Jesus Is Not a Wimp

Jesus is not a wimp and He doesn't want you to be one, either.

Anyone who studies what the Bible actually says about Jesus, especially when considering cultural/historical context, can see Jesus is anything but soft. Compassionate to those who humbled themselves? Yes. But "soft" does not apply to someone who confronted the corrupt powers of the day (not just the religious ones, either... He publicly called a secular leader a "fox" and that was NOT a good thing), overturned tables, and chased powerful people with whips.

He chose to be born into a family that did carpentry, knowing, of course, how He'd be killed, which meant He worked day in and day out with wood and nails, knowing that He was going to be nailed to a cross.

He knew He would endure lifelong taunts about being a mamzer.

A wimp would have invoked the powers at his disposal to dispense with the people who opposed him, but Jesus endured.

He does not call on us to be wimps.

"Let he who is without sin..." is not a call to abandon discernment.

"Judge not..." is a call to avoid judging hypocritically or self-righteously, not a command to to abandon sense.

"Turn the other cheek..." is not a call to pacifism or to accept abuse, but rather to let insults roll off your back, as He did. That is made clear with His instructions to the disciples to get swords for protection.

Aslan is not a tame lion.

Is It Time For Churches to Ignore State "Marriage" Licenses?

I'm bumping up this old entry. I should probably write a new version soon.



As marriage neutering activists have tied up courts across the country and shoehorned their talking points into television shows and other media, some members of the clergy have said they don't mind or even support the neutering of state licenses, because according to them, state marriage licenses have nothing to do with church wedding ceremonies. I have suspected that most clergy making such statements are either full of dung (hey, that’s Biblically appropriate language) or haven't thought through what they’re saying.

How could it be tested?

What it would take is for a couple to approach a such member of the clergy and ask to get married by that person in his or her church. If the clergy agrees, the couple could then explain that this would not be a legally recognized marriage as they would not have a state marriage license, because both of them are still legally married to other people. Those marriages were performed at a county office, by a non-clergy officiant, and that they both consider those marriages dead, perhaps because of infidelity on the part of their partners (a Biblical justification to divorce).

Would the clergy still perform the wedding? If not, then they were not being honest or coherent in their statements that state licenses are a separate matter. If they would perform the wedding, then at least they would be consistent.

What is marriage, according to the Bible?

A Wall Separates Both Sides

Marriage has been the basic building block of communities and society, uniting both sexes in a cooperative unit, usually producing and and raising the next generation with a parent of each of the two sexes.

Marriage is presented in the Bible as a powerful metaphor for God and His people, Christ and the Church. Literally from the first book of the Bible through to the last, marriage is depicted as uniting the sexes, while never portraying as marriage something absent of the participation of both sexes. Theologians who are followers of Christ cite marriage as one of only two or three institutions directly started by God. Even if one does not believe God created marriage, the fact is secular government in general didn't create marriage, and certainly not the government of the United States nor of the states themselves. They have merely described marriage, and put certain limitations (such as monogamy, minimum ages, low level of consanguinity) on the state licensing of marriage. The states have done so because new citizens, who do not consent to the relationships, usually result from marriage, and for the stabilization of family, inheritance, etc.

While I recognize that legislators, or the people directly, can legally vote to neuter state marriage licenses into documents that recognize nonmarriages under the name of description of "marriage", it is immoral for them to do so, as they are usurping something that our "wall of separation" should prevent. Fifteen years ago there was never anything anywhere in the world called "marriage" that lacked one of the sexes. Calling a brideless or groomless pairing a "marriage" is an abuse of the word, along the lines of government declaring that shrimp wrapped in bacon, served on a cheeseburger, is "kosher", or that ham is "vegetarian".

Any church or clergy that refuses to speak out in opposition to the neutering of state marriage licenses, citing the "separation of church and state" should be consistent. In that, I mean that they should never then, having claimed that religious marriage and state marriage are two separate things:

1) Require a state marriage license be involved in order for a marriage to be performed in the church.

2) Consider any congregants or members or staff "married" or not based on the possession, or lack thereof, of a state marriage license. It should be based  solely on whether or not there was a church-recognized religious ceremony and a church-recognized divorce. A man or woman whose legal spouse committed adultery should be free to pursue another spouse and have a marriage ceremony in the church, regardless whether or not the state says he or she is divorced in the first place.

Put up or shut up, all of you churches willing to roll over and bow down to the petulant marriage neutering advocates.

There are many good nonreligious reasons to support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, but even so, one does not surrender his right enumerated in one clause of the First Amendment - the freedom of speech - by exercising a right enumerated in another clause of the very same Amendment - the freedom of religion. Speaking up and voting for marriage on religious grounds is no less valid and legal than demanding and voting for the neutering of marriage on the basis of personal sexual attractions or federal entitlements.

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

How many times have you heard that? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times. Before I get to that, though, I wanted to address another issue raised by this cartoon. I'm not a Roman Catholic. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and we APPLY to jobs. Nuns here have chosen to be part of the Roman Catholic church. If they do not like the policies, teachings, practices, or leadership of the church, they are free to leave. Guess what happens when most people disobey their boss? They get fired. Now, on to the statement that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."

Why is this an issue? Did the Pope all of a sudden one day just start speaking out against homosexuality, or was there something to which he was reacting? Who picked this fight? Does the church send operatives into the middle of meetings of homosexuality advocacy groups to protest and disrupt them? Something to think about.

Saying that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

By the logic being used in this statement, we can also say that Jesus "didn't say anything" about rape, securities fraud, or torturing-for-fun polar bear cubs, either.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

Literally from the first book to the last, the Bible teaches that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage. The implications are inescapable (fornication is wrong, adultery is wrong, homosexual behavior is wrong). Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament – His audience was familiar with the Scriptures – He didn't need to repeat each word of them for them to remain valid and applicable.

Plenty of people don't give a rip what the Bible says, or don't consider Jesus an authority. Christians do, however. There are people who use all sorts of tricks, contortions, and gymnastics to try to present the Bible or just the Jesus of the Bible as neutral or even supportive of homosexual behavior, apparently in a desperate effort to take the air of the tires of Christians who do not bend... er... roll over and let homosexuality advocates go unanswered or homofascists run their lives. Sound Bible reading and study, however, reveals clear teaching about sexual behavior.

I do not think the government should attempt to prevent people from engaging in private homosexual behavior. Everyone should have their personal rights protected. Churches should be free to continue to teach the Biblical view of sexuality. These are matters of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

For more:

Answering the Gay Christian Position

http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-christian-position

Christianity and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-and-homosexuality

The Bible and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

A Tough Standard For Human Behavior

The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes. These things are taught throughout Scripture, as something that applies to all people at all times, rather than something that applies to a specific group of people or for a specific period of time. This has many implications for human sexuality, at least for those who strive to follow Him.

Just one of the implications is that engaging in sex-like behavior with someone of the same sex is sinful.

For years, homosexuality advocates have taken the "don't believe the Bible" approach or "the Bible is outdated" approach for trying to reconcile homosexual behavior with Christianity, or at least neutralize Christian opposition to homosexual behavior.

Lately, homosexuality advocates have tried to say that the Bible doesn't really teach that homosexual behavior is sinful.

As wiser people than me noted even before the Internet came into general public use, a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth can get its boots on.

As such, refuting some of the recent attacks on the traditional understanding of Biblical teachings on sexuality can take a long time. With that, I point you to this:

“Gay Christianity” Refuted!

The complete response to Matthew Vines is now available as a single program. Yes its five hours and nine minutes long, (72meg in size), but the world needs to hear this message. We believe this so much that we have decided to make this publicly available to be distributed for free. Share it with your friends and relatives. We’ve titled it “Gay Christianity” Refuted and only ask that you not change it or sell it. All fair use rules apply for criticism too.

You can play it here or right click and download it. All that we ask is that if you are edified by it please consider supporting this work on a regular basis. There is more where that came from Lord willing.

"Gay Christianity" Refuted by James White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Based on a work at aomin.org.

Good churches will welcome people who have identified themselves as homosexuals. However, a good church will not abandon the Biblical standard for human sexuality for the sake of the feelings of anyone who wants to engage in sex or sex-like behavior with someone who isn't their spouse in the Biblical sense.

 

I listened to the entire file of James White utterly refuting what Matthew Vines taught. Vines repeatedly appealed to emotion, and that might be effective for people who do not think critically and do not have a good understanding of the Bible, but it doesn't make what Matthew Vines taught true. It isn't.

 

Sex is for marriage. Marriage unites the sexes. That is the consistent Biblical teaching.

 

I find it interesting that people who claim:

 

1) To follow Jesus Christ as omniscient & omnipotent Lord and Savior

2) Being "gay" is a God-ordained, God-created identity, a sexual orientation that is every bit a part of someone and every bit morally neutral as having blue eyes

3) That Christians have unjustly condemned all homosexual behavior based on misreading or erroneously being selective in their application of the Bible

...are unable to point to a single, clear, Bible passage or reliable external source documenting that Jesus cleared up typical misunderstandings or animosity of his day about sexual orientation or same-sex relationships. Surely, an omniscient & omnipotent Jesus could have said something like, "You know, grooms don't have to marry brides. They can marry other grooms, if that is the desire of their heart. This is also very good." And He could have seen to it that it was recorded and preserved in the Bible, and thus prevented all sorts of trouble endured by people.

Instead, Jesus repeatedly affirmed the Scripture and, unlike with other things, is never recorded as having cleared up misconceptions about sex being for marriage and marriage uniting the sexes.

Matthew Vines repeatedly referred to "loving" lifelong monogamous same-sex relationships. By his own logic, he is attacking nonmonogamous people, including many people who identify as "gay Christians", in a way he chastises others for doing in his very message.

There is no way around it, folks. You do have the freedom to not follow Christ. You do not have the authority to change what God has taught about marriage and sexuality. Yeah, that can feel like a bummer sometimes. I didn't always live by the Biblical teaching myself. Plenty of churches would have accepted my fornication. That doesn't make fornication right.

 

UPDATE:

Jesus, Scripture, and the Myth of New Knowledge Arguments about Homosexual Unions
 

(Follow that link to watch at 76 minute video.

 

Dr. Gagnon will address the myth that we have radically new knowledge today about homosexuality that allows us to discount the biblical witness on homosexual practice or to claim its affirmation of loving homosexual relationships. Join FRC as Dr. Gagnon clearly presents a Scriptural perspective on today's most hotly contested moral debate: human sexuality.

Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views; and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality.

Evangelical Christians are Ignorant, Uneducated, and Illogical

Conservative or evangelical Christians are anti-science, stupid, hateful hypocrites. The evangelical community consists of liars and the deluded, mindless followers of the liars who deny science.

That's the message I see day in and day out in everything from Facebook updates from people who are listed as my friends to tweets and television broadcasts from celebrities such as Bill Maher, and so many others.

Consider this recent tweet from actor Michael McKean (@MJMcKean) to film critic Roger Ebert:

RT @ebertchicago Evangelical professors in trouble for doubting Adam and Eve//"evangelical think tank"=priceless!

The idea of an evangelical think tank is funny? I think it is safe to say McKean hasn't bothered to attend a conference of the Evangelical Theological Society or the Evangelical Philosophical Society, or check out Glenn M. Miller's Christian Think Tank.

Now, I might have the same opinions and so rudely state them, complete with sarcasm and derision and mocking of others, if I based my opinions on what I was told by sources with a demonstrable anti-evangelical bias such as the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, on CNN, MSNBC, Leftist books, radio and websites, depictions in primtetime television, and if my main exposure to "evangelicals" consisted of the likes of some of the more showy personalities on TBN.

But to judge evangelicals by watching a few minutes of TBN is like judging all athletes based on watching a few minutes of WWE.

There are serious evangelical thinkers whose work isn't difficult to find.

How many of these people, who do not hesitate to insult and dismiss a significant minority population of the nation*, have ever sat through a single service in an evangelical church? Anyone can listen to services online, though doing so does not allow one to mingle with the people attending the services, so one can still listen to the services while still assuming that everyone in attendance is a freak. How about listening to something from Chuck Swindoll or John MacArthur? How about reading just one issue of First Things, Touchstone, or the Christian Research Journal (go ahead and highlight the factually incorrect statements, the logical fallacies, and the unsubstantiated claims and tweet them)? How many of these people have ever bothered to read or listen to anything by any of the following when addressing what they believe and why, and what it means for how they live:

William Lane Craig
J.P. Moreland
Gary Habermas
Chuck Colson
Francis Beckwith
Greg Koukl
R.C. Sproul
Hugh Hewitt
Nancy Pearcey
Joni Eareckson Tada
Francis Schaffer
Josh McDowell
Frank Turek
Dinesh D'Souza
William Dembski
Hugh Ross
Peter Kreeft
Paul Copan
Max Lucado
N.T. Wright

All of these writers have their critics, of course, but will any of these famous people who so casually shout their disdain for the intellectual capacity of evangelicals please name which one of those listed is or was uneducated, illogical, or stupid? Which of them are hypocrites, hateful, or reject the scientific method as a way of gaining knowledge? Don't merely make assertions based on what someone else tells you; go to the source.

"Evangelical" is certainly not antintellectual, antireason, or antiscience. What makes someone an evangelical Christian? Generally, our beliefs can be boiled down to what is found in these three creeds, and we believe the Bible to be the authority in how to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and be His disciples, we believe in serving others, and we believe in making disciples through proclaiming and defending the Gospel. We don't leave our faith in the pews six and a half days out of the week or only mention it during certain holidays, at our weddings, or at funerals - rather, we try to live by our faith in every aspect of our lives. How does any of that imply we don't think?

I'm an evangelical because of thinking, not because a lack of thinking. The Bible, and the leaders from whom I've learned, have encouraged people to use their minds – to be reasonable and use sound judgment, to discern truth from error; I'm to love God with all of my mind. Christianity is the only major religion that depends on events that either happened in history or they didn't; we are called to believe because those things happened, not to just believe blindly, or because of a feeling.

I have taken comparative religion courses. I graduated from a secular university after attending schools teaching anything but evangelical teachings for my entire formal education. It's not that evangelicals have ignored or irrationally dismissed what our critics have said. I'm barraged with assertions and claims that run counter to my beliefs many times every day, whether in the media or via social networking or anywhere out in public. Every Easter and Christmas season, we can expect another round of television broadcasts and features in periodicals that claim to debunk some core Christian belief or popular Biblical account.

Dear critics and mockers, we hear you and read you constantly. You're unavoidable. We've studied other faith traditions and claims. We have read the arguments of atheists. We've heard your claims of alleged fatal contradictions in the Bible, forgery and plagiarism, your assertion that miracles could never have happened, your claims that the God of the Bible is cruel, evil, or otherwise lacking. We've heard it all, and we'll keep hearing it.

We have thought things through, and we have arrived at a reasonable faith.

I don't automatically think that all Wiccans, Muslisms, observant Jews, people who identify as Christians but not evangelical, secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, New Agers, Buddhists, Hindus, or others are stupid or ignorant, or that they don't think. Why are there so many people like McKean that dismiss evangelicals as thoughtless?

Go ahead, Mr. McKean - why don't you try calling up Greg Koukl while he is doing his radio show, and expose him for the thoughtless man he must be. I'd love to hear that. Better yet, ask to join him in studio. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that evangelicals are not serious, careful thinkers, to do some reading and listening, attend some classes at a school like Biola, or otherwise see what serious evangelicals have to say. You might be a little more respectful, and enjoy some diversity while you're at it.

= = =
*About 40% of Americans have identified as born-again or evangelical Christians. (Anyone who follows the true Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is born-again and a Christian, so the terms are redundant.) And yet how often have we heard that these Christians are just like the Islamofascist terrorists? The mocking of such Christians and their beliefs demonstrates the comparison to be ridiculous and slanderous, as I have yet to see Christians rioting, doing suicide bombings, and doing decapitations on webcams in response to the mocking.

Parting With Bias at the Red Sea

Every once in a while – usually around Christmas, Easter, Passover, or some other Jewish or Christian holiday – we get MSM stories that report that research shows some Biblical miracle can be explained by known natural processes. In this case, it was the parting of the Red Sea - again. This is usually done to promote a book or television show.

What is fascinating is that there is often assumption that God could not have performed a miracle, and no matter what, the conclusion will lead there.

The first way this is exhibited is usually by denying that what the Bible records ever happened in the first place.

But if someone posits a series of conditions that could have possibly happened as a result of natural processes, then that is supposed to mean that the occurrence recorded in the Bible could not have been a miracle of God.

It's heads I win, tails you lose.

It's an atheistic bias.

However, if God exists, He can certainly perform miracles. And if God performs miracles, there's no reason why He can't perform a miracle that has some parallel in nature. People recover from disease, but that doesn't mean that God can't heal someone miraculously. Turning water into wine instantly is a miracle, even though grapevines do the same thing… slowly.

People are certainly free to deny the existence of God, or categorically deny His involvement in history. But let's not deny when an atheistic bias is at work.

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.)  But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

Name Calling and Bible Bashing

Paul has elected to contiue the discussion.

Pauls_View  @pauls_view 
@PlayfulWalrus I have to take up bloggoing. It's unrealistic to reply to your pages of rhetoric with 140 chars...and yes it is rhetoric. 

 

Let's not forget, Paul chose to respond to my tweeting of a link to Matt Barber's column. I prefer blogging because emotion-based bumper sticker slogans may sound nice, but the truth usually requires more substance.

Calling what I write "rhetoric" is not disagreeing with what I wrote or showing where I was in error.

@PlayfulWalrus Your phrase of "neutering marriage" spotlights your bias.

"Neutering marriage" is a more accurate description for what Paul wants than "marriage equality". Brideless or groomless pairings are inherently unequal to marriage, regardless of what state law calls them. Also, unless Paul wants all restrictions on licensing adult relationships lifted, Paul does not support equality the what he claims to. By removing the bride+groom requirement from state licensing, the licenses are being neutered.

When all the gays in the world marry my marriage will be awesome!
I am sorry your marriage and your children's marriages are not capable of handling civil marriage between gays. Mine can!!

I never said my marriage couldn't handle things. What I said was that counterfeiting is harmful. My guess is that Paul would not be happy if Fred Phelps set up a school club and called it a Gay-Straight Alliance. Paul wants to dilute the meaning of the word "marriage". What he wants devalues marriage in general. State licensing is a public matter. This is a public policy matter. We all have to live in the same society, government by the same laws.

@PlayfulWalrus I have a feeling you won't dedicate an hour to an opposing view but an open minded person would: youtube.com/watch?v=4OiDrb…

  I was already aware of that video. People can do all sorts of verbal gymanistics and selective reading to "explain away" every verse of an English language Bible that says anything negative about homosexual behavior. However, that doesn't change the fact that the plain, repetitive teaching of the Bible, literally from the first book to the last, is that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage, regardless of where and when someone is living, regardless of whether they are Jew of Gentile.

Regardless of the Bible, however, resisting the neutering of marriage is about scientific, biological, and sociological facts.

Opposing Fascism Draws Attacks on the Bible

I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber detailing how fascists were going after people for not supporting the neutering of marriage, and I got a response about how the column author was hateful, not about how the column was in error. So I wrote back:

@pauls_view Affirming the Biblical teachings that marriage is bride+groom & sex is for marriage, & resisting fascism is not hateful.

This brought three tweets back from Pauls_View @pauls_view:

@PlayfulWalrus The bible says this about marriage. Can't pick and choose. See picture and versus pic.twitter.com/SkZ4XBwQon

I could write out a long explanation myself, but Alan Shlemon did a great job with these videos responding to stuff like this:

Hank Hanegraaff on Neutering Marriage and Hit & Run Bible Mockers

Hank Hanegraaff, culture warrior, is a longtime husband and father of 12 children. If understand correctly, nine of those children are biological (one of which miscarried) and three are adopted. So, he has a lot of perspective on marriage, family, and parenting. He has a new blog that appears to be intentionally distinct from the ministry he leads. Two recent entries are relevant to the issue of neutering marriage.

The first is "What Are the Inherent Liabilities of [Neutering] Marriage?"

Furthermore, we should underscore the biological reality of sexual reproduction. Every organ in the human body is self-sufficient to perform its intended function except for one. Natural reproduction always, always, always requires a coupling of male and female. As Dr. Jay Richards has well written in the Christian Research Journal, “Marriage protects, reflects, and reinforces this powerful complementary, reproductive part of our natures.” As such, marriage “is a comprehensive union of body, mind, emotion, and soul, a proper end of which is children.”

One need not even cite reproduction. It is a biological fact that men and women are different. All one must do is note that men and women are different and thus the uniting of both sexes is different from other kinds of associations. States are allowed to treat different kinds of associations differently. This is not a religious argument, it is an argument based on basic biological reality that most people understand and live by, with perhaps the exception of a very, very few people, most of whom required many years of brainwashing to arrive at their stated opinion. and unless they are neuterally bisexual, they are hypocrites.

In sum, marriage cannot be reduced to politically correct rhetoric or political whims. It is a matter of natural law. Says Richards, “Rights come from our nature, and our nature comes from God. If you deny that, then you deny the basis of all our other rights.” In the end, redefining marriage strikes a mortal blow to the foundation of a free society.

This is no small matter. because of the flouting of so much other "traditional morality" in having sex and raising children out of wedlock, shacking up, adultery, what I would call elective divorces, and elective abortions, too many people think it won't feel any different if marriage is neutered, and so there is no harm in it. However, the arguments driving the neutering of marriage undermine the very foundation of our rights, making them nothing more than things doled out by whomever is currently in office. In gaining the "right" to get a state license without a bride or without a groom (which is not just limited to homosexual people - anyone can access this "right" just as homosexual individuals can access bride+groom licenses), all rights are being weakend.

Hanegraaff's entry offers:

See also Jay W. Richards, “To Defend Marriage, We Should Learn a Lesson from Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, 2012.

Bible Answer Man interview with Jay W. Richards, “What is marriage?”
http://www.equip.org/audio/hank-hanegraaff-with-special-guest-jay-w-richards/

The second entry is "Can Christians Only 'Thump the Bible' On the Issue of [Neutering] Marriage Legislation?"

When the Bible is being denigrated, mocked, disdained, as sarcasm drip from the lips of political pundits and public personalities, we must take a stand, because the lives of multiplied millions literally hang in the balance.

He takes Bill O’Reilly and Lawrence O'Donnell to task.

In reality, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is himself a “thumper;” a “thumper” who has taken the Bible out of context and used it as a pretext for his own idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism. To anachronistically rip a narrative out of its Ancient Near Eastern context and then use it as a demonstration of the superiority of modern pluralist assumptions, I think is at best misguided. And to read anachronistic modern meanings into an Ancient Near Eastern context is hardly enlightened. Instead of reading anachronistic prejudices into the text of the Bible, O’Donnell would have been well-served to read the Bible synergistically. One can no more read New World realities into Ancient Near Eastern legalities than read Torah legalities into New Covenant realities. He cannot comprehend the Bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages. And He cannot comprehend its individual passages apart from, well, comprehending the Bible as a whole.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s bigotry has done a grave injustice to the majesty of the most significant book in the history of Western civilization. If indeed, O’Donnell had an adequate understanding of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism, he would not have been so cavalier in his diatribe against Old Testament Jewish jurisprudence. Because complex codes regarding the propriety of human relationships are hardly reducible to superficial sound bites like those emanating from his mouth.

That's just a taste of the two entries.

Is It the End of the World As We Know It?

And do we feel fine?

Seriously, Obama was re-elected, there's a push for more gun control, the Pope has announced his resignation, and the Kardashians are all over television. These and other current events are being cited by some of my Christian brothers and sisters as signs that soon, true believers will disappear from the planet, a one-world government will form led by a man who is the Antichrist, a deal will be made with the present-day secularized nation of Israel, and later war will be waged against said nation, and after seven years of very bad things, Jesus Christ will return to reign as King for an actual calendar 1,000 years, and after some other stuff happens, then we'll get a New Heaven and New Earth.

Full disclosure: The only things I'm convinced about when it comes to the future are:

1) Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will physically return in power and glory to judge everyone.
2) We'll have a "new Heaven and new Earth" where the problems of sin, sickness, death, deterioration, and decay will be done away with.
3) Those who are in Christ will have glorified, imperishable bodies and will fellowship with Him.
4) Those unrepentant, unredeemed sinners who do not have Jesus Christ as their Lord will suffer apart from that fellowship.

I know premillenniallism with a pre-Tribulational Rapture is very popular view of the future now, depicted in the extremely popular Left Behind series and promoted by Hal Lindsey and many other popular Christian writers/television preachers (and somewhat in "The Omen" series of feature movies), but in current form, it doesn't go all that far back in church history. That doesn't make it wrong, but I'm not convinced it is right, nor am I convinced any form of post-millennialism or "amillennialism" or "partial preterism" is right; some say everything prophesied in the Bible except for the four things I listed above were fulfilled in the first century and nothing else has to happen before "the end of the world" and judgment for all. For anyone who IS certain that their eschatalogical view is right, well, fine... but the experts thought they knew exactly how things were going to be the first time Messiah came around, and most of them were wrong. I don't know with certainty which view is right, other than the four things I listed, on which all views agree.

Please understand that my only dog in this fight is the truth, and glorifying Jesus Christ, and communicating the Gospel to the world. I do not think it glofires Christ to set dates for His return, try to pin the tail on the Antichrist, or decry new technologies as "the Mark of the Beast". If Jesus Christ is your Lord & Savior and you are His follower and you refuse to deny Him, you already HAVE the mark of The Lamb and no chip or bar code or triple digit number is going to pry you from the Holy Spirit.

I don't see why the partial-preterists AND the furists can't BOTH be right. Why can't Nero be considered an Antichrist and why can't we still have another one to come? Why can't events in the first century be seen as a Great Tribulation and yet we still will have a Great Tribulation in the future? It would not be the first time that prophecy had more than one fulfillment. The Bible is full of repeating types and shadows and things that had a valid meaning intended for the original audience as well as a later audience.

I'm not convinced the USA must terminally decline NOR that our Lord has made any promise to preserve the USA. I oppose world government because I support limited government and competition. I support Israel for political reasons, in so far as the actions of the government are just. I live like today could be the end (because it could be... for any one of us, if not for the whole world), but I plan as though I'm going to live this life into the triple digits and that my kids will have to live on after me, and that we could face some very rough times along the way. I work to make life better - if it will get worse, so be it, but it won't be because I threw up my hands and gave up. As long as I'm clinging to Jesus, I will go where He goes, when He goes there.

Please, please, please... plan like you and your children and grandchildren will live long lives in this world, because there's no guarantee things will change sooner rather than later, and be spiritually prepared for this to be your last day of this life, because it just may be. We, as individuals and as the world, are not guaranteed another day. I focus on God like today could be my last day of this life – because it could be, even if it is the end of my life but not the end of the world. But I also need to plan and work as though I’ll have to take care of myself and my family for the rest of the century. I have thrown myself on His mercy, because I have sinned against Him. I look to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, recognizing that He paid for my sins on the cross.

God Doesn't Lead By Polls

The Los Angeles Times ran a commentary, as the paper is prone to do, in which someone warned that churches need to stop teaching the Bible if they want to stay relevant. This one was written by Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, and David E. Campbell, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, the  authors of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.

The most rapidly growing religious category today is composed of those Americans who say they have no religious affiliation.

Well, yeah. When 95% of a group identifies as either A, B, C, or D, then the 5% who identify as E will grow 100% if it numbers switch to 90%-10%.

While middle-aged and older Americans continue to embrace organized religion, rapidly increasing numbers of young people are rejecting it.

Guess what? Young people tend to get older. They tend to get married and have kids, and get more serious about religious identity.

As recently as 1990, all but 7% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17% of Americans say they have no religion, and these new "nones" are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990.

So 83% claim an affiliation. If 83% of scientists say they believe in manmade global warming, if 83% of voters were to say they support abortion-on-demand being legal and taxpayer funded, if 83% of voters were in favor of neutering state marriage licensing, it would be call an "overwhelming majority" and dissenters would be portrayed as crackpots. Perhaps people in the past who claimed an affiliation were not regular churchgoers or people who practiced a religion, and young people are refusing to pick an affiliation out of honesty?

So, why this sudden jump in youthful disaffection from organized religion?

Assuming the premise of your question is true… it might have something to do with the rabid militarism of secular humanism or moral relativism in the public square and public institutions.

The surprising answer, according to a mounting body of evidence, is politics.

Here's where they get to the point of their commentary, which is to tell us that we should stop taking religion seriously when deciding which political issues are important to us and how we vote.

Very few of these new "nones" actually call themselves atheists, and many have rather conventional beliefs about God and theology. But they have been alienated from organized religion by its increasingly conservative politics.

Organized religion is hardly getting more conservative politically. It is that the Leftists are finding it harder to move the country Leftward.

During the 1980s, the public face of American religion turned sharply right.

What happened was that people woke up and realized that staying out of politics and letting the elitists, ivory tower hermits, and hedonists run everything was becoming a huge problem.

Political allegiances and religious observance became more closely aligned, and both religion and politics became more polarized.

Politicians are more likely to be seen speaking in liberal churches.

Abortion and homosexuality became more prominent issues on the national political agenda, and activists such as Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed began looking to expand religious activism into electoral politics.

Why don't these commentaries every bring up Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.?

Church attendance gradually became the primary dividing line between Republicans and Democrats in national elections.

Yes, Democrats should really get to church more often.

Some Americans brought their religion and their politics into alignment by adjusting their political views to their religious faith. But, surprisingly, more of them adjusted their religion to fit their politics.

You mean the liberal churches, who abandon the Bible in favor of political correctness?

But a majority of the Millennial generation was liberal on most social issues, and above all, on homosexuality. The fraction of twentysomethings who said that homosexual relations were "always" or "almost always" wrong plummeted from about 75% in 1990 to about 40% in 2008.

Gee, I can't imagine why, given what they are bombarded with the media and academia.

If being religious entailed political conservatism, they concluded, religion was not for them.

Religion is good as a social club and motivational exercise, but when the logical application of religious teachings means not forcing other people to pay your way through life and saving sex for marriage, well, that's just too much.

Continuing to sound the trumpet for conservative social policy on issues such as homosexuality may or may not be the right thing to do from a theological point of view, but it is likely to mean saving fewer souls.

From a Christian perspective, you are not saving souls at all if people don't have Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He's not Lord if you don't let Him lead when it comes to sexuality.

More likely is that as growing numbers of young Americans reject religious doctrine that is too political or intolerant for their taste, innovative religious leaders will concoct more palatable offerings.

This has been going on since the beginning of time. People want to mold God in their image, rather than being transformed to following the will of God. There are plenty of churches that cater to the former, and they are the ones who are dying. Bible-teaching churches, like my own, are growing. You think I like everything in every sermon? Nope. It would feel great to have the minister say that everything I'm doing is okay and I don't need to change a thing about how I live my life. But the minister would be lying.

The Gospel is offensive, because it requires that people recognize they are sinners that there is a Lord and His way is the only right way. I agree that we need to be gentle and respectful and relevant when presenting the Gospel and making disciples and ministering to the needy, but there is no compromising when it comes to the truth.

Previously [Townhall links might not work]:

Losing Their Religion
Evangelical Collapse
Are You Ready For Post-Christian America?
Steamed Rice
On the Manhattan Declaration
On Jesus, the Bible, and the Religious Right

Fauxmentum and Poll Dancing in Churches

Greg Koukl did an awesome job dealing with two news articles from a few weeks back about the issues of marriage neutering and general homosexuality advocacy in churches in general and the PCUSA specifically, dealing with issues which I have referred to as fauxmentum and poll dancing. You can download this MP3 of his broadcast, at least for the time being. If you can't, you might need to register with his site at STR.org or depending on when you're reading this (if many months later), it might be too late. The portions of the podcast to which I'm referring are from 0-18 minutes, and 56 minutes to 1 hour and 16 minutes.

Although Koukl does offer nonreligious arguments for marriage as uniting a bride and groom, his comments are being offered this time in relation to church matters. If you don't personally care what the Bible says or do not consider the Bible an authority, this won't be relevant to you.

Pro-Abortion Newspaper Prints Bad Pro-Abortion Letters

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters responding to the paper's piece on Mississippi's "antiabortion" bill. They didn't get letters better than this?

One need not read the Bible to understand that life begins at conception, and thus a "fertilized egg" is a human being in the zygote stage of development. The same human being, allowed to live, will go on to go through the embryonic, fetal, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. stages. Still, Sandy Smith of Los Angeles brought up this tired old line of reasoning.

I don't know what Bible the folks in Mississippi are reading, but it's not one I'm familiar with.

The New Testament has no references at all to a fetus, but the Old Testament is very specific. If a man kills another man, he must pay with his life; if he kills an animal, he must offer restitution. But, according to Exodus 21:22: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." A fetus was considered potential property.

I could pick this all apart, but this has already been covered many places, including here and here. I'm always bemused by these Leftist types who read Leftist materials about the Bible and think people who take the Bible seriously have never considered these things.

S.G. Mann of Huntington Beach writes:

Perhaps the voters in Mississippi should Google Sherri Finkbine.

In 1962, Finkbine discovered that the drug she had been taking for her morning sickness was thalidomide, which causes severe fetal deformities. No hospital would perform the abortion she sought. The Arizona Supreme Court denied her petition.

Finkbine flew to Sweden to receive a therapeutic abortion. The fetus would have been born with no legs and only one arm.

Oh my gosh! NO LEGS AND ONLY ONE ARM! Well, I guess being murdered is preferable to a life without legs and with only one arm? Just ask the millions of living people who are in that exact situation, most of whom have been living lives of significance with many moments of happiness and joy. I'm sure if Mann approached them and offered to hack them into bits and vacuum them into a sink, they’d say, "Yes, please!"

The same faction that claims it wants government "off their backs" wants to intrude on other people's most sensitive decisions.

Those of us who believe in liberty, limited government, and the inherent rights of individual human beings recognize that innocent human beings who are not posing a threat to anyone else should have their lives protected, by government, from those who would murder them. Where is the inconsistency?

And the Mocking of Perry's Faith Begins

Philip Brimble of Los Angeles thought he was being so clever when he wrote in to the Los Angeles Times in reaction to Rick Perry's public prayer:

For Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his very public political pray-in: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

The problem for Brimble is that Jesus, the source of those words, prayed in public. Jesus was making a statement of those who loudly made personal prayers in public as a show; he clearly wasn't prohibiting all public prayer, such as corporate prayer. Context, context, context.

From GotQuestions.org:

In Matthew 6:5-7, Jesus gives two ways to ensure that our prayers are righteous. First, prayers should not be for the purpose of being seen by others as righteous or “spiritual.” Secondly, prayers should be authentic, as from the heart, and not just vain repetition or “empty phrases.” However, when compared with other Scriptures that show people praying in public, we know that this is not an exhortation to always pray alone. The issue is to avoid sin. Those who struggle with the desire to be seen as righteous and who notice that temptation creeping in during public prayer would do well to heed Jesus’ prescription to get alone and pray just to the Father who will reward in secret. Jesus knew that the Pharisees’ desire was to be seen by men as righteous, not really to talk to God. This statement about prayer was meant to convict, and is instructive for all Christians, but it does not mean that all prayer must be secret.

See the rest of what's at the link for some context.

Previously: Hit and Run Bible Mockers

From Stand to Reason: "Never Read a Bible Verse"

Based on recent history, it isn't the evangelical Christian politicians that should frighten people. It is the atheists. Atheistic rulers killed hundreds of millions of people in the previous century alone.

The Cafeteria Plan of Bible Study

Bob Doud of Glendale wrote in to the Los Angeles Times about the printed opinions on the PCUSA's recent move.

I applaud the decision of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. to allow openly gay and lesbian members to become ordained ministers.

Again, this is not what happened, because that was already going on. What the PCUSA decided to do was to let ministers engage in fornication, whether homosexual or heterosexual, openly and unrepentantly.

I am heartened at the ability of people devoted to the Bible to be able to find in it the deeper meaning of biblical love, justice and dignity. They did this against the grain of less important but more explicit and time-conditioned condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible.

They show that our understanding of the Bible grows through time and experience under divine influence.

So Bob apparently thinks God would put together the entire Bible, which from the first book to the last teaches that for all people, sex is something to be reserved for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes, then God would preserve that Bible through persecution and over thousands of years, and then God would later want us to figure out that we are now supposed to ignore that teaching.

I wonder what other "more explicit" teachings of the Bible "God" will lead us to abandon in the future. Love thy neighbor? Love your wife as Christ loves the Church?

Still More PCUSA Fallout in Los Angeles Times

There's been more opinion printed in the Los Angeles Times about the PCUSA's rejection of Biblical authority, specifically to allow the ordination and continuing leadership of individuals openly and unrepentantly engaging in fornication, including homosexual behavior. Of course, the homosexual aspect is what gets all of the attention.

There were some letters printed. Geoffrey Cushing-Murray of Studio City hits the nail on the head:

I'm not taking sides here because I couldn't care less what the venerable Presbyterians do, but you seem to be saying that eventually God will come around to see things your way. I'm not sure that's how it works.

And then there's this commentary by the Rev. Randall Tremba, "minister of word and sacrament at Shepherdstown Presbyterian Church" in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Isn't it nice that the paper prints things from ministers? It restates the false implication that the PCUSA, up until this recent action, denied homosexual people ordination. It is clear to me that homosexuality advocates want to practice sleight of hand when it comes to interchanging homosexual behavior with homosexual feelings or identity, with the implication that someone with homosexual feelings, who they claim have as much of a distinct identity as males, females, Asians, or Latinos, can't help but engage in homosexual behavior, though I doubt they'd say that all Asians must engage in certain behaviors that make them distinct from others.

In taking this action, I believe our church moved a step forward and brought itself closer in line with Christ's all-embracing love.

Based on what? He doesn't say, so I'm left to guess if he means to say Christ must surely see things Randall's way.

But it's not a step all Presbyterians welcome. I know this because for years, I was on the other side.

What changed Randall’s mind? Studying the Bible or church history? No! An emotional experience.

In 1976, I was installed as minister for the Shepherdstown Presbyterian Church in West Virginia. I became acquainted with several gay and lesbian members of the congregation. As it turns out, they were not just faithful members of the church; their lives were exemplary.

Would someone be a faithful, exemplary member of a vegan organization if they were eating beef most nights of the week, and ignored the conflict?

As a longtime evangelical, I had studied the Bible extensively. But after arriving in Shepherdstown, I slowly began to see Scripture in a new, more inclusive way.

...based on emotional experiences.

He goes on to write about one woman in particular, who was engaging in homosexual behavior with another woman. What if she generally denied the existence of God? Would this guy now be writing about how important it is to let good, open atheists serve in positions of leadership in the PCUSA?

When we came back together, each elder spoke. Some spoke for ordination, and some against. We listened to each other and then took a 20-minute recess to be alone, to pray for guidance.

Praying for guidance is something you should do when the Person to whom you are praying hasn’t already made Himself clear in His written word.

We came out of it feeling that our decision was indeed a celebration of God's infinite love.

Yeah, people have all sorts of feelings that defy reason, logic, and reality, or go against duty. What about a group the comes out of a parallel situation feeling great in their decision to deny ordination and position to someone engaging in homosexual behavior? Would you say that there decision was equalliy valid, based on how they felt? Or what do you say to the teenager who is fornicating with his girlfriend, and they both feel just great about it? I don't always feeling like taking care of my family with my earnings; should I spend my earnings on, say, selfish items that will make me feel good? I follow Jesus Christ based on the evidence that He exists and demonstrated He is God, not based on whether or not thinking of him gives me the warm fuzzies. The Bible calls on followers of Christ to follow Him not just with all of the heart, but their mind, too.

Yes, a few members left. But many estranged believers and formerly "un-churched" people have walked through the door.

What good is going to a "Christian" church that denies the authority of Christ? There are other charities or clubs to join, other places to hear motivational speeches or music. This is like saying a university that does not educate is swelling with admissions. So what?

The church's action last week recognized an important teaching from the book of Galatians: "We are all one in Jesus Christ."

Context, context, context. Pray tell, what couldn't you use that out-of-context verse to justify?

P-Funk at 3:51 PM May 15, 2011 has a great question:

Why do gay apologists feel it necessary to include the phrases "long-term" and "committed" when describing the relationships of gays for whom they're advocating? The inference is that "short term" and "casual" relationships are positionally inferior.

That would be hateful, wouldn't it?

False Prophets Destroy Christian Credibility

Some professing Christians do so much to give others one more excuse to mock God. Something I've known about for a while now is now making the rounds in MSM, giving Christendom a back eye. Tom Breen of the Associated Press reported a while on those who are setting dates for the "end of the world".

If there had been time, Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than six months left, which she'll spend spreading a stark warning: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011.

How is Marie going to feel when she realizes she made major life decisions based on false prophecies?

In August, Exley left her home in Colorado Springs, Colo., to work with Oakland, Calif.-based Family Radio Worldwide, the independent Christian ministry whose leader, Harold Camping, has calculated the May 21 date based on his reading of the Bible.

Yes, and Harold Camping also wrote a book that claimed that 1994 was going to be the year. Look it up. If we were living in a certain time and place, Camping would have been stoned to death as a false prophet. Instead, dupes send him money.

Camping, 89, believes the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled.

The Bible documents God's love for us, and teaches us how to have fellowship with God. It isn't there so we will guess about the dates of future events.

The retired civil engineer said all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible, but that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said.

Camping and everyone who believes this should be willing to sign a legal document right now that transfers ownership of all of their worldly possessions as of May 22, 2011 to those who don’t believe this.

The doctrine known as the Rapture teaches that believers will be taken up to heaven, while everyone else will remain on earth for a period of torment, concluding with the end of time. Camping believes that will happen in October.

The doctrine of pretribulational premillennialism (on which the Left Behind series is based) is just one of many models to explain what the future holds. The non-negotiable in orthodox Christian doctrine is that things will not continue as they are now – Jesus Christ will return in visible, bodily form, bringing judgment and an end to this age. Some people are going to have eternal life in fellowship with Him, and others will spend eternity without that fellowship. Other than that, some Christians believe nothing else has to happen before that moment arrives, others think there is going to a special future Tribulation period, and some of those people believe that also believe that Christians will be taken away at the beginning of that period, to return later with Christ.

One important thing is that the Bible teaches nobody knows the day or the hour. Camping tries to get around this, but there is no getting around it.

"If May 21 passes and I'm still here, that means I wasn't saved. Does that mean God's word is inaccurate or untrue? Not at all," Warden said.

Think of how many people are going to be disillusioned. It has happened may times before.

The Book of Revelation, which comes last in the New Testament, describes this conclusion in vivid language that has inspired Christians for centuries.

Some Christians believe that the book, except for the last couple of chapters, is more about what was going on in the first century Church and what the Church was facing in the coming years.

For me, the bottom line is to focus on God like today could be my last day of this life – because it could be, even if it is the end of my life but not the end of the world. But I also need to plan and work as though I’ll have to take care of myself and my family for the rest of the century. I have thrown myself on His mercy, because I have sinned against Him. I look to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, recognizing that He paid for my sins on the cross.

For intelligent Christian teaching and analysis that isn't alarmist nor based on false prophecies, I recommend these websites, among others. And not all of these websites agree on everything, by the way:

Stand to Reason
Christian Think Tank
Please Convince Me
J.P. Moreland
William Lane Craig
Walter Martin
Christian Research Institute
Reasons to Believe
R.C. Sproul
Norm Geisler
Answers in Action

If Friday Was Good, Sunday Was Spectacular

A carpenter, with questionable parentage, from an unremarkable town, walked the countryside. He attracted followers, keeping twelve with him and three of those especially close as he spoke to groups large and small. He was part of an oppressed group - a Jew in a Roman-occupied part of the world. He said and did things that confounded the dominant religious authorities of the day. People flocked to him for a miracle. There was something he claimed that was outrageous to his fellow Jews: He was God. Arrogance? Insanity? Fraud? From a man who urged people to forgive each other and love each other?

For thousands of years, it had been pounded into the minds and hearts of the Jews that there was ONE God and that He was spirit, not an idol that could be kept in a room. He was a unique, personal being, not a "force" or something we call could be or have if we meditated enough.

And yet here was a Jew, this guy who was extremely familiar with the scriptures – including the ones that said there was just one God - walking around claiming to be God. He wasn't part of the recognized system of priests and religious leaders, so he posed a threat to them and their comfortable, established way of doing things. This guy even had the nerve to disrupt their moneymaking schemes.

Enough was enough!

They handed this guy over to the Romans and demanded that he be executed. He was a threat to the religious leaders, and since he'd claimed to be a king, he must be a threat to the Romans, too. Furthermore, anyone claiming to God was being blasphemous, right? The Roman leader, while spooked a little, didn't find anything wrong with the man, especially after the man explained that his kingdom wasn't of this world. Yet the Romans needed to keep order, and people were demanding that this "king" die. The "king" was taken and scourged - whipped so brutally that his skin was shredded. That wasn't enough. The people wanted this "king" to die. And so this carpenter, who had worked with wood for years to make useful things for other people, was forced to carry the very wood he'd be nailed to so that he could hang on a cross bleeding and losing his ability to breathe.

This man who'd preached loved and forgiveness, who had urged people to turn from their sins, who had healed the sick, who had done some controversial things but never anything wrong, was beaten and executed, all in excruciating pain.

That was what we now call "Good" Friday.

If that was all that happened, most of us would never have heard of Good Friday. Someone may have mentioned this carpenter in an obscure list of Jews who claimed to the Messiah, but most of us would never have heard of this Nazarene.

But it wasn't all that happened.

On Sunday morning, once the holy days and feasts were over, some people who loved this carpenter were returning to care for his body as a final sign of respect.

The body was gone, though. Nobody ever found the body. To their shock, this Jesus, who had been scourged and killed, was alive and well - very well - though he still had the holes in his hands from the nails and the hole in his side where a spear had shoved into him to make sure he was dead. He talked with them, they embraced him, they felt him, they ate with him. He'd come and go as he pleased over the next several weeks. Finally, having done what he'd set out to do, he was taken away in a "cloud"... probably a description of what appeared to be a blindingly bright light.

Because of that Sunday when Jesus was first seen alive after being killed, we now have Good Friday. Why is Friday "Good"?

It is no coincidence that Jesus was executed during the Passover season (the Last Supper was a Passover Seder). Many years before, when the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, there was a night when they slaughtered lambs "without defect" and placed the blood of a lamb on their doorways. Overnight, when the Lord passed through Egypt with righteous judgment, the firstborn of every household was struck down - but the Lord "passed over" the homes with the blood. The Jews were subsequently freed from their slavery.

ohn the Baptist referred to Jesus as "the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world." Jesus was the ultimate Passover Lamb "without defect" who shed his blood to free all of us from our enslavement to sin. That Friday was Good because it is the day that our sins against God were paid for... by someone other than us!

But that Sunday...

We've all dealt with death in our lives. We've all had loved ones that have died. Thousands of years of recorded history tell us that dead people stay dead.

Yet this miracle-working carpenter was seen alive after his death. People touched him, talked with him, ate with him. They stuck their fingers in his wounds.

Being modern people, we are understandably skeptical of this. We don't have video proof. But what we do have is history, and the testimony of those who were there. Good Friday had left the followers of Jesus afraid and feeling defeated. They had shown themselves to be cowardly, and their leader was dead.

If Easter (Resurrection) Sunday did not happen, how did such people go on to change the world? Unless they actually encountered a resurrected Jesus, these people would have no reason to face ostracism and martyrdom to proclaim that resurrection and spread the teachings of Jesus. It is easy to deny the truth to save your life. Would people be willing to give up everything they had and die for something they knew to be a lie? No way!

So what does this all mean for me today? It means that I have a way to be right with God, because even though I have done things against Him, Good Friday was the day that those sins were paid for. I am forgiven. I also have someone who is my friend, my advocate, someone who knows what it is like to live life on Earth and knows what it is like to feel pain, suffer loss, and to die. And that Someone has promised me that if I follow Him, everything will be okay. Death is not the end. He has conquered death, and someday death, pain, and sorrow will be taken away from me. He has backed up His "blasphemous claims" with action, showing them not to be blasphemous at all.

He doesn't want me to cut the heads off of people just because they don't believe in Him. He doesn't want me to fly airliners into skyscrapers to kill people going about their lives. He wants me to do things like love others and take care of the needs of others. This is why so many have built hospitals, universities, and charities in His name.

It isn't about going to church regularly. It isn't about trying to convince people that my life is perfect. It isn't about making sure I can retire wealthy. It isn't about getting everyone else to see things the way I do. It isn't even about keeping a checklist of rules and sticking to that checklist. It isn't about "getting it right" on my own before I can approach God, because that will never happen.

It IS about having a peace with God, knowing that He forgives the horrible things I've done and may yet still do if I simply ask Him to. It is about having fellowship with that Nazarene who rose from the grave and still lives, because He deserves my allegiance and because He did life right.

There are people who believe that everything is an accident, a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. Sunsets. Surf. Waterfalls. Roses. Redwood trees. Chocolate. Wine. Galaxies. Eagles. Puppies. Kittens. Sex. Newborn babies. Those are all accidents? I don't think so. All of the complexity in the cells of our own bodies, all of the symbiotic systems of the natural world, where organisms depend on each other for survival. Those all "just happened"? I don't think so. The world is beautiful and amazing, and it is not accidental or inconsequential that a Jew who was without sin and claimed to be God suffered and died at Passover and then rose from the dead.

Yes, there is something broken about the world, as evidenced by all of the suffering. But the fix is in. The victory was demonstrated almost 2000 years ago. I can't ignore that. That has to have an impact in my life, how I view life, and how I live life. My Lord humbled Himself, suffered and died for me. And then, He beat death, and someday, He's going to kick death - and its parent, sin - down the stairs, and shut the door on them. The world won't be broken anymore. I can't know everything about what the future will bring, but as long as I'm holding on to Him, I'll be in the best company there is. And since I love Him, as long as I'm around, I should seek to love others, meet their needs, and follow His lead.

May you have a Joyous Resurrection Sunday.