Conversion vs. Coercion

A little while back I watched a TV mother’s horror at the dawning realization that her Christian daughter regularly prayed for her. It was an interesting moment and I thought it seemed like a pretty authentic reaction; something I’d seen once or twice myself.

I mean, what reaction should we really expect from people to the fact that we are praying for their salvation, hoping for their conversion and actively working toward that transformation when the opportunity arises … or vice versa?

Sometimes the fact that we take the issue that seriously can come as a bit of a shock.

Selwyn Duke at American Thinker has a good piece on the subject:

“I’m a man who takes his faith very seriously; I believe it is the Truth and that God should be at the center of one’s life. I also know a man who is Jewish and believes just the same. He is orthodox, praying at the appointed times every day — regardless of the situation — and abiding by every one of the 613 Judaic laws that pertain to his life. He is a very saintly, gentle man. And he also has expressed that his faith — not mine, needless to say — is the true one. Now, if I found out that he had prayed for my conversion to what he considers a superior faith, should I be offended? 
       In fact, neither his perspective nor such a desire would bother me a whit. While this may strike a Richard Dawkins type as strange, understand my position vis-à-vis his attitude: I’d expect nothing less.”

To me, this sort of response seems entirely rational.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology VII: I Won’t Enjoy Heaven If So-and-So Isn’t There

There is a something about the generosity of spirit in this frequently-heard and more-frequently-unheard trope that I would hate to disparage.

After all, no less a friend of God than Moses once voiced something similar when God expressed a desire to wipe out Israel in the desert and “make a great nation” from the descendants of Moses. Some people might have been flattered at the compliment. Moses didn’t see it that way. He said to the Lord:

“Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.” (Exodus 32:31-32)

He said, in effect, “If they’re going to be subject to your judgment, God, let me be subject to it with them”.

Generous, absolutely. Smart, maybe not so much. Not, perhaps, entire clear on what he was potentially letting himself in for. But we understand the sentiment, surely. I’ve felt like that about some people. Maybe you have too.

Fortunately for Moses, the Lord did not take him up on his offer.

Milking It

I'm a bit conflicted about re-using material at all (you know, the manna that "bred worms and stank"), but it seems to me that there are one or two posts from a time before we had a significant regular readership that might be worth drawing attention to (if and when our regular contributors run out of gas, which is bound to happen from time to time).

I'm going to stick the "Recycling" label in front of anything I re-post from our first couple of months so that anybody who was around to read them the first time knows to take a pass.

Your Father Who Is In Secret

It takes courage to stand up and pray in public if you’re shy by nature, but only a little more than must be mustered to spill your guts on Facebook or Twitter. And judging by the number of people doing that, it must feel pretty good. If you’re the type of person who by nature loves to be the centre of attention, it doesn’t take any courage at all to pray in public. It’s like swimming to a duck.

It certainly doesn’t require faith.

It doesn’t take faith to attend church meetings or to put money in an offering box. These things may be done for right reasons or wrong reasons. Church, or even giving, can be a habit, a social event, a way of feeling good about oneself, a duty or an obligation imposed by family. Such acts are done visibly and because of that, there are other possible benefits than rewards of a spiritual kind.

They don’t require faith

Finally! An Elected Official We Can Believe In

The most recent version of this post is available here.

What Sort of Heart?

A more current version of this post is available here.

Miracles and Compassion

The most current version of this post is available here.

Chesterton on Freedom

Immanuel Can recently posted on the subject of the meaning of freedom, which puts me in mind of a passage from Chesterton that I happened to read today:

     “It is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called ‘The Loves of the Triangles’; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the THING he is doing.”

— G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Originally published in 1908. Entirely relevant.

That’s the funny thing about truth ...

Freedom: The False and the True

A more current version of this post is available here.

Universalism = InterpretationFail

It is awfully useful to observe how and where people go wrong in interpreting scripture.

If, say, a Universalist misappropriates a particular text to serve his cause, you can bet Calvinists, Amillennialists, Prosperity Gospel folks or whoever will use a similar bag of tricks to get where they want to go too.

In perusing Universalist websites for a previous post, I noticed many of them have this is common: they are fond of pointing to the word “all”, as though its employment in any context decisively proves their point. I suppose this preoccupation is easily understood, given the nature of their particular doctrinal aberration.

How can we go about making Scripture say whatever we’d like it to?

Christians and the Media: Field Day

People who have not spent a great deal of time around serious Christians are often surprised, on the rare occasions when they finally do, to find that we are not always exactly the way we are frequently portrayed in popular culture.

Some Christians, notably Cory Copeland, a writer for Relevant, think any disconnect between the way we are portrayed in the media and the way we actually behave is … kind of our fault, actually.

“The truth is that there are some so-called Christians who quite closely mirror the Christian characters we watch on television and film. They’re loud and proud and angry in God. They stare down their “opponents” with judgmental eyes and damning language. They protest funerals and vomit epithets at people they’ve deemed sinners.                                                                        
And on some level, most of us are guilty of some of this type of behavior. Maybe not to those extremes, but we too judge, condemn and feel “better than,” while refusing to admit our own faults. For the more dogmatic Christians and for us, it doesn’t matter that how we behave, how we treat people, how void we are of love and grace is a direct and vicious contradiction of everything the Bible teaches us of God and His ways.”

Okay, so … Fred Phelps. Bit of a straw man, Cory.

The End of the Family Line

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology VI: Everybody’s Going

For reasons only they fully understand, the Christian Universalist Association would like you to believe the following:

“We believe in universal salvation, the idea that there is no such thing as eternal hell or annihilation because God has planned the universe to produce a positive outcome for all people of all times.”

Under the banner “All God’s Children — No One Left Behind”, clutching tenaciously to their proof text “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself” and a bunch of quasi-logical justifications, these folks take the position that it’s all okay: no matter what you do, say, or think in this life, there has to be SOME good in you somewhere, and God’s omnipotence and benevolence will not allow that to be lost for eternity.

So we’re all in. Whew! Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin. Charles Manson. Paul Bernardo. John Lennon and Mark David Chapman.

Not of Faith

The most recent version of this post is available here.

How Depraved Can We Be?

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Shrimp Skewers and Fellowship

By the time we arrive at Genesis 3:11, the Fall has happened. The first sin has been committed by mankind and, in believing the lies of the serpent, Adam and Eve have rebelled against the word of God; they stopped believing that God was good and wanted the best for them. What had been perfect fellowship between God and man has been destroyed by their doubt and their sin.

There was a time when they believed Him entirely, of course; when there was no distance and no separation between God and man. But can you imagine that first awful moment when God comes to the garden called “delight” that He had made for Adam and Eve, and He has to call for them because they’re not in view, not eager to meet Him?

He knew where they were, of course, but when He called them He wanted them to understand that fellowship was broken. In verse 11 He asks, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” That beautiful fellowship that had been part and parcel of the garden is shattered. Adam and Eve have fashioned loincloths for themselves because they have this sudden realization that they’re naked. It never bothered them before that moment. They literally had nothing to hide from God, and suddenly something has changed. There are things they wish God did not know about them.

Sound a bit familiar?

It sure sounds familiar to me.

Christians and the Law: Repercussions

“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.

These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated among the believers for years to come.

But what were the consequences of the Apostles’ attempts to deal with the controversy?

The Consequences 

When the meeting at Jerusalem concluded, Barnabas, Paul and their new companions Judas and Silas promptly carried the apostolic letter to the church at Antioch, where it was received with great rejoicing.

Although the issue of whether or not circumcision and Law-keeping were necessary to salvation remained a hotly debated one in the Christian community for some time afterward, and Paul was soon forced to write a lengthy epistle to the church at Galatia to counteract the grievously effective work of the Judaizers among them, there could no longer be a doubt as to the opinion of the leading apostles and elders on this question. 

The official statement had been made: Gentiles were justified by faith in Jesus Christ alone, and neither circumcision nor observance of the Mosaic Law was necessary to complete their justification.

Good Friday, Tax Collectors and Sinners

It’s Good Friday, though I probably won’t post this until next week.

I’m out walking through my neighbourhood around noon. It was noisier this morning than yesterday at this time; more people around home instead of at work. By lunchtime the local Starbucks is buzzing, other establishments are opening up for business. Even the used bookstore is open.

I remember only a few years ago when, on Good Friday, everything was quiet well into the afternoon. Most offices and storefronts still took the opportunity to close and give their employees a day off since business wasn’t likely to be exactly booming. You could drive anywhere downtown at any time of day and almost nobody else was out and about.

Worse, I remember all the way back to my childhood, when Easter was conferences or special church meetings for the Protestants I knew, mass for the Catholics and peace and quiet for everybody else. Nobody went shopping on Good Friday because there was nowhere open to shop.

It’s good to see that the de-Christian-ization of our country continues apace.

No, really.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology V: Heaven Is Boring

I know, I know — nobody comes right out and says it that bluntly. Of course they don’t.

But lots of people think it. Or, more accurately, are a little afraid it might be.

Here’s one example of someone who does, and I’m sure you’ve heard dozens of similar comments, often at funerals:

“… if there is a heaven, and right now I am sure hoping there is, I like to think my grandfather is just making the turn at nine. A smile on his face from ear to ear because he can walk carrying his own golf bag. His eyesight that was taken from him in the early 90s is back and he doesn't see the world in shadows anymore. That his hearing, taken from him at about the time as his sight has returned. He can hear the birds singing in the trees and the sound of his persimmon driver compressing a golf ball 300 yards down the middle of the fairway.”

Of course there must be golf in heaven. And hockey. And beer. And rock ’n roll.

Because if my favourite thing isn’t to be found in heaven, I simply can’t imagine living for eternity without it. And life without it would be … well, if not ‘boring’ exactly, at least deficient in some way.

Or just maybe my concept of God’s love is a few sizes too small.

Eden: The Original Plan

In many ways the garden of Eden is distinct.

Eden, the word itself, means “delight” or “pleasure”. Interestingly, it also can mean “delicate”, and as it turns out, Eden certainly was that. If we look at Genesis 1, we will see there on seven occasions, as God creates, he says, “It’s good”. Six times over, he says simply “It’s good, it’s good, it’s good, it’s good, it’s good, it’s good,” and finally he sums up all by saying “It’s very good”.

So when I say Eden was a delight and a pleasure to God, it’s not purely because the name in the original language means “delight” or “pleasure”; it’s because God himself repeatedly said, “I really like this”, “I really like what I’m making” — the completed work, which included mankind, Adam and Eve. God Himself pronounces it “very good” indeed. More than simply a name, the garden of Eden was truly the delight of God.

It was also experienced as a delight by the first and only human couple to experience the garden of Eden.

The Millennial Kingdom and the Blame Game

The most current version of this post is available here.

Dismembering the Church

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Harlequin Romances, Detective Fiction and the Essence of Prophecy

The most current version of this post is available here.

Scientific Materialism and The Good Wife

Popular culture is an ocean of leftist muck, propaganda and uncritical thinking.

Still, there are rare occasions when you run across something so thought-provoking and strikingly out of place in its lucidity that you just can’t believe it’s actually on TV.

It is sadly common these days to leave entirely unexamined the real life implications of one’s philosophical and religious beliefs, or the lack thereof.

There are about 100 comments that come to mind about the following scene, but maybe I’ll just let it speak for itself.

Courtroom drama from The Good Wife:

Alicia: When we left off, Professor, you said you believed in right and wrong, and that it was wrong to hurt people. Professor?

Calvinism: Rotten TULIPs

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Garden of Eden: Stardust

I hope you’ll forgive me a little Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (or if you prefer, a little Joni Mitchell). I’m going to think a bit about the garden of Eden, and CSNY had something to say about it in their 1970 hit Woodstock.

They close the song this way: “We are stardust”.

I understand, scientifically, that appears to be the case: we are formed from the same sort of heavy materials and elements that form stars. So I think, scientifically, they were on to something.

I’m not entirely sure what they mean by adding in the next breath “we are golden” but, being generous, I'll grant a little poetic license.

So I largely agree with their science, and when the penultimate line of the song is “we are caught in the Devil’s bargain”, I find I can agree with their theology too.

But when they close with, “We’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden”, I’m not sure that I can agree with their eschatology.

This whole “getting back to the garden” notion is appealing. It’s a nice idea. Implicit in the statement is a recognition that there is something terribly wrong with the world we live in now. And CSNY suggest that a solution — maybe — is to get back to the state we were in in the garden.

They were talking about the garden of Eden. Now the garden of Eden, of course, is one of ‘those’ stories.

Historical Details, Forests and Trees

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Inbox: Practical Sanctification

I remember sitting through a lot of sermons about theological concepts as a teenager and wondering “What am I supposed to do about that?”

Or maybe I just wasn't listening as carefully back then.

Anyway, I received an email this morning from a full-time Bible teacher currently traveling across Canada that takes one of those five-syllable spiritual ideas and makes it extremely practical, something I still appreciate. An excerpt:

 “Sanctification therefore is not principally an experience: it is God using the truth, or God using His Word — and the Holy Spirit bringing it to us, opening our understanding of it, and then enabling us to apprehend it. We are then to take this truth and apply it to ourselves or to our lives day by day.”

Read the whole thing here.

Christians and the Law: Answering the Challenge

“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.

These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated among the believers for years to come.

But how did the apostles deal with this challenge to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Peter’s attempt to persuade his brethren was based on his personal experience of how God had worked in the hearts and lives of the Gentiles who had believed through his ministry. He described how God had not only directed him to share the gospel with pagan people, but had showed His approval by bestowing the Holy Spirit on those who had believed. By giving the Spirit He had clearly shown that in His sight the Gentile believers were no different from and no less privileged than the Jewish believers.

This being the case, what grounds were there for saying that the uncircumcised Gentiles were inferior in God’s sight and needed to do more to complete their salvation?

Had God Himself made a mistake in giving the Spirit prematurely to people who were not truly saved? 

A Further Thought about Screaming Kids

One thing I neglected to mention in today’s post that my parents did which, as I’ve gotten older myself, has begun to make perfect sense to me, is that they established control over their children early.

I think maybe once you’ve shown, through consistent reinforcement, that the war is won, you don’t have to fight it every single day.

I don’t remember NOT respecting my parents. I remember disagreeing with them, sure, but not being prepared to outright defy them to their faces.

On one occasion later on in my high school days, my father and I were having words in the hall by the front door as 9:00 a.m. drew closer and closer. Wanting to put an end to his lecture, I announced that “the government says I have to be at school, so we’ll have to deal with this later”.

My father simply replied, “Well, **I** say you need to stay here and finish this conversation”.

I was several inches taller and fifty or sixty pounds heavier than my father at that point. There was no physical contest to be had. But guess who got his way? It wasn’t me.

That battle was won long before I remember it even going on.

Screaming Kids and the Harvest of Righteousness

I’m fairly emotionally robust, a product probably of both nature and nurture. I’d like to think I’m not completely insensitive, but it takes a fair bit to hurt my feelings, let alone do any kind of serious damage. I can’t imagine what someone would have to do to me to cause permanent harm to my worldview, self-image or confidence. (My family may, of course, wish to offer their own take on any spirit of self-congratulation that sneaks into such a self-assessment.)

But that’s not true of everyone. It wasn’t even always true of me. In Grade 5 when I first encountered bullies (or more accurately, they first encountered me), I was insecure, terrified and conflict-avoidant. Mostly I was perpetually astonished at the intensity of their venom, which as far as I could tell was directed my way for no reason at all. I walked miles out of my way to get home from school without being pummeled silly.

Nowadays, at least in Canada, bullying in school is frowned upon and a token effort, at bare minimum, is made to manage it. When I was a teen, there was not much you could do except fight back (if you were able) or run for the hills. Taking your sad tale to a teacher or principal didn't accomplish anything positive, something I learned rather quickly.

But even being bullied is merely a manageable annoyance if you have a good home and a loving family to retreat to.

The really emotionally destructive stuff happens at home. No stranger or acquaintance can hurt you like a loved one can.

Christians and the Law: Controversy

“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.

These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated among the believers for years to come.

But why was it such a crucial matter for the early church?

Paul’s background as a Pharisee certainly gave him a ready understanding of the Judaizers’ position, but on the basis of his knowledge of the gospel of grace, he strongly opposed their teaching. Years later he would explain to the Galatians:

“A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus ... by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified ...  if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:16,21)

Paul and Barnabas fought the Judaizers in Antioch for some time before it became clear that the debate must be officially resolved. At last the church at Antioch decided to send a delegation, led by Paul and Barnabas, to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders there.

Whatever was decided at the council would determine the practice of the Gentile believers throughout the Roman Empire and throughout subsequent history.

God’s Sovereignty, Man’s Responsibility and the Two Witnesses

In his recent post on Calvinism, Immanuel made the point that pretty much every Christian believes in God’s sovereignty. The debate, he says, is not really about whether God is sovereign, but:

“… what they disagree about is how prescriptive His management of the universe has to be in order for that to be true. Does He have to mandate the movement of every molecule that twitches? Or is it possible that God allows human beings some measure of freedom of choice and action? How “tight” does sovereignty have to be in order to remain sovereignty?”

My personal conviction, and that of many fellow believers (obviously including Immanuel), is that Scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.

The “two witnesses” of Revelation 11 appear to me to illustrate both these principles, and one way in which the two might co-exist (I’m not suggesting that in every instance the two work together in precisely this way).

Let’s suppose in analyzing the chapter that its words are intended to be taken at face value; that is to say, that when John writes “if anyone would”, it means “if anyone would” (as opposed to something along the lines of “if the sovereign God compels anyone to”).

If we do that, is it possible to see the sovereignty of God on display at the same time as man’s will?

Tolerating Evil: Moral Relativism and the Slippery Pole to Hell

The most current version of this post is available here.

Christians and the Law: Why the Confusion?

“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.

These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated among the believers for years to come.

But where did this controversy originate?

The Cause 

In order to trace this issue back to its roots, one must go back to the Old Testament and consider what it has to say about the relationship between Jew and Gentile.

Culture, Politics and Christianity

I’ve been asking myself lately where my loyalties really lie.

Christendom is part of the cultural mainstream. That is not news to anyone. That Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, at a cost of something in the neighbourhood of $130,000,000, would get released at all in 2014 is evidence that Hollywood thinks there are plenty of Christianized or at least vaguely Christian-influenced pockets out there to be picked.

(No, this is not going to turn into a movie review. Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro have done such fine jobs eviscerating the movie that I wouldn’t take a crack at Noah even if I’d bothered to see it. Think three words: “Perversely pagan mess”. That should about do it.)

And of course, in addition to cross-pollinating with popular culture, we have our own “vibrant” Christian subculture going on. We have our own fiction writers, our own music, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and now even our own films.

They’ve infected us. We’ve (kinda) infected them, at least to some degree. We’ve become mercantile. And they’ve become aware that we’re a market, and they’re not so uncompromisingly leftist (yet) that they’re willing to let a buck pass without grabbing their share.

In this miasma of kinda-sorta Christendom that doesn’t seem a whole lot like the first century church in the book of Acts — at least not by any spiritual metric I can easily locate — one wonders what exactly the Lord would have to say about us, assuming we’d stop to listen.

Relativism: Facts, Foolishness and Faith

The most recent version of this post is available here.

On Christians and Hypocrisy

“Christians are hypocrites.”

When people say it — and they do — they are often thinking of unscrupulous TV evangelist-types whose greed and hypocrisy have been publicly exposed, or perhaps their own bitter personal experience with a person who claimed to be a follower of Christ but acted in a very un-Christlike way.

It is certainly a great shame when people claim to be followers of the Lord Jesus but live lives of self-centredness and prejudice. Often these people make the matter worse by assuming an air of false piety and loudly condemning those who do not match up to their lofty standards of conduct — standards they themselves do not even follow.

Is there a Biblical response to this sort of thing? How should a genuine believer respond?

Believers That Sin & A God In Whom Is No Darkness At All

A more current version of this post is available here.

All Things Dull and Ugly: Monty Python and the Millennium

In 1848, a song with the title All Things Bright and Beautiful appeared for the first time in Mrs. Cecil Alexander’s Hymns for Little Children. It subsequently became a Christian standard, and you are probably familiar with at least some of the lyrics (and almost surely the general concept), so I won’t include them here.

Also, they are considerably less amusing than the lyrics to the parody version written by British comedian Eric Idle for Monty Python’s Contractual Obligation Album in 1980. I include a couple of verses to give you the general idea:

       “All things dull and ugly
        All creatures short and squat
        All things rude and nasty
        The Lord God made the lot

        Each nasty little hornet
        Each beastly little squid
        Who made the spiky urchin?
        Who made the sharks? He did”

It goes on in much the same vein for four or five stanzas, but you get the picture. You can read the whole thing here if you care to, or if you don’t recall it (it has been nearly 35 years). As a teenager, I thought it was hilarious … until I didn’t.

My point is actually not to bang out a few paragraphs about how the members of Monty Python are (or were) horrible, irreverent human beings on their way to hell. They did, in fact, take more than a few shots at religion, but many of their targets made themselves more than fair game.

No, my interest in this particular ball of snark hurled at the cultural wall is its uncanny accuracy.

You see, they really do a nice job of making Scripture’s point for it, at least on this topic.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology IV: Christians Will Spend Eternity In Heaven

Does it really matter where we’re going to spend eternity, frankly?

I mean Christians, of course. It matters a very great deal indeed to the lost where they end up, whether they recognize it now or not. Time will tell, but if the teaching of the Bible turns out to be the truth, the fact that a person doesn’t see fit to believe in or respond to that truth does not mean he or she can escape the eternal consequences of his choice, or of hers. And those who fail to value the Lord Jesus Christ at his true worth — who fail to see him as his Father sees him — will spend eternity without him.

If that doesn’t seem like a big deal now, bear in mind that there is no cause/effect relationship between what is coming to us after death and your opinion or mine about it. That is the nature of objective reality. The idea of “true for you” or “true for me” is a vapid modern platitude to which no rational person genuinely subscribes, though it makes for a great means of deflecting enthusiastic truth purveyors one doesn’t really feel like dealing with.

Trust me, spending eternity without the Lord Jesus Christ will definitely be a big deal when there no longer exists the opportunity to choose it or reject it.

But to Christians, to those who believe, Paul says, “[T]he Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”

We will be “with the Lord”. That is our destiny as believers, and the goal, the true hope of every believing heart. So for Christians, does it really matter where we spend eternity as long as our Lord is there?

Yes and no.

Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot and the Infinite-Personal God

“The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena … Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity — in all this vastness — there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

— Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

What interests me about Sagan’s monologue is that so much of it is undeniably true — and yet there’s one crucial point on which I would have to disagree. Sagan, as many others have done before and after him, looks at the sheer inconceivable size and scope of the universe and comes to the conclusion that it is simply too big, and we are simply too small by comparison, for us to believe that our lives have any higher purpose, or that there is a God who cares about us.

To which I say, wait, what?

Debunking Heavenly Mythology III: Hark, the Herald Angels Sing

Um … they don’t. Really. Look it up.

Aw, come on, you’re Googling, aren’t you.

It’s okay. I did too. I also got my concordance out. But this particular misconception is not confined to the famous Christmas carol.

Although ... it’s awfully hard to prove a negative. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we have “no unequivocal biblical evidence” of angels singing.

I owe my father for this one, by the way. It’s a small point, but one of a number of things that prompted me to begin looking at the words of Scripture a little more attentively, and actually look things up rather than just believing what I was told.

Dear Preacher: On Calvinism and Pride

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology II: Saint Peter and the Pearly Gates

In a previous post I spent a few hundred keystrokes on the things of heaven, trying to point out how very ill-equipped the best of us is to fully comprehend them, even with the aid of the imagery of scripture, since “No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him.”

But our inability to fully apprehend everything about heavenly things is not a license to manufacture any old view of heaven wholesale. The only reliable source of knowledge about things outside current human experience is the word of God itself.

Passing Thoughts on Fred Phelps

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Debunking Heavenly Mythology I: Angels are Dead People

In a previous post, I spent some time contemplating the things of heaven and trying, however haltingly, to point out how very ill-equipped the best of us is to fully comprehend them, even with the aid of the imagery of scripture, since “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”.

That said, there are many, MANY things that we can be very sure heaven is not.

The lack of specificity and detail about many heavenly things is not a license to manufacture any old view of heaven wholesale. Let’s address a common myth or two — and I promise not to make any of this up:

The Things That Are Prepared

The idea of heaven is necessarily a blurry concept to earthly beings. We navigate the world around us via our senses, so it is unsurprising to find a certain conceptual impenetrability to those things we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear in this present life. Those who are unacquainted with the Lord might well say, “The reason you can’t conceive these things is that they don’t exist”.

Except they do. We have our Lord’s word on it. He tells his disciples explicitly that “In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” And he says it as if he’s wondering why on earth we would for a moment expect anything else.

This conceptual fuzziness about heavenly things is a consistent feature of prophetic revelation, both Old Testament and New. Ezekiel peppers his description of the heavenlies with the words “appearance” and “likeness”, as if to say, “I know my account is hopelessly inadequate, but this is the closest I can get”. John, in Revelation, does exactly the same thing, using the word “like” over and over again.

To the believer, it’s emotionally stirring, certainly, but I have to admit to a certain intellectual dissatisfaction with the lack of detail.

On Reorganizing our Concept of Love

The following is excerpted from a sermon I enjoyed last night (I did, in fact, warn the preacher that he was likely to be transcribed):

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)

“God is love,” says the Bible.

We must be careful that we don’t make of that something sentimental or insincere. God is love, but in our society today, many people believe love is god.

And there’s a difference.

Baal Worship, Howard Cosell and Little Details

In 1931, an excavator named Claude Schaeffer on a dig in Ras Shamra, Syria came across three clay tablets in the ruins of a house belonging to a high priest of the god Baal that have come to be referred to as the Krt Epic or the The Epic of Kret (without any vowels, it’s hard to be consistent in the transliteration of ancient Eastern names).

If you were to cherry-pick a few couplets from the Krt tablets you might observe that they bear a passing similarity to the language of the Psalms:

“To the earth Baal rained, to the field rained ’Aliy. Sweet to the earth was Baal’s rain; to the field the rain of ’Aliy.”

“In a dream of Beneficent El Benign, a vision of the Creator of Creatures, the skies rained oil, the wadis flowed honey. So I knew that Mighty Baal lives; the Prince, Lord of Earth, exists.”

The deity being worshipped is referred to as “mighty” and “beneficent”; his generosity in providing rain for the crops is called “sweet”. He is the “Lord of Earth”.

Even the bit about flowing honey sounds vaguely familiar.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 6]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Heretics and Coffee

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 5]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

In Need of Analysis: The “Four Hour” Rule

Some help here, anyone?

I read this on Tuesday but have had no success at tracking down the original quote on the web (and since Wesley died in 1791, it’s unlikely I’ll be able to get it from the horse’s mouth):

“John Wesley said that he had a very poor opinion of Christians who did not spend at least 4 hours every day in prayer.”

I found a number of quotes from Wesley on the importance of prayer (some good stuff there too) but nothing first-hand about the amount of daily time he deemed appropriate. Wikipedia, while providing a bio, was no help either. The closest I could find was this, from micahcobb.com: “John Wesley used to say that he thought very little of a man who did not pray four hours every day.” Slightly different wording, no direct attribution, no book reference, nothing to follow up, but perhaps it was the source for the quote I read on Tuesday.

This site referenced another called arminiantoday.com, which amplifies a bit: “We all have probably heard the stories of how John Wesley would rise up at 4 AM every day to seek God for the first four hours of the day.  In his later years Wesley was known to spend up to 8 hours in prayer.”

Huh. “Stories.” Okay, not much help there.

I’ve found a number of references to Wesley praying two hours a day, and a number to his mother doing so. But no direct confirmation in Wesley’s own words that he prayed four hours a day regularly or thought ill of those who didn’t. Other than stories, of course. It may well be true, and I just haven’t been able to confirm it.

It may be utter hogwash.

Why does it matter how long John Wesley prayed daily or what he thought about prayer?

It doesn’t, really. Except …

Does Christianity Discriminate Against Women? [Part 3]

In recent years the accusation that the Bible is anti-female has arisen more and more frequently. The first post in this series dealt with the objection that scripture is sexist because it uses the masculine gender to refer to God.

The second dealt with the objection that church order as taught in the New Testament discriminates against women.

In this post, I’d like to examine a third:

Objection #3 — Doesn’t the Old Testament Endorse the Victimization of Women?

Numerous incidents in which women were potential or actual victims of sexual abuse, such as Lot’s offering his daughters to the Sodomites and the rapes of Dinah and Tamar, are recorded in Scripture without being concluded by an act of divine judgment or by any moral commentary. Some people take this to mean that the God of the Bible does not consider the victimization of women to be a crime, and that the Bible endorses such treatment of women.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 4]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Does Christianity Discriminate Against Women? [Part 2]

In recent years the accusation that the Bible is anti-female has arisen more and more frequently. The first post in this series dealt with the objection that scripture is sexist because it uses the masculine gender to refer to God. The last post in this series deals with the objection that the Old Testament endorses the victimization of women.

In this post, I’d like to examine the objection that church order as taught in the New Testament discriminates against women.

Objection #2 — The Command for Women to be Silent in the Churches is Discriminatory

But if God really understands and values women just as much as men, why are men in the position of spiritual power? Why are women asked to keep silent in the churches, while men have the privilege of public ministry?

Doesn’t that prove that the Bible portrays women as inferior beings?

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 3]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Worldviews: Question 3 — Life

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Worldviews: Question 2 — Endings

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Worldviews: Question 1 — Origins

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Worldviews: An Introduction

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Does Christianity Discriminate Against Women? [Part 1]

In recent years the accusation that the Bible is anti-female has arisen more and more frequently. Because the Scripture uses the masculine gender to refer to God, it is labelled sexist. Because the Bible teaches that although men and women are equal in God’s sight they have different roles in His service, it is called discriminatory. Because the Old Testament relates how certain women were victimized, it is accused of endorsing the abuse of women.

Are these charges justified?

Whole books have been written about this subject, so it is impossible to give a complete answer here. However, we can examine the three main objections listed above and see if they are truly valid.

Objection #1 — The Bible Describes God in Masculine Terms

Some people assume that the use of a masculine pronoun is meant to imply that men are closer to God or more like God than women are. There is no Scriptural support for such a view, however, and indeed much Scripture to contradict it. Right from the very beginning, the Bible establishes that both men and women are made in the image of God: “So God created man in his own image, male and female he created them”.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 2]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 1]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Grief is Not a Sin

Over the last year or so I’ve been reading through the Bible at the rate of about a chapter a day. I just finished Jeremiah yesterday, which is a really emotionally tough book if you identify even slightly with Jeremiah, and as I was reading the first chapter of Lamentations I was struck by a thought that’s been creeping up on me for a while.

Grief is not a sin.

Well, duh, you may say. Of course it’s okay to grieve. We lose people or hear terrible news or suffer disappointment, we feel sad; it would be monstrous if we didn’t react that way. And I think most people would agree that this is the case.

And yet it’s easy to fall into the trap of expecting that grief, or lamentation, should only last so long or go so far. Just a nice neat little grief, not too long, something you can swallow back and force a watery smile and then put your chin up and keep marching with a smile on your face. Especially if you call yourself a Christian, because Christians are supposed to be full! of! joy! and count themselves blessed when they suffer tribulation, etc.

Inbox: The Authority of the Servant

Tertius writes in connection with today’s post:

“… that I am your servant.” Would another reason for such a request be that the authority of both the servant and his message must be recognized by those to whom he is sent, or what he says will be discounted and he will be perceived as just mouthing off; his message not taken seriously and God’s purpose in sending him frustrated? Paul used a good amount of ink convincing the Corinthians that he had credentials that were no less than those of the twelve [apostles], and was similarly concerned that Timothy’s youth not result in him being despised. Receiving the messenger as having full authority is necessary to receiving the message he delivers.

Absolutely. Well said.

A Nature Like Ours

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Fifth Business

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Deafening Silence of 9/11

The most current version of this post is available here.

Joshua Twice

The most recent version of Bernie's post is available here.

The Woman in the Pink Coat

I saw you downtown this morning as I was heading back to my car, standing on a step-stool and yelling to make yourself heard. A fit-looking guy in his forties or early fifties, casually dressed in jeans and a fitted sweatshirt, your neat-trimmed beard streaked with silver. Nothing strange or threatening about you really, except for the shouting. From the way people cringed and hurried past you, I could tell they didn’t like it.

At first I thought you were ranting about something political, but then I saw the Bible in your hand. That made me curious. So while all the people around me kept walking, I stopped and listened.

You know, it wasn’t a bad message you were preaching, at least not the part of it I heard. You weren’t calling down judgment on the people passing by, or trying to badger them into joining your church; you were saying that God loves us, that He sent His only Son to earth to save us, and that no matter how bleak the world looks or how badly we’ve been hurt or how many times we’ve screwed up, there is hope if we trust in Him. I worried for a while you were going to say something weird or creepy, but you didn’t.

You were just … loud.

Inbox: The Purpose of the Gospels

In connection with this, JRM writes:

Just wanted to pass along a thought on the genealogy of Matthew 1. It’s obviously divided into three sections. A while back, I was impressed by the fact that the main divisions are related to the three main turning points in the kingship of Israel: (a)  the first section ends with “David the king” – the first genuine king of Israel (since Saul was from Benjamin and was the “teach Israel a lesson” king); (b) the second section ends with the exile to Babylon – the end of the kingship; and (c) the third section ends with “Jesus who is called Messiah” – the ultimate king of Israel. All of this fits nicely with the fact that Matthew is presenting Christ as the king.

To which I can only add: Yeah, exactly. Wish I’d thought of it.

Bible Study 10 — Context [Part 4]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Without Counsel Plans Fail

I’ve seen a professional counsellor exactly once in my life. He was bald with a trimmed, white beard, sitting behind the big, polished, expensive desk one would expect, in a quiet, dark room. No couch. My wooden chair was not completely uncomfortable but clearly calculated to be no more so than required.

He was mild mannered and pleasant, cajoled me into spilling my guts for half an hour and then pronounced that I was a “good person”.

That was pretty much it for me. I knew everything I needed to know about him right there — if not as a man, most definitely as a counsellor.

First, he’d known me for precisely 30 minutes, probably less at that point. Nobody, no matter how perceptive or experienced, can reasonably pronounce on another person’s goodness with such a limited information base.

Second, he knew me only from what I’d told him. I could have been the world’s biggest liar. I could’ve been entirely self-deceived, recounting things I believed to be true but that anyone who knew me outside of that office would have dismissed as nonsense in a heartbeat.

Third, after hearing everything I had to say, his first inclination was to attempt to reinforce my positive self-image to ensure I was not feeling bad about myself.

That was the kicker for me.

10 down, 603 to go ...

My reading this morning reinforced something I.C. posted a little while back on the subject of the 613 Commandments though, much to my disappointment, he only dealt with 10 of them.

(I look forward to a future post setting out how the rest of God’s commands can also be viewed relationally, though I suspect that may take him a while …)

Frankly, since reading that particular post, I’m finding evidence in the Old Testament that God’s purpose has always been primarily about fostering a relationship with man everywhere I turn, and in everything I read.

Inbox: Demon Possession and the Church Age

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Boy in Black Leather

“I was crazy for Jackie

I was almost ready to say

when a boy in black leather

came and took Jackie away”

— The Waterboys

Those of you who are a few years younger than I am, and most, if not all, of the men, can probably relate to that one. I don’t mean that you necessarily know the song, but you’ve almost certainly had the experience.

I had it as a teenager, and oddly enough the girl’s name actually was Jackie, though I can’t remember if the boy who took her away wore black leather or not. Those were the punk rock years, so it’s not improbable.

And, if I am completely truthful, there was more than one “Jackie” over the years, and more than one “boy in black leather”.

Who’s Afraid of Science?

I often refer to Wikipedia, that unassailable bastion of compiled wisdom, not because I believe it to be particularly accurate, but because it provides as good an understanding of how people currently use language as can possibly be obtained. A Wikipedia definition is the gold standard for lowest common denominator human knowledge. So while it may not represent what everyone down through human history understood by the term “science”, let’s give their definition a browse:

“Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

Sounds reasonable, no? So let’s get some things clear here:

I am not anti-science — and more importantly, neither Christians nor the Scripture itself are anti-science — if by “science” we mean using our God-given intelligence to puzzle out how things work and make life better for each other. Who could reasonably be against the search for objective truth? Who wouldn’t like better hygiene, a cure for cancer or buildings that remain standing in earthquakes?

“Science” in this sense is a perfectly sensible concept, and something man was clearly designed for. It’s in our nature to ask questions and look for answers.

I am, however, profoundly anti-science, if by “science” you mean what most people actually mean by it: agenda-driven, government- or special interest-funded pseudo-authority masquerading as universal truth. 

Boiled down to its essence, it is a propaganda hammer used to bludgeon the most malleable minds into what are — today, at least — the most politically acceptable shapes.

It is about as far from the original concept as it is possible to have come.

Mission Statement

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Will There Really Be A Millennial Temple? [Part 2]

The concluding chapters of the prophetic book of Ezekiel are among the most hotly debated in all of Scripture. Neither the figurative nor the literal approach to these chapters is adequate to explain every detail, unravel every mystery. However, it is not necessary for us to know all the answers in order to understand the passage properly. Despite the potential for controversy, Scripture does supply us with enough information to answer the main questions associated with the passage, which are as follows: 

1.    Is the temple and its worship literal, or figurative?

2.    Do these things take place at a time now past or at some point in the future?

3.    If the time is future, does it involve the millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, or the heavenly state

4.    In any case, what is the purpose of the sacrifices described? 

In a previous post, we tried to offer answers to the first two questions.

Let’s consider the remaining two:

Above My Pay Grade

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Bible Study 09 — Context [Part 3]

The most recent version of this post is available here. 

An Apple for Mr Dalrymple

If a godless totalitarian government ever takes over and forces us all to celebrate Take an Atheist to Lunch Day, I want dibs on Theodore Dalrymple. Mind you, that’s assuming he’s still available at that point, and not locked up as a traitor to the State.

I Commit My Spirit

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Limits of Toleration

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Will There Really Be A Millennial Temple? [Part 1]

The concluding chapters of the prophetic book of Ezekiel are among the most hotly debated in all of Scripture. Many differing and conflicting interpretations have been proposed by scholars, each according to his own school of eschatological thought. Are these chapters, which describe a great temple, speaking figuratively or literally? Do they refer to a time now past, or to a future state?

The opportunities for controversy are manifold, and a mere consideration of the chapters themselves, in isolation, is insufficient to provide all the answers. For instance, this temple description occurs at the end of a book heavy with symbolism, yet contains precise details and measurements suggesting a more literal approach. There are mysteries in chapters 40-48, as well — who is the ‘prince’ or leader involved in the temple worship?

Neither the figurative nor the literal approach to these chapters is adequate to explain every detail, unravel every mystery. However, it is not necessary for us to know all the answers in order to understand the passage properly. Despite the potential for controversy, Scripture does supply us with enough information to answer the main questions associated with the passage, which are as follows: 

1.    Is the temple and its worship literal, or figurative?

2.    Do these things take place at a time now past or at some point in the future?

3.    If the time is future, does it involve the millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, or the heavenly state?

4.    In any case, what is the purpose of the sacrifices described? 

Let’s consider these issues and attempt to provide some sound and scriptural answers.

Romantic Love is NOT an Inalienable Right

The most recent version of this post is available here.

In Need of Analysis: Why Christian Music Needs a Dose of Worldliness

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Bible Study 08 — Context [Part 2]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Why Do Christians Worship?

A more current version of this post is available here.

Leave Scripture Out of It

A more current version of this post is available here.

Insufficient Authority

This is not a subject I write about easily, but it’s one to which I believe many Christians can relate.

Giant, massive disclaimer: By what I’m about to say, I am not in any way judging or condemning the efforts of serious Christian parents or spouses I know or know about. Still less would I pass any judgement on the parenting and relationship efforts of Christians in circumstances I don’t fully understand.

I am constantly astounded at my own inability to accurately size up other people’s business. What regularly throws me for a loop are these little factoids that pop up in conversation that make you completely reverse your previous set-in-concrete assessment of someone you know, like “Did you know she has a brain tumor?” (No, really, I’m not making this up.)

But since I have very little idea who reads these thoughts other than immediate family members, believe me: I have no particular axe to grind and no particular family situations in mind.

I’m just thinking here.

In Need of Analysis: Doctrine vs. Practice

The most current version of this post is available here.

What’s in a name?

A would-be commenter drew our attention to the fact that it’s a pain to comment here if you don’t have a Google account or are not logged into some other third-party sign-in option. I tried it and agreed.

So we’ve enabled anonymous commenting for the time being to make life easier for folks who don’t like leaving their personal info all over the internet.

In Need of Analysis: Wake Up and Smell the Potpourri

The most current version of this post is available here.

Safely and Painfully Dead

The worst of all evils is death, or so modern thought has it. Death is to be avoided, evaded, delayed and denied at all costs. And definitely not discussed.

This prioritizing of the length of human existence over its actual quality is the reason that in most countries of the world there is no longer a death penalty. Even in U.S. states where it’s still legal, almost nobody gets executed anymore. Older concepts of justice, fairness and “an eye for an eye” have given way to a frantic collective scrambling around to keep everyone on the planet as long as possible, whether they deserve it or not.

Except for unborn children. Logical consistency is not our strong point.

Inbox: What’s this ‘Fellowship’ Thing?

In connection with this post Tertius writes:

“Not surprisingly, Tom, in light of what you have said so far, I started thinking whether or not there is a word in the Scriptures that describes this special kind of communication that Christians may have with each other. I believe there is. Doesn’t “fellowship” wrap it up neatly? That is, as long as we do not allow its Biblical strength to be diluted by the limited way unbelievers must understand the term, for Christian fellowship has to be experienced before it can be defined. In fact, I confess I find it difficult to define now though I think I can say I have “experiences” of it. But maybe I am looking at it too subjectively — what joy I get out of it. But isn’t that what happened on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:32)? I’m scrambling and hoping you or others will help me to unscramble my thoughts.”

I don’t know of too many Christians today who use the word “fellowship” regularly unless they’re well past retirement. If younger Christians use it, they usually do so in that formulaic, contrived way often associated with terms you wouldn’t hear in the real world but have picked up in church and adopted without much real sense of what they mean.

Bible Study 07 — Context [Part 1]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Christians That Need to be Saved

The most recent version of this post is available here.