the existence of God. A good God wouldn't allow suffering and evil and death, or at least so the argument goes. However it struck me that there is something about death that actually makes it a good argument for God.

If evolution caused the seemingly infinite variety of life forms and intricate biological functions that we observe, why is it that in the billions upon billions of adaptations found in nature, evolution has not found the one adaptation that--by far--would be the most beneficial to a species, namely, a lack of mortality?

I do not mean immortality in the sense that an animal could fall into a volcano and live. What I mean to ask is why there is not one single organism, from cockroach to man to bacteria, that does not possess natural mortality? Certainly pre-programmed death cannot be more beneficial to a species than an unlimited lifespan? Nor is there any inherent reason why, with as much complexity as life has, could it not find a way for at least one single organism to sustain itself indefinitely?

If blind nature can supposedly find a way to create eyesight and consciousness, then why couldn't it find a way for one simply organism to just keep on living unless meets a violent death? All that would be necessary for this would be the adequate repair or replacement or parts. Certainly that would have been easier for blind nature to achieve rather than biological reproduction--especially when it involves two different gendered parents. If blind nature can find a way for life to build itself automatically from a single cell after conception, then why can it not find a way for one organism to sustain itself indefinitely?

But death is a fact. And it is a fact that is explained by a Biblical worldview. Human death, at least, came into the world when Adam rebelled against God and cut himself off from the source of life (Genesis 3; Romans 5). Death is part of the curse that is now over this world, and which one day will be lifted because of Jesus' death on the cross. The existence of death is better explained by a Biblical worldview than by blind naturalism, and thus strangely enough death is actually an argument for the existence of God

Adam and Eve and Incest

2010-04-26T19:52:00.002-04:00

In a question and answer forum I was asked by a student how Adam and Eve's children could have had children without incest. I gave a two-part reply. They appreciated the last part the best.

I replied that they didn't. Since there were no other humans, Adam and Eve's children would have had no one else to marry but each other. But, this was before incest was specifically forbidden and it wouldn't have been sin. And as far as deformities caused by incest, I think it is safe to presume that there must have been something genetically pure or different about the early humans. In Genesis we read about early humans living extremely long lives. Also, Adam and Eve's DNA would have contained the diversity of all the races. So there was probably something special about their genetics that kept everyone from being born with arms growing out of their heads.

But if someone thinks to themselves that this is a far-fetched and stupid and that evolution makes more sense, then think about this: If Adam and Eve's kids had a problem, what kind of problem would there be for evolution? When the first monkey evolves into a human, there is just one human being. Who does that guy have to marry? A monkey. At least with Adam and Eve there were two human beings to get things started. With evolution, the first human being has to hook up with an animal. So you tell me which is more messed up?

Burn.

Yes, I know that no one thinks that monkeys evolved directly into human beings. I was obviously being rhetorical. Still, the inescapable fact is that if evolution is true, then the first human had no one to mate with except for a non-human.

Life Lessons from Jonathan Edwards

2010-04-15T00:56:00.008-04:00

Mike Wittmer had a great post a few days ago about ministry lessons from Jonathan Edwards. I didn't see it right away because I've been preoccupied writing a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" VBS curriculum.

I completely agree that Prof. Marsden's biography of Edwards is absolutely fantastic. Edwards was both a pastor and a theologian and there is much that we can learn from his life in both of these areas. I just finished reading it a second time and enjoyed it just a much as the first time through.

One scene from Edwards' life could probably win an award for "most awkward moment." After his ugly dismissal from the church in Northampton, Edwards and his family had nowhere else to go and stayed in the town for about a year. On certain weeks the church was not able to find pulpit supply and had to suck it up and ask Edwards to fill in. I'm sure those Sundays were fun for everyone.

The fact that he was willing to do it says a lot about what kind of a man he was. Not too bad for a guy whose great-uncle was an ax-murderer.

One of the effects that Edwards' biography had on me was to remind me not to covet anyone's life. It is easy for an aspiring theologian to see grand achievements and accolades in Edwards' life and think that he would like to have them for himself. However, it is one thing to pick and choose the highlights of someone's life but another thing to want the whole package. After reading Prof. Marsden's book, I realized that although I admire Jonathan Edwards, I do not actually want his life.

Here is Dr. Wittmer's post:

Last week I made the time to carefully read through George Marsden’s magisterial biography, Jonathan Edwards: A Life. This is an important book for pastors, especially those in America. It seems important to know the finest pastor-theologian that our country has ever produced. At risk of oversimplifying an engrossing 500 page story, here in random order are a few things that we can learn from and about Edwards. Nate Archer recently took a doctoral class from Marsden on Edwards, so Nate, if you’re around, feel free to chime in.

1. Edwards died from a smallpox vaccination which he received when he became the president of Princeton. So there you have it—America’s greatest theologian, killed by Wellness Week.

2. Edwards was frugal. He wrote his indecipherably small script on the front and back of receipts and other scraps of paper. Edwards didn’t believe in wasting things, and he would probably approve of me and my old CRX.

3. Edwards always had scraps of paper with him so he could jot ideas down as they came to him and then pin them to his clothes. When he came home from a ride on his horse he would unpin his notes and organize them. He would have gone nuts with post-its.

4. Edwards was a perfectionist who probably wouldn’t have been too much fun to have around. He was better than you and he wasn’t shy about letting you know it. He was willing to die on principle, which is admirable but also got him fired.

5. America’s greatest theologian was fired from his pastorate in Northampton. This should encourage any pastor who feels like a failure in ministry.

6. Edwards intended to become an international figure. I didn’t appreciate this until I read Marsden, but Edwards’ rise was not an afterthought. He believed that he had the ability to become a significant theological force and he went for it.

7. It’s easy to go liberal but it’s hard to come back to a conservative position. The church in Northampton easily adopted the half-way covenant and even gave the Lord’s Supper to non-Christians (Solomon Stoddard called it a “converting ordinance”). But when Edwards sought to restrict the Lord’s Supper to genuine believers he got into trouble and ultimately lost his job.

8. Edwards emphasized both right doctrine and right practice. He taught that following Jesus lay as much in the affections as it did in sound theology and he sought ways to determine that a professing Christian truly was converted. See his Nature of Religious Affections for the definitive word on the subject.

9. Edwards and his generation lived under the constant threat of death. Whether it was from disease or from Indian attacks, death was never far away. Today we are more insulated from death and don’t appreciate how quickly we can die, even those of us who drive a CRX.

10. Whitefield was more gregarious and extemporaneous than Edwards. God uses a variety of temperaments and personalities, and we don’t have to become someone we’re not to have a worthwhile ministry.

11. Because it focused on the authenticity of the individual’s walk with God, the Great Awakening encouraged individualism and anti-authoritarianism. This in turn fostered the rise of those denominations, such as the Baptists and Methodists, who favored a more democratic, bottom-up approach.

12. In ways that sound similar to today’s world, Edwards sought to defend and develop orthodoxy to confront the dangers of rising secularism and liberalism. We are not the first American Christians to care about the boundaries of orthodoxy. For his part, Edwards seemed concerned about the slippery slope of Arminianism.

13. Edwards had one of the few good marriages among our Christian heroes of his day. Compared to Whitefield’s loveless marriage to an older woman and John Wesley’s decades-long separation from his wife, Edwards and his wife were the Brangelina of the 18th century. I’m pretty sure that last phrase has never been written before.

14. Because of the lack of available farmland and jobs, young people in Edwards’ day didn’t marry until their late twenties. This gave rise to sexual immorality, immaturity, and general debauchery, which provided fertile ground for the revivals to take hold (there were many unconverted church members).

15. Genuine conversion requires both drop and rescue. People must recognize their sin and guilt before they can be saved, but if they drop too far they may fall into despair and give up hope of salvation. We probably don’t drop sinners far enough today, while the first Great Awakening ended when Edwards’ uncle fell too far and committed suicide.

The More the Miracle

2010-02-23T02:32:00.004-05:00

In John 14:12 Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater things than the miracles that He Himself did. This has always been a tough statement to believe, at least for those Christians who aren’t on TV claiming to make diamonds materialize out of thin air. Let’s face it, Jesus’ miracles were more impressive than casting out the demon of restless leg syndrome.

One good explanation is that while Jesus did more impressive works, He was only one person. In contrast, God is able to do a far greater amount of works today through the millions of Christians in the world. These works are greater in the sense of greater quantity, not because they are more obviously supernatural.

Right now I am taking a seminar on Thomas Aquinas and reading from his Summa Theologica. Thomas described miracles as “those things which God does outside those causes which we know” (Ia., Q. 105, A. 7). In other words, a miracle is an effect the cause of which is outside of the natural order. It is something that happens because of a direct supernatural cause, not because of normal cause and effect within this world. Thomas also asked whether some miracles are greater than others. When compared to God’s power, one miracle is as easy for God as any other miracle. But, if we compare them to the amount of natural power—the powers of nature—that the miracle must overcome, then some miracles are indeed greater than others. (ST. I. Q. 105, A. 8)

If a miracle is greater the more it overcomes the powers of the natural order, what does that say about the works that God does through believers today? Consider which is more difficult: to cure a disease or to cause someone to turn to the Lord Jesus as their Savior? If God decided to work through a person to supernaturally cure a disease, that would be a miracle. However, many diseases can be cured by doctors without immediate divine intervention. Perhaps one day all diseases may be cured by medicine and therapy. The same thing could be true about many miracles. Maybe we could even build a machine that could part the Red Sea. But, we can never cause someone to turn to Christ without God’s work in their heart.

When someone turns to Christ in saving faith, it is because God has done a supernatural work in their heart. If left on their own—cause and effect—no one would do anything besides walk away from God forever. The sinful heart of the natural man is hard. There is no one who seeks God. (Romans 3:11)

So what is the greater miracle? Is it greater when God works through a person to do something that man could theoretically do by natural means, or is it greater when He works through a Christian to cause a hardened sinner to be born again? Let me suggest that when God uses a believer to explain the gospel message to an unbeliever, causing him or her to believe, that God is overcoming a greater natural force than if He caused the world to spin backwards.

- - -

Alas, Thomas would disagree with this since he holds that "the justification of the ungodly is not miraculous, because the soul is naturally capable of grace" (ST. I-II. Q. 113, A. 10). And by justification, Thomas means the transmutation of a person from a state of ungodliness to a state of justice, that is, of right order.

An Important Discussion With Luke

2010-02-16T23:40:00.001-05:00

Sola Scriptura?

2010-02-10T07:00:00.003-05:00

Christianity, in its best moments has always believed that our faith rests only on the Bible... and that these Scriptures were given without error.

"For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): 'Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.'"
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.Q1. 8

If only we had always all been consistent with this...

How the Bible is Not Like the Telephone Game

2010-01-31T00:14:00.009-05:00

It is not unusual to hear someone say that our Bibles are like the bad results of the telephone game. When kids play the telephone game, one kid whispers a sentence to the next kid who whispers it to another and on down the line. Finally the last kid repeats the garbled mess out loud and everyone gets a kick out of how butchered the message got in transmission. Critics assert that all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc., of the original manuscripts and thus our current Bibles are like the results of the telephone game and we have no way of knowing what the original message was. (Some people will also say that the Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation, etc. Anyone making this claim doesn't know that all modern translations are made directly from the original languages.)

In reality, the manuscripts of the Bible are more like a tree. Imagine a tree with several branches coming off of the main trunk, splitting into other branches and then smaller ones yet. When the original copies of a Biblical letter—such as Paul’s letter to the Colossians—were written, other copies would be made for churches in other cities. Many copies would be made from the original and sent to various places in the Roman Empire. From those copies, other copies would be made for more Christians, and eventually to replace the old copies as they wore out. This means that there are multiple lines of transmission. This means that even if a change was made on one branch of the tree, it would not affect every other copy. Other branches would still be okay.

This also means—contrary to The DaVinci Code—that it would have been impossible for someone such as Emperor Constantine to change the text of the Bible, even if he had wanted to. There would be no way to gather and change all of these documents.

Scholars are able to determine where many manuscripts fit on this family tree by their age and shared characteristics. By comparing manuscripts, they are able to weed out any alterations and determine with great accuracy what the original text said.

In addition, there are several good reasons why the Bible is not like the telephone game.

1. The New Testament documents were in writing. They were not whispered one time, with the chance of mishearing one word for another. They were in writing and could be copied carefully and reviewed.

2. As mentioned, there were multiple lines of transmission. In the telephone game there is only one chain. The Bible has many branches. Even if someone got it wrong, other branches would get it right. Imagine a different version of the telephone game: One person whispers a message to four different people, and each of them whispers it to four more people, and so forth. Even if someone intentionally tried to sabotage the message, it would still be very easy to figure out what the original message was at the end of the game when you compared all of the final answers.

3. Bible scholars don’t just rely on the last version of the message. Imagine the same game of telephone from the paragraph above. Now imagine that not only do you get to hear the report from all the last people, you also get to hear other reports from many people early on in the tree. That would make it even easier to know with certainty what the original message was.

4. In addition to ancient manuscripts, we have over one million quotations from the New Testament by the early church fathers. Even if the entire New Testament was destroyed, it could be almost entirely reassembled just by using these quotes. Also, these quotes are from various points in history, meaning that changes in the Bible would also be reflected in these quotes. Further, in addition to the 5,700 Greek manuscripts that we have and the million plus quotations, we also have thousands of ancient translations of the Bible in languages such as Latin and Coptic. There are more than 10,000 manuscripts in Latin alone. Although these are translations, there are also very helpful witnesses to the original text.

5. Finally, there is a motivational difference between the New Testament scribes and kids playing the telephone game. Many kids—myself included—would intentionally try to garble the message in the telephone game. In contrast, the scribes were professionals who took great pride in their work. Copying these manuscripts by hand was painstaking work and they were motivated to do the best they could. They viewed these texts as sacred, not something to be careless with. The fact that many scribes would knowingly recopy a type-o, rather than fix it, shows that they were dedicated to copying the text as it was in front of them. Yes, sometimes there were mistakes as they looked at the wrong line, or a word with a similar ending. And there were times when the scribe would wrongly think that the text in front of him had a copying error in it, and by ‘fixing’ the ‘error’ would actually be making a copy error. But all of this shows that they were trying very hard to create an accurate copy.

In conclusion, the telephone game is a very bad and misleading analogy of how the Bible was copied.

Sources include Dan Wallace's debate with Bart Ehrman.

A Brief Message

2010-01-30T07:00:00.001-05:00

I'm not sure how a kid wouldn't notice this, but...

My wife called me at the office and told me that my five-year old son had something to tell me. She put Eric on the phone and he told me that he was at school when he discovered that he was wearing two pair of underwear. When he got himself dressed in the morning, he put a new pair of underwear on but forgot to take the old pair off.

People may wonder how many times we dropped him when he was a baby, but this will not stop me from using this in a sermon the first time I get a chance. Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3 tell us that the Christian life is about taking off the old and putting on the new. As Ephesians 4:22-24 says, “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” This should be our response to the free gift of salvation given to us through faith in Christ.

God doesn’t want spiritual nudists—who take off the old but do not replace it with new character. It’s not enough just to stop stealing; God wants us to work, doing something useful so that we can have something to share with those in need (Eph. 4:28). Don’t just stop being a drain on others, but be productive so you can help those in need. Don’t just take off unwholesome talk, but put on speech that builds up others according to their need (Eph. 4:29).

Don’t be a spiritual nudist, but don’t make the opposite mistake either. Don’t just add the good but fail to take off the bad. You may think it looks better on the outside, but it’s still disgusting.

I wish only five-year olds made this mistake.

Try to notice that you are still wearing your dirty underwear before you put the clean pair over them. Don’t just layer Jesus on top of your sin.

Why Faith Isn't a Work

2010-01-26T19:50:00.000-05:00

A student wrote me with a good question that I remember struggling through in the past as well. Scripture teaches that we each need to receive the Lord Jesus as our personal Savior in order to actually be saved. Scripture also teaches that salvation is 100% a free gift of God. It is 100% grace and 0% works. So the question is, why isn't faith a work? If it is something that we must do, why wouldn't it be considered a work?

I wrote this as a reply and I'm posting it for other people it might be helpful to.

First off, I think we can be really clear that faith is not a work. We can know this because the Bible repeatedly contrasts faith and works:

Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, thought faith--and this is not from yourselves--it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."

Galatians 2:15-16, "We... know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Christ Jesus. So, too, we have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

So, I think it is clear that faith is not a work according to the Bible. But why not? Isn't it something we DO? What makes it different than, let's say, going through some ceremony or something else that people could do?

I think that one of the passages that helped me the most on this was Romans 4:4-5, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness." What I noticed here is that for Paul, saving faith means that we need to stop working. That is, we need to stop working in order to earn or contribute to our salvation. To trust 100% in Christ means by necessity that we are trusting 0% in human effort. It has to mean that because if a person is trusting 10% in their own effort, it means they are only depending on Christ 90%. Saving faith means shifting all of our trust on to Christ alone for salvation. That is why a certain kind of faith is the way God saves us, rather than something else. Since faith means reliance or trusting, salvation by faith alone gives God all the glory since it means that we are relying 0% on human merit and 100% on Him.

The type of faith that saves needs to be faith in which we “let go” of anything else that we are depending on to save us. It is like the guy hanging onto the tree branch off the cliff. We need to stop depending on the branch and let go so that God can save us.

And that is why this type of faith is not a work. This type of faith is a repudiation of our work. It is a repudiation of our own merit. This type of faith is declaring ourselves to be spiritually bankrupt before God, depending on Him alone to save us. And this isn’t the “chapter 11” type of temporary bankruptcy in which a company gets some help, reorganizes it’s assets and then moves out of bankruptcy. This is “chapter 7” bankruptcy, the kind in which a company declares that it is done and without hope.

Saving faith is the kind of faith that says, “I have no other argument. I have no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.”

I’m convinced this is also what Paul meant in Philippians 3:3-8 when he talked about his own salvation. He had said that if anyone could be saved depending on human effort, it would have been him. He was as dedicated as a person could get. But then he wrote, "But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ... I consider them rubbish [literally "dung"] that I might gain Christ." Paul ceased depending on his own righteousness and started depending on Jesus' work alone to make him right with God. Instead of depending on his own spiritual merit badges, Paul changed his mind and considered them as worthless as dung as far as gaining righteousness. He continues in verses 8-9, “…I consider them rubbish [dung] that [in order that] I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law [works], but that which is [received] through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is [received] by faith.”

This similar to what Paul says about his fellow Jews who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. In Romans 10:2 Paul says that "they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." They were fired up and "committed" to God, but something was wrong. Being fired up for God is not the same thing as having saving faith. In the next verse, Romans 10:3, Paul explains what was wrong. "Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." Their problem was that they were trying to establish their own righteousness. That is, they were trying to do their part to earn their own salvation. They were trying to become right with God by their own efforts.

Now, in John 6:28-29, the people asked Jesus, “What must we do to work the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.” Yes, in this passage Jesus calls believing a “work.” But I think we need to think of it as a “work” in quotation marks. The people were asking Jesus what they needed to “do” to be right with God. The main point of Jesus’ reply was that all they had to “do” was to put their faith in Him. He wasn’t teaching that believing is something that earns salvation.

The book of Galatians shows us how much God dislikes the idea that salvation could be combined with works. Paul starts this book by writing in chapter 1:6-7a, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all.” In Galatia, the “different gospel”, which was not gospel at all, was the teaching that people had to believe Christ and be circumcised [a work] to be saved.

Depending on Christ + 0 = the true gospel of salvation

Depending on Christ + anything else = a different, false gospel

If we have a backup plan to save us, it is an insult to God. Let me give you an example that I think is helpful. Imagine that you are at a racetrack and a professional driver offers to take you around the track in his car. However he tells you that you don’t have to buckle up since there is no chance that he is going to get into an accident. If you buckle up, just to be safe, it means that you actually don’t fully trust that he will not get into an accident. After all, no matter how good of a driver he is, he can’t know for certain that an accident won’t happen. By putting on the seat belt, you prove that you do not 100% trust him.

Now imagine that Jesus is the driver. Since He is God and knows the future, He can actually tell you with 100% certainty that there is no way there will be an accident. Now, if He tells you not to put your seat belt on, what would it be saying to Him if you put it on anyway? It would show that you don’t really believe Him.

This is why it doesn’t make any sense to think that salvation could be by a combination of faith and works. If we depend on human merit at all, it means that we do not really trust Jesus to save us. It means that we think that Jesus’ perfect life and His death on the cross in our place might not actually be enough! It is crazy arrogant to think that need to add anything to what Jesus did. It is an insult to Him to think that we need a backup plan in case He doesn’t keep is promise to come through for us.

Anyway, I hope this was a bit of help. On an even deeper level, I believe that we are so dead in sin that none of us would choose to receive Christ as Savior unless God first did a work to change our hearts. Romans 3:11 says there is no one who seeks God. If God hadn't done a work in my heart first, I would have willingly continued to push Him away forever. Even saving faith itself is a gift of God, therefore God gets all the glory. This is a second layer that explains why faith isn't a work; because it doesn't originate in us. Not all who are saved understand or completely agree with this, but it is true that all who are saved have stopped trusting in their own merit and instead trust in Christ alone for their salvation.

Faith is not a work because it doesn’t earn anything, it just receives what Christ earned in our place.

God Has No Purpose

2010-01-20T07:03:00.000-05:00

God is not made. He is self-existing. He is the eternal "I AM."

These statements are true and have apologetic value, but what is the application of these truths? As I thought about this I asked myself, "What makes something that is 'made' different from something that is 'not made'?" I realized that everything that is 'made' is made for a purpose. Things are made for specific reasons. Hammers are made to pound nails. Nails are made to hold things together. Chairs are made to sit on. Even people are made for a purpose.

But, if God is not made, then He is not made for a purpose. Thus, could it be that God does not have a purpose?

Now, it sounds odd to suggest that God doesn't have a purpose, because for something not to have a purpose makes it seem worthless. But the opposite is true: It is not that God has a purpose... God is the purpose.

As Romans 11:36 states, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen."

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that God doesn’t do things with purposes in mind. God is purposeful. God’s creation has purposes. God’s actions have purposes. But God Himself is not a means to a greater end. In that sense He does not have a purpose.

So basically...
-Everything that is made is made for a purpose.
-God is not made.
-God is not made for a purpose.
-God does not have a purpose.
-God is the purpose.

Stop treating God like He is a means to and end. Stop treating Him like a magic jinnee. He is not a tool. God is not a path to a greater goal; God is the ultimate goal. We are created for Him because He is the purpose.