Transitioning from one stage of life to another is never easy.
Aging is part of that, certainly, but it’s not the entire thing. For example, in a high unemployment society, aging may make me irrelevant to the work force. That will likely happen without my consent, and probably when I least expect or want it to happen. Tough luck. I’m now irrelevant in that role, and I had better learn to deal.
It also helps if I am willing to make myself relevant to the world around me in some other role.
“Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
I’d like to give some thought this morning to the phrase “rulers of this age” that appears twice in the passage above. It might be a little more interesting than it looks.
.jpg)
“Is it unloving to confront somebody about his sin?”
As in so many situations Christians encounter in this life, motive is more important to the Lord than the actions it produces. Some people just can’t get their heads around that. We generally call these people legalists. They value actions and outcomes more than the heart and mindset that produces them.
The Lord just … doesn’t.
I said I would. Here it is.
There’s little point in referencing a controversial thesis, let alone siding with its author, if you decline to address significant arguments raised against it. Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization”, has generated considerable online debate. Her thesis is essentially “Women Equals Woke”. Our DEI woes on the job, she says, are all due to increasing numbers of women in the workforce.
Now, blaming everything that’s gone wrong on women sounds sexist, nasty and mean, even when it’s a woman doing it. But that’s not really where Andrews was going. Her critics disagree, and we’ll look at some of their objections today.
.jpg)
Bible students online differ concerning the extent to which Samson was truly heroic or any kind of role model for believers. The four chapters that chronicle his life and death portray him as impulsive, turbulent and temperamental, driven by his whims and easily pushed off course by events around him. Rarely do we see evidence of serious devotion to the Lord, or the fruit of such a relationship in his life, though there’s absolutely no question the Lord used him, and used him in a major way. Like Jehu centuries later, Samson was a wrecking ball when Israel needed one.
The New Testament portrays Samson as a man who in at least one instance exercised remarkable faith. Even then, in typical Samson style, his faith basically amounted to the conviction that God would make an exception to his own rules by special request …
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Editor’s Note: This post was our first together, presented over a decade ago. I thought it makes an interesting re-read in view of both the things that have changed since, and the things that have not.
Alex Awad is a professing Christian who leads a Bible school in the town of Bethlehem and wrote 2008’s Palestinian Memories: The Story of a Palestinian Mother and her People.
Tom: Mr. Awad believes the Old Testament promises to Israel are strictly conditional on Israel’s faithfulness and obedience and consequently that “Israel as a nation annulled its privilege as God’s chosen nation.”
I was baptized young.
Not so young that I did not know what I was doing. After all, I believe in believer baptism only … just like the scriptures tell us.
I was around ten, I think. I asked for it to happen. No one pushed me. And at that time, I had a ten-year-old’s faith, and a ten-year-old’s understanding. Nothing wrong with that … it’s just not where I am today.
Discussions about masculine vs. feminine tendencies in any area of life produce polarized reactions these days. One pole insists there are no meaningful differences between the sexes, an assertion falsified by scripture, and one the Christian cannot accept. The other pole declares itself a diehard member of Team Men or Team Women, breaks out the heavy artillery and goes to war, a strategy unlikely to lead to the perpetuation of our species. Between the poles, the careful Bible student tries to observe and comment about potential spiritual danger zones for each sex in a fair, balanced and reasoned way.
We are not the same, and neither are our temptations and struggles to live out Christ in a fallen world. That’s where I’m going to try to go today: right down the middle. On this subject at least, I think that’s where the Lord would prefer us to be.
A lengthy illustration will probably serve me best here. If you doze off, I sympathize. I’ll probably still tell the whole thing though.
I have no doubt mentioned several times in this space that I currently work with a bunch of women. To be specific, I work under a bunch of women. My direct supervisor is a woman twenty years younger than I am. Her occasional replacement is a woman five years younger than me. They both report to a woman a few years older, and she reports to another woman roughly the same age. Layers and layers of women in a quasi-traditional hierarchical structure, with me and a couple of other part-time guys on the bottom and an executive male or two way, way up top, whom I almost never see and certainly never interact with.
How do I like that? You didn’t ask, but I’m going to tell you anyway: I love it.
.jpg)
“Does a Christian marriage have to be romantic?”
Men and women born much prior to the ‘Summer of Love’ — like, say, those who managed to live through a World War, the Great Depression or any of the plagues and famines of prior centuries — would probably find this question hilarious. Even today, in cultures where the social or financial advantages of being married outweigh any potential negatives, a deficiency of romance in a marriage rarely amounts to a stopper.
However, we live in an era in which a young person’s view of marriage is often wildly unrealistic. Feminist media propaganda shapes the expectations of most young women — and many men.
.jpg)
Cognitive dissonance exists because it’s possible for otherwise-intelligent men and women
to hold two points of view at the same time that mutually exclude at their
core. ‘X’ and
I ran into this in a conversation with two women at work many years ago about the Liberal Prime Minister they had just helped elect. As I listed government policy after government policy with which I knew they both had serious issues, they nodded in agreement like twin bobbleheads of the sisters from Full House. These were indeed bad policies, and they were driving our country into the ground. We were all on the same page about that.
“So … why?” I finally asked.
.jpg)
The story of Samson is full of miraculous events. The narrative has a big, mythical quality to it: the robust young hero smiting his enemies in impossible numbers. A child reading it may find himself caught up in the action and missing the subtext. I certainly did. Nevertheless, like so many other Old Testament characters, this “hero” has feet of clay; he cannot seem to get out of his own way. His failures and temptations are all too human.
Never mind. God can use that too. We can take some encouragement from that fact at least.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
In an article appropriately entitled “Premarital Sex: Is It A Sin Or Not?” Charles Toy of TheChristianLeft.org rather predictably contends it’s … not:
“There is no passage of the Bible that references premarital sex as a sin against God. The association between sin and premarital sex is a new Christian idea. The only possible reference to premarital sex being a sin in the Bible is in the New Testament. This premise although, is generally dismissed by theologians because the Greek word πορνεία, or sexual immorality is commonly incorrectly translated into the English word fornication.”
Tom: In our earlier discussion, we discovered we agree that Mr. Toy is wrong about the association between sin and premarital sex being a “new Christian idea”. It actually goes back to Genesis. So his first point is inaccurate.
Back in the early 1990s, The Humanist magazine interviewed the famous producer Gene Roddenberry, creator of the TV show Star Trek. The first series had been off the air for years and was long into syndication. Roddenberry was in the process of cranking out its eagerly-awaited sequel, Star Trek: The Next Generation — soon to prove yet another great hit.
The interviewer got the famous producer chatting about the relationship between the show and his own secular humanist beliefs.
.jpg)
I’m on the fence about the compulsive need of Western Christian minds to harmonize every instance of apparent contradiction in the Bible’s historical accounts. On the one hand, the critics need to be defanged and each upcoming generation of young believers inoculated from the skepticism they breed. On the other, I am personally comfortable with the knowledge that the originals of these manuscripts passed muster with generations that lived much closer to or even during the events these accounts preserve.
If these believers did not find fault or write defenses to similar criticisms in their own day, why would we imagine we are better at spotting errors than they were?
From a literary perspective, I find the resolution of the book of Job perfectly satisfying. Sure, it’s a whole other world culturally, it’s translated from another language, and it’s incredibly ancient, which means the uncertainty of the Hebrew text for this word or that figure of speech is footnoted more often than in other scriptures. That said, it’s a tremendous piece of writing, and God’s four-chapter response to Job’s perplexity and distress is its epic and poetic climax.
From a theological perspective, however, modern Christian readers may walk away from the book’s conclusion feeling something significant about the problem of human suffering still needs addressing.
.jpg)
“What does it mean that everything is meaningless?”
Today’s question comes from the NIV’s rendering of the second verse of Ecclesiastes. The NIV is one of only two English translations out of the most common 35 that has elected to go with the word “meaningless” in this context. People are far more familiar with the King James: “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”
The vast majority of English translations (21 of 35) follow the KJV.
Matthew’s gospel is the very first thing we read in the New Testament, and we tend to think of it as coming early in church history; I know I used to before I looked into it. In fact, Matthew circulated his gospel close to three decades after the events it describes, long enough for Galatians, both Thessalonian epistles, both Corinthian epistles and Romans to predate it and make the rounds of the first century churches.
Question: Did Matthew understand the allegedly-Pauline doctrine of justification by faith when he recorded his version of the Lord’s genealogy in chapter 1 of his gospel? You betcha.
.jpg)
Ahab listened to a lying spirit sent out from the presence of God. He consequently perished in battle. It was inevitable. The Lord had purposed to put him to death. He knew Ahab would follow the word of four hundred false prophets telling him exactly what he already wanted to hear rather than one lone man with the truth of God in his mouth.
Thus, the will of God profoundly influenced Ahab without Ahab having the slightest personal insight into it, and without him deriving any benefit from it.
As we will see, our twelfth judge had far too much in common with Ahab.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
In an article appropriately entitled “Premarital Sex: Is It A Sin Or Not?” Charles Toy of TheChristianLeft.org contends it’s … not:
“There is no passage of the Bible that references premarital sex as a sin against God. The association between sin and premarital sex is a new Christian idea. The only possible reference to premarital sex being a sin in the Bible is in the New Testament. This premise although, is generally dismissed by theologians because the Greek word pornei, or sexual immorality is commonly incorrectly translated into the English word fornication.”
Tom: Immanuel Can, what say you?
Some years ago, Dr. Gordon Marino, the ethicist, wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education called “Before Teaching Ethics, Stop Kidding Yourself”.
In this article, Marino complained of the cottage industry of posers and pseudo-experts we have today who dispense advice to us about how we ought to conduct our moral lives. Ethics, he argued, are not so much a matter of specialized knowledge as of ordinary people doing what they already knew to do.
If you’ve been involved in many home Bible studies over the years, you have probably noticed that no two Christians read a verse or passage of scripture precisely the same way, draw the same conclusions from it, or see the same significance to it. The worst ideas you’ll hear are way out in left field or obviously wrong, pulled out of the air by people who likely haven’t read the passage more than once. The best of them correct you where you may have erred, or supplement your own understanding with nuances you may have missed.
Maturity, experience, gift, intellect and Bible study habits all factor into the differences. Whenever you ask folks what they think about a scripture, be prepared for an earful.
Men and women discuss their differences of opinion … well, differently.
Unless a woman is completely out of control, she will generally pepper her assertions with endless qualifications, disclaimers and occasional flattery. These allow her to walk back any criticism not well received. Men frequently just go at it hammer and tongs with little concern whether the other party finds it hurtful or offensive. We are trying to get at the truth, and we are often too careless of both feelings and fine detail in the process.
In our favor, we are not generally mealy mouthed.
.jpg)
“Should Christians spank their children?”
I have experienced spanking from both ends. (Sorry.)
I have regularly spanked three children throughout their formative years, and maintain loving and mutually-beneficial relationships with each one to this day. I have also received the occasional judicious and quite necessary whack from a loving and reluctant parent during the lengthy period it took me to grow to maturity.
Both ways, spanking worked. I regret nothing.
“I went up … in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.”
In the first two chapters of his earliest letter, the apostle Paul is concerned to establish the credentials of his gospel. The background: in Paul’s absence, religious Jews were encouraging the young Christians from the churches in Galatia to supplement their faith with vestiges of the now-obsolete Law of Moses. Paul recounts how, fourteen years after his first and only post-conversion visit to the birthplace of the Christian faith, he had chosen to return to Jerusalem once again. He also tells them why.
He wanted to make sure he “had not run in vain”.
.jpg)
We have been examining the third and final appearance of the angel of the Lord in the book of Judges. In chapter 2, he rebuked Israel for its disobedience, setting the stage for both the judgments he would inflict on the nation throughout the book and the repeated miraculous deliverances these punishments would necessitate. In chapter 6, he appeared to Gideon, causing him to fear for his life. In this chapter, he appears to the woman who would shortly become Samson’s mother, and to her husband Manoah.
Manoah’s wife described the angel of the Lord as “very awesome”. She and her husband were shortly to discover he was much more than that.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
 |
| How, now? |
Increasingly, studies like this one point to the strong possibility that a strictly vegan diet might actually be the healthiest for human beings, and that even consuming a small amount of meat in our diet is sufficient to increase our chances of diabetes, among other things.
These studies may well be accurate (though, as with all assertions of the scientific community these days, I tend to reserve judgment until we see all the consequences of a purely vegan diet in a representative sample of the human population over a generation or two). But for the sake of argument, let’s give these studies the benefit of the doubt and assume they represent truth and not simply another scientific boondoggle.
Tom: So, the obvious question ...
If you pop around on the Internet for very long, you’ll find that one of the most common screeds against Christians is that we hate science.
I don’t think it’s true, of course, but it does seem a rather general perception among our detractors. They think we see in science a direct threat to our beliefs; and since science undeniably does many good things for us, secularists of various kinds have a duty to deprive us of our illusions in this regard. We will thank them later: or if we do not, it will only be because we couldn’t be helped.
Doug Wilson is currently working his way through the book of Acts every Saturday on his blog. This week he’s in chapter 21, noting that as the apostle Paul made his way toward Jerusalem, he received prophetic warnings in every city to which he traveled concerning what would happen to him there.
That sort of thing happened often in the first century. If it happens at all in the twenty-first, it does so almost exclusively in Charismatic circles.
“He also measured its wall, 144 cubits by human measurement, which is also an angel’s measurement.”
John makes this observation in the second-last chapter of our Bibles, amidst visions of a new heaven and new earth, complete with the holy city coming down out of heaven from God. This is where we find the famous line about how God will wipe away every tear from the eyes of his people, and there will be no mourning, crying or pain. Believers all long to realize these visions of the future; they really, really matter, and the chapter contains many more statements equally significant to the remedy of the human condition and our final destination.
In such a context, why would we care if human beings and angels use the same measurement system? Can such an observation be anything more than comparative trivia?
Perhaps. Indulge me, if you will.
.jpg)
“What does the command to ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ entail?”
Today’s question is a reference to Genesis 1:28, in which God told our distant ancestors, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” He gave Noah and his sons a similar mandate after the flood: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.”
Relatively mature Christians have absorbed an abundance of important principles from scripture. Sadly, we don’t always apply them as effectively or comprehensively as we might. At least, I don’t.
The limitations of human memory in a fallen world are such that we are constantly relearning things we already know. For me, this week’s “Oh yeah” moment was a conversation with my brother about our dad, and a reminder that the Lord put us together in one Body by his Spirit for many reasons.
One good reason: iron sharpens iron. We help each other understand the Bible. You will always see things I don’t, and vice versa.
.jpg)
Judges is a grim book. It shows fallen man the way he truly is, even when favored with a level of access to divine revelation that many nations never experienced. Few of its chapters are consistently uplifting or their positive aspects unmitigated by reminders of human wickedness and fallibility. Jephthah’s story, which we have just finished, mingled God-given victory with bad judgment, betrayal and brother-against-brother violence. Our final judge’s life was a notorious mess, and the book gets even bleaker from there.
In between, chapter 13 is a brief, cheery respite from the darkness. From verse 2 on, it’s all wonderful, including a rare pre-incarnate glimpse of Christ himself.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: Clint Bryan at Christianity Today has a post up about something called the Hillsong Church. I’ve heard the name and vaguely associate it with religious music and the “worship team”-style presentation, but I know very little about the Hillsong phenomenon, and I don’t think I could hum even a single one of what Mr. Bryan says are very hummable tunes. If you tell me that’s a not-very-subtle indication I’m not exactly at the nexus of mainstream evangelicalism, IC, I suppose I’ll have to take the rebuke with grace, but I thought maybe we could talk about Mr. Bryan’s article since it touches on a subject you’ve written about a fair bit.
Immanuel Can: Yep, okay. Where do you want to start, Tom?
There is general fear being widely expressed among evangelicals today that we are not reaching people the way we used to. Certainly the numbers of people in the modern West who are becoming Christians seems to be slumping, and a lot of us are a bit nervous about the trend.
According to Bible.org, one problem is that the professional clergy people and leaders are not stepping up, and that church ministries and programs are not going out to reach people. Meanwhile, The Evangelism Institute has found that while 85% of evangelical churches have a pro-evangelism statement in their constitution, less than 5% of the people are actually involved in doing something with it.
.jpg)
A Minneapolis pastor named Jonathan Parnell is offering tips on being a friend of sinners. He believes it’s a good thing to be. John MacArthur riffed on the “friend of sinners” idea in a 1980 sermon. He liked it too. A church in Milwaukee identifies with the concept so much that it has taken the name. “Friend of Sinners Church” offers a free breakfast followed by a worship service each Sunday.
So was Jesus a friend of sinners? Should we be? Well, yes and no.
“You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your book?”
— From Psalm 56, a Miktam of David
Scholars debate when various scribes added the superscriptions over some of the Psalms, and whether we can trust them all to the same degree. They note, for example, that the translators of the Septuagint a few centuries before Christ both edited and freely supplemented existing Hebrew superscriptions.
.jpg)
“Is thrill-seeking wrong?”
An old acquaintance is in hospital right now going on two months with little prospect of an easy recovery, the victim of a motorcycle accident. He’s got a long road ahead of him with many potential pitfalls and pains as he tries to regain his strength and mobility and get back on his feet without inadvertently undoing the beneficial effects of a complex surgery in the process.
His drastic reversal of fortune brings up the question Did this have to happen? Not knowing all his circumstances, I have no good answer for that.
“For those who love God all things work together for good.” So wrote the apostle Paul, and so we believe. Of course, as with other frequently quoted verses of scripture, a variety of interpretations and applications exist and are commonly (and sometimes unreflectively) held by fellow believers.
Supposing your elders tasked you with expositing that familiar quotation from Romans on a Sunday morning, you might find you have to clear away a few cobwebs first.
.jpg)
Today’s instalment takes us to the eleventh of our twelve judges of Israel. We are getting there.
At least eight tribes provided Israel with leadership and deliverance during the period of the judges, and perhaps as many as ten.* The tribal affiliation of at least two judges is questionable, so we cannot confirm precisely which tribes did not receive representation in leadership during the period. We can say with certainty that Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Gad go unmentioned.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Theistic evolution is a concept that has become increasingly acceptable throughout Christendom. As long as God is said to have directed it, evolution is a pill many otherwise-solid Christians seem prepared to swallow.
Tom: I read Terry Mortenson’s article on compromise this morning. It seems as good a starting point as any. He names a number of well-reputed conservative stalwarts whose own statements suggest they have gone (or went) a little soft on the issue — James Orr, Dyson Hague, George Frederick Wright, R.A. Torrey — to one degree or another, some as far back as the early 1900s. Other less conservative believers like Andrew Klavan accept evolution outright, convinced it’s so obvious that believing it is simply common sense.
People: you just can’t count on them.
That’s one of the things you can count on about human nature. We don’t have what it takes to see things through.
Oh, we mean well enough … and we intend to try our best … but often our best is a lot less impressive in the delivery than we thought it was going to be.
And let’s face it: most of us are just not in anything for the long haul. While the idea is new and the fire in us is fresh, we’re all enthused about whatever’s going on. But fires cool, and new turns old, and we lose interest.
A career, a program, a plan, a commitment, a hobby or a marriage … all fine in the short term, but give any of them enough time and everything turns out to be work.
So we quit. And honestly, sometimes by the time we do it’s just as well that we do.
An anecdote only: I won’t try to turn it into a thesis since it’s merely an observation.
The habit of using the Law of Moses as a way of filling in any perceived blanks left by the writers of the New Testament seems well ingrained among the supersessionist Reformers I encounter. For example, there are many discussions online about tithing these days. These almost inevitably take on a quasi-legalistic tone (“What must I do?”).
When you think about it, this makes some sort of sense.
“If it is not he, who then is it?”
Good question, Job. If it is not God who gives the earth into the hand of the wicked … if it is not God who keeps his appointed rulers from dispensing justice … then who can we blame? When we suffer inexplicably, whom but God may we reasonably charge with afflicting us?
Most deep thinkers eventually arrive at this question, and not all are omni-determinists. Job was several millennia pre-Calvin.
.jpg)
“Why do people struggle with lack of faith?”
On its own, the word “faith” is content-free. There is no such thing as generic faith. To talk about believing without asking what you are supposed to believe is like trying to order dinner at a restaurant when you’ve never been given a menu and the waiter refuses to tell you what the options are. A question so unspecific is quite impossible to answer meaningfully.
Faith always has to be in something or someone. It cannot exist in a vacuum.
.jpg)
The subject of faith has been on my mind this week, and we’ll revisit it tomorrow in our usual Monday “Anonymous Asks” post. Faith does not come easily to many, and even those of us habituated to trusting in Christ to meet our physical and spiritual needs on a daily basis find occasions when we too struggle to believe the Lord will do the things he has promised.
Far more important in the long run is faith that saves. One man’s honesty about his personal struggle to find it touched me the other day, and I’d like to share it with you.
.jpg)
Joseph had two sons during his glory years in Egypt, Ephraim and Manasseh. When his father Jacob was old and full of years, he blessed the two boys and adopted them as his own sons, meaning that Joseph effectively received the birthright in his generation, the double portion of Jacob’s inheritance that Reuben, his older brother, had forfeited by sleeping with his father’s concubine. In Canaan, Ephraim and Manasseh grew to be among Israel’s most powerful and numerous tribes, and Manasseh held territory on both sides of the Jordan.
We have previously mentioned irony in Judges: there’s lots and lots of it. We come to more of it today. The last chapter of Jephthah’s story involves conflict between two brother tribes.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
In Matthew 16, upon Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus responds with two promises, which we may briefly restate as: (i) “On this rock I will build my church”, and (ii) “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …”
Tom: There’s more to these promises, obviously, but I wanted to consider a couple of issues. First, whether these are two separate promises, or if the second is merely some kind of amplification of the first, and second, when can we anticipate the realization of these promises.
I hear a lot of people talk about their love for the gospel. But then I also hear a lot of talk about how people “love” ice cream, their cars, their mates, their pets, and the NFL.
I’m pretty sure there’s a difference in each case.
There are different ways to love. Some of them are a million miles from the others. So what are people talking about when they say they really love the gospel?
I’m going to give you three different ways. There are probably more, but I’ve seen these three a lot.
Six years ago, a new Gillette commercial indicting all men for the sins of some prompted this discussion of biblical masculinity between IC and me. We concluded the sort of male behavior encouraged in scripture is not toxic, and that the problem is not that men today are too masculine, but that they are not masculine in biblical ways … and that’s when they are masculine at all.
It wasn’t just Christians who were turned off by Gillette’s politically correct hectoring. The ad was brutally panned within hours of airing, and I was curious how much money Procter & Gamble was prepared to lose to make the ideological point it was pushing. Well, now we know.