Why Wait? Reflecting on the Christian's Call to Sexual Purity.

 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.  It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,  while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,  who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. -- Titus 2:11-14

 There was a point in my life where I understood it would never be worth it to have sex outside of marriage.

  I have never been to a “True Love Waits” conference or heard a sermon or youth group lesson on the importance of sexual purity.

  I have never sat in on a health class detailing all of the horrible diseases I could get by sleeping around, nor was I shamed into chastity by my parents.

  Though my heart breaks to hear stories of emotional baggage and scars brought into relationships due to extra-marital sex, that wasn't what moved me to solidify me commitment to sexual purity.

  And I wasn't won over by the claim that Christians who wait have the best sex.

  Comforting though it may be to believe that every person who has sex outside of marriage is a broken, emotionally scarred, STD ridden, degenerate doomed to a life of bad sex, it isn't the full truth.

  There was no magic formula involved, no knock-down, drag-out argument; no shame or scare tactics.

   I simply realized that a moment of passion would never be worth taking from me the one thing that so many believers crave to see from their fellow Christians, the same thing that the world is totally convinced that the Church doesn't have: authenticity.

  I don't want a faith that goes this far and no farther.

  I don't want a faith that moves me to read my Bible, but not obey what it says.

  I don't want a faith that tickles my brain, but cannot move my hands and feet to flee from sin.

  I want an authentic faith: a faith that works.

  If a burning desire to see our faith and trust in Jesus Christ lived out daily to God's glory, so that others might see us and turn and glorify Him does not under-gird our sexual ethos, we will not be moved remain sexually pure or else we will do it for the wrong reasons, such as shame and fear.

  On the opposite end of the spectrum, a chorus of post-conservative evangelicals seem to want remove from sexual sin, especially extra-marital sex, the fact of its dishonorableness (1 Corinthians 6:18-20), defilement (Hebrews 13:4), and carnality (Colossians 3:5).

  One author writes

“...I’m done with virginity....Virginity is just another way that people in power talk about who’s in and who’s out of favor with Church, that we set up winners and losers in a Kingdom supposedly of equals. It’s just another way we try to make God like us more than other people.”

 While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment behind this statement, I have to say that it's horribly naïve.

  If you pretend that something doesn't exist does it go away?
      If you act like a word or concept has no meaning does it make it so?
 

    Rather than waging a war of words or trying to scare people into "waiting", let's focus on distinguishing the nature and consequence of sin from our primary motivation for not sinning (ie: our Christian faith).
  I maintain that if our disgust with our own sin is not rooted in our unabated love for God, not only will we have lost our best and surest motivation for holy living, we will have set ourselves up for a shallow faith that any non-Christian will see right through.
 

    We must strive to live for God, surrendering our whole wills to Him, “beating our bodies” for the cause of Christ, and all the rest will follow.

Answering an Atheist Objection to Prayer.

 

  The formula for the classic straw-man attack is twofold: start with a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of your opponent's position and then lay into that "straw-man" with everything you have.

    And, as far as I'm concerned, no religious practice has been the object of more uncritical, simpleminded straw-man attacks than that of prayer.

  A typical atheist attack on prayer goes something like this:

       (P1.) -- The Bible says that if you pray for something with faith and sincerity, you'll receive whatever you ask for. (Matt. 7:7, 17:20, 18:19, 21:21; Mark 11:24; John 14:12-14; James 5:15-16)
       (P2.) -- People pray with faith and sincerity for many things and yet do not receive them.
       (P3.) -- Therefore, prayer according to the Bible does not work.

  The conclusion follows logically from the premises, therefore if a Christian is to deny the conclusion (which we do) then we must show the invalidity of one of the premises.

  The flaw of this argument is in ignoring the qualifications given in Scripture as to who can pray so as to get what they ask and and what kind prayers will be answered.

  In his 1920's classic "The Power of Prayer", preacher Reuben Archer Torrey makes a biblical case for who can pray to God so as to have their prayers answered in the affirmative.

Firstly, God answers the prayers of those who keep his commandments:

     If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God  and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. -- 1 John 3:20-22

  Here John expounds on Jesus' words in John 14:12-14 and other places in the Gospels, explaining why the Christian has confidence in making his petitions known to God and having them answered with  a "yes", going further in verse 23 to explain what exactly is the command of God:

  And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

  As a rule, trusting in Jesus Christ and loving our neighbor are necessary components for receiving affirmative answers to prayer.  
  
  Secondly, focusing on the last part of the verse, Torrey notes that God answers the prayers of those who do what pleases him.

  Christianity is not a rote system of detached obedience and as we live a life pleasing to God we have confidence before God in prayer. 

  Now this is likely to make some Christians squirm.

  Are you saying that if I'm backslidden or struggling with sin that God won't answer my prayer??

  Not at all.

  Nor am I saying that you have to perform a certain amount of good deeds in order to get God to pay attention to you.

What I'm saying is that you cannot expect God to answer give you what you ask while you refuse to love your neighbor and do what is pleasing to him.

  There are always exceptions to the rule, but my job is to preach the rule since only God knows the exceptions.

  Furthermore, the first premise ignores what kind of prayers will be answered, namely, prayers that are according to God's will. (1 John 5:13-15; Psalm 37:4)

 In addition, Torrey gives a list 8 of hindrances to prayer, all stemming from a lack of loving our brother and obeying God. 

1. Wrong Motives in Prayer (1 John 5:13-15; James 4:1-4).
2. Sin in the Heart or Life (Isaiah 59:1-2; Psalm 66:18)
3. Idols in the Heart. (Ezekiel 14:1-3)
4. An Unforgiving Spirit (Mark 11:25-26)
5. Stinginess in Our Giving (Proverbs 21:13; Luke 6:38)
6. Wrong Treatment of Husband or Wife (1 Peter 3:7)

  What are we to make of all this?

  I want to again emphasize that I'm not saying that we have to be perfect in order to have our prayers answered.

  But know as long as we persist in sin, we should not expect to receive what we ask for from God.

   When ALL that the Bible has to say about prayer is brought into the discussion, we see that premise one of the deductive argument is overly simplistic and not totally accurate, thus rendering the argument invalid.

  I say all of this to correct Christian misunderstandings of prayer as much as atheist ones.

  The definition of prayer is not "asking God for something", but when we do ask, we who are walking with God have confidence that He will hear us.  

I AM HE: An Answer for the Jehovah's Witnesses as to the Status of Jesus' Deity.

   Once again the Judeans picked up rocks in order to stone him. Yeshua answered them, “You have seen me do many good deeds that reflect the Father’s power; for which one of these deeds are you stoning me?” The Judeans replied, “We are not stoning you for any good deed, but for blasphemy — because you, who are only a man, are making yourself out to be God.” -- John 10:31-33 (Complete Jewish Bible)

 

  Since the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth preaching and teaching some 2000 years ago, there have been those who refuse to accept his radical identification with the being of God and the clear teaching of his Word on the subject of his deity.

  I echo Alexander Campbell's words on the severe implications of the denial of this doctrine:

Surely, then, those professors that annihilate the sufferings of Christ as an atoning sacrifice, and reduce him to a mere man, or a mere angel, or some other kind of creature than the Word that was God and became incarnate, are propagating views more fatal to God’s corner stone, than the opinion that circumcision and the law of carnal ordinances ought to be superadded to the gospel to the Gentiles as a proper introduction to the Christian church.

   My concern in this post is not with the myriad of religions which deny the divinity of Christ, but with the adherents of that peculiar American religion from whom we've all hidden from behind our living room furniture one time or another: the Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Indeed, the chiefest heresy among these supposed witnesses of Jehovah is the belief that Jesus Christ is not God, immediately disqualifying them from Christian status and cutting them off from salvation (John 8:24).

   Since the Witnesses profess belief in the Bible as the final authority in matters of religious faith and practice, we may ask what the Bible say about the deitaical status of Christ Jesus?
 

  First of all, Jesus is directly identified as God in many passages of Scripture such as Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9:6:

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus – Titus 2:13 (emphasis mine)

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ – 2 Peter 1:1 (emphasis mine)

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6 (emphasis mine)
 
 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. -- Romans 9:5  (emphasis mine)

Other such passages include Hebrews 1:1-9; John 8:24; 1 John 5:19-21; and John 1.

More evidences of Jesus deity are seen in the frequent association of Jesus with the person of God.

Consider the following parallels:

The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. – Isaiah 43:25

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. – Colossians 1:16

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,  ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” – Exodus 3:14

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. – John 8:58-59

Stir up Yourself, and awake to my right And to my cause, my God and my Lord. – Psalm 35:23

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” – John 20:28

A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare     the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert    a highway for our God. -- Isaiah 40:3

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,  as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”  “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,    make straight paths for him.'" -- Mark 1:1-3

    In addition, we may deduce that it was Jesus whom Isaiah saw in chapter six of the book that bears His name (John 12:40-41) and Jesus whom Abraham saw in Genesis 18 (John 8[v56]).

   Finally, the Lamb of God and the Son of Man, both namesakes of Jesus, are the objects of religious service/worship which Jesus in Matthew 4:10 says is to be given to God alone.

   Speaking of the Son of Man, Daniel writes in chapter seven verse fourteen of his book, “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” (emphasis mine).

  In the Greek Septuagint (the Greek rendering of the OT) the word “serve” in this passage indicates the same kind of religious devotion/worship that Jesus said must be reserved for God alone.

  Furthermore, we see in the New Testament the following from Revelation 5:13-14, Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

   While it is true that the Greek word used in this passage to denote worship (proskuneo) does not always refer to religious worship and sometimes homage paid to one of high report, it is hardly conceivably that when standing before the throne of Almighty God and the Lamb of God that every created being would do anything but give the most high and fervent praise that could be given.

   I think that all this when taken together is enough to convince the reasonable man of Jesus' Godhood.  

  I hope to write a little more on the subject of Witness theology in the future!  

Is God Hidden? Not if We're Looking.

 Why is God so hidden?

  If God wants everyone to believe in him, why doesn't he make his existence obvious to everyone?

  These questions form the foundation behind the "hiddenness of God" objection to belief in God.

  The objection supposes that since a loving God would want everyone to believe in him, he would obviously make his existence known to everyone, but since there are many people who do not believe in or know God, he must not exist.

  To be honest, I'm not swayed by this argument and I don't think you should be either.

  My first response to this contention is to point out that in no way is God "hidden".

  All over the universe are divine "signposts" rooted in nature that point to a supreme, personal Creator and designer of the universe.

These include the origin of the universe, the existence of contingent beings, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the intentionality of conscious mental states, the applicability of mathematics to nature, and more.

 Scripture confirms this conclusion in the Psalms and elsewhere saying,
       
  The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
 Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
  They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
  Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world. -- Psalm 19:1-3

  God uses this same line of argumentation when "debating" Job in Job chapters 38-41.

 And Paul and Barnabas when doing ministry in Lystra (a city in modern-day Turkey), also pointed to God's general revelation in nature as evidence of His existence and benevolence (Acts 14:8-18). 

 Furthermore, the Apostle Paul made it clear in Romans that God's "eternal power and divine nature" were deducible from "what was made" (Romans 1:18-20).

  In addition, it's not just nature that "declares the glory of God", but God has also revealed himself specifically through the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which is historically verifiable with reasonable certainty, as well as generally in conscience, all facts to which the Scriptures also agree (Acts 17:29-34, 2:22:32; Romans 2:14-15). 

   Finally, God also speaks to the world by way of His Church (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:40-41; 2 Corinthians 5:20), His Word ( John 20:31; Romans 15:4, 10:17)  and His Spirit (John 17:7-11).

  So based on the available biblical evidence, of which only a snippet has been presented, we can conclude that if we are looking for God with an open mind and heart, His existence will be quite plain to us.

  I echo Paul and Barnabas that "[God] has not left himself without a witness". (Acts 14:17)

  However, we have not yet explained why God doesn't just convert all atheists into believers in God.

  Surely He could just appear personally to every person on the face of the earth, removing all reasonable doubt of His existence. 

  Perhaps, but here's the deal: God is not concerned with converting atheists to theists, His concern is converting all men into disciples of His Son Jesus through a saving love and knowledge of Him, and there is no reason to think that just because a person believes that God exists, he will then come into a personal relationship with Him. 

  Let me repeat that God is concerned with making disciples not theists, necessarily, and since there is no guarantee that the person who believes that the true God exists will then give his life to the Lord, God is under no obligation to make His existence known to the person who would just reject Him anyway.

 The fact that belief does not ensure discipleship is seen all throughout Scripture.

  When God delivers his people out Egypt with great signs and wonders, the Israelites only make it to the Red Sea before they started complaining that they should have stayed in Egypt.

  But even when God parts the Red Sea, delivering Israel from its enemies,  soon thereafter the people are griping that they're going to die of thirst.

  And when God miraculously purifies water for the Israelites to drink, they turn right around and complain that they don't have any food.

  However, when God provides quail and manna from heaven, giving specific instructions on when and how much food the Israelites were to gather, they disobey every single one of those instructions, prompting God to ask Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?"

  Oh, and after that the Israelites go right back to complaining about water.

  I could go on and on about the Israelites continued rejection of God and His commands even in the face of miracles and divine happenings galore, but the icing on the cake is when Moses goes up on Mount Sinai for a mere 40 days and the people come up with a brilliant idea, driving home my initial point:

  “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.” (Exodus 32:2)

  They had seen the miracles, God had fed, watered, and delivered them by His very hand and yet they were so antsy about Moses being up on the mountain "so long" (Exodus 32:1), they forgot about God and got right to work building an idol.

   Excuse me if I'm skeptical that we would act so much differently if we were in the Israelite's position.

  In the New Testament, when Jesus cast out demons, the Pharisees said he did it by Satan's power; when he testified of his own power, the people called him demon-possessed; when he forgave a paralyzed man's sins, they called him a blasphemer; when equated himself with his Father, they picked up stones to kill him and eventually had him crucified for crimes against the State.

   Even more clear still is Satan and the fallen angels who couldn't have been closer to God and yet still rebelled against Him and were chucked out of heaven.
 
  The atheist is in a difficult position because he has to prove that if God showed Himself to everyone, more people would come to into a saving love relationship with Him and, so far, no one has been able to shoulder that burden of proof.

  If God wrote "I exist" in the sky he'd probably make more theists, but it's not clear that the adulterer would go back to his wife, the extortioner would come clean, the hater would begin to forgive, the rapist would turn himself in, and they, along with all of the "run-of-the-mill" sinners, would give up everything and follow Him.

  But the final nail in the coffin of this objection is God's middle knowledge.

  Without getting too bogged down in a philosophical discussion of divine omniscience, I'll simply say that middle knowledge is God's purported knowledge of what any free creature would do in any given circumstance and that such knowledge prior to God's decision to create a particular "world". 

Philosopher of religion Dr. William Lane Craig explains:

  For God in His providence has so arranged the world that anyone who would receive Christ has the opportunity to do so. Since God loves all persons and desires the salvation of all, He supplies sufficient grace for salvation to every individual, and nobody who would receive Christ if he were to hear the gospel will be denied that opportunity.
   
  If this is even possible then the hiddeness of God objection is rendered baseless, for if everyone would come to know and love God if He appeared personally to them, then He would do so. 

So let's sum up:

1. God is not hidden, but has revealed himself generally in nature and conscience and specifically through Scripture, His Church, and His Son Jesus (among other evidences).

2. God's interest is saving people, not simply getting people to believe in Him and it is up to the objector to prove that the latter will necessarily lead to the former.   

3. If it is possible that God could order the world in such a way that all who would respond positively to the gospel would be born in times and places in which they would do so, then we can assume that God has done and will do all that is necessary to bring those who would freely respond to the gospel in communion with Him as is His desire (Ezekiel 33:1; 2 Peter 3:9)    

  If you're a skeptic put off by a god who seems silent then I encourage to look at the evidence, consider the arguments, and continue to search for God with an open heart and mind.  

For if you do so, you will find Him. 

Christian Unity: Two Models.

The ideal of Christian unity is a theme repeated throughout the New Testament.

We are exhorted to be "of the same mind" (Phil 2:2), to "agree with one another" and be "perfectly united" (1 Cor. 1:10), to be "of one mind" (2 Cor. 13:11), to "keep the unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3) and more.

Even Jesus, himself,  prayed for all believers, that they would be united (John 17:20-21).

 It is no surprise then in light of the New Testament's heavy emphasis on the unity of believers and the nation's major headache over seemingly epidemic political partisanship, racial division, class warfare, many Christians are longing for the unity described in Scripture and experienced in the early years of the Church's existence.

The Church is not now, not has it ever been, immune to divisions (Rom 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-11; Jude 1:16-19; 1 Corinthians 10:11-13),  leading many to become disillusioned with the Church, making themselves easy prey for false systems that take advantage of this perceived disunity.

Before I develop that idea in more depth, let me offer a perspective on how we might understand Christian unity.

 I am coming at this by way of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement tradition (RM) as will be evident throughout this post, but I encourage you to examine how your own tradition would address this issue.

In the RM, we live by the motif  "where the Bible speaks, we speak and where the Bible is silent, we are silent"; we don't compel anyone to accept anything found outside the canon of that Scripture; and doctrine not necessary for salvation is not made a test of fellowship.

This perspective does not preclude the active pursuit of doctrinal unity, but takes into account that well-meaning Christians may disagree on Scriptural interpretation, and every such disagreement need not result in the fracturing of a local congregation or the expulsion/discipline of a believer thereof.

Another unity theme is believer-to-believer unity within a local congregation.

Consider this lengthy, yet helpful, statement from an article on unity and the Stone-Campbell Movement, written by Dr. Douglas A Foster:

In a sense, this earliest unity impulse in the Stone-Campbell Movement was a modification— a hybrid perhaps—of the spiritual and organic unity ideas. Leaders believed there were true Christians in all the denominations, yet they were not satisfied with the idea that unity was already perfect in some intangible spiritual plane. Rather, all such Christians must leave the sectarian/ denominational organizations that divided them and come together to be visibly/organically united in local congregations of Christians. The unity envisioned was not organic in the sense of mergers of denominational structures but in terms of individual Christians uniting with other individual Christians in every place without any features that would stop them from full recognition of all other such Christian groups.

We see this type of organic, visible, individualistic unity expressed consistently among Christians in the Restoration movement, though, of course there is much room for improvement.

Finally, if peace, love, and humility (as defined and described in Scripture) are not employed in the pursuit of Christian unity, then all hope is lost, for unless we are willing to be vulnerable, putting others before ourselves, and end all arrogance and petty squabbles, then what hope is there for unity (Eph. 4:3; Phil. 2:3, Col. 3:14)   

I've tried to make this perspective on unity general enough so as to allow room for others to add to this concept, but not so general as to promulgate unattainable, esoteric, theo-babble.

So how does this organic, congregational, minimalistic approach to unity compare to other ideas of unity?

 Many Christians, fed up with the lack of unity in the Church, have found they unity they desired within the communion of the Catholic Church.

 I mention the Catholic Church, because Catholics are very vocal about their belief that the "Protestant church" is hopelessly and necessarily divided and that true visible and spiritual unity is in Rome, not to mention it provides a great model for compare and contrast.

There are several reason why I'm not persuaded by the Catholic claims to unity over against those of any other church.

(1.) The doctrinal unity of the Catholic church, whether it be the uniform body of doctrine that comes from the Magisterium (teaching authority) or any purported general unity of mind Catholics may have on doctrinal issues, is contrived and inorganic.

 When you have a living teaching authority that can say definitively "this is what we believe" or "this is what we don't believe" and that reserves the right to excommunicate or discipline a person based on adherence to any and all of those beliefs, is it any surprise that dissenters would be in the minority?

This kind of visible unity is not spontaneous, natural, or miraculous; it is manufactured and meticulously so.

Any far out, sectarian, psuedo-Christian cult can claim visible unity on this basis (and many do), but what does that prove?

I'm not calling the Catholic Church a cult, to be sure, but in light of the fact that Catholics are morally compelled to believe and accept everything their church says is truth, under the pain of discipline or expulsion, it is neither surprising, nor impressive, that they would reach a high level of doctrinal unity, albeit essentially artificial.

  While we in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ would agree that there are causes for dis-fellowship in cases of wrong doctrine (not counting wrong behavior stemming from false doctrine), this would be applied to doctrine which is seen as interrupting a person's saving faith.

This makes doctrinal unity much more impressive because it is not forced on a member, but received in a non-compulsory fashion.

(2.) Catholic claims that the "Protestant Church" is divided is like comparing apples and oranges and is petty in its nature.

The "Protestant Church" is, in reality, many different traditions that hold to a common Protestant philosophy.
 
To make an accurate comparison, you have to compare a Protestant tradition (with its divisions) to a Catholic tradition (with its divisions).

So you can have a church with one division, another with five, and another with seven, with the Church with one division being the most united.

This is, of course, petty, sectarian and fruitless because the number of divisions in a tradition doesn't indicate the truthful quality of the tradition, which leads to my next point...

(3.) The Catholic Church, by and large, is not unified on the truth.

What does it matter if a church is united perfectly on every front, if they are not united on truth?

I believe that the Catholic Church, with its sacraments, penances, purgatory, indulgences, infant baptisms, popes, sectarianism, and, most preeminently, it's "sacrifice" of Mass is not founded upon the truth.  
 
And if one is convinced of this, he cannot be Catholic in good conscience, no matter how united he feels the Catholic church is.

The same goes for any non-Catholic Christian Church.

So, principally, the issue is whether or not the foundation of a particular tradition is true, not whether or not all its members agree it's true.

I have many other thought's but I'll summarize my case and conclude:

 The Churches of the Restoration Movement and other similar churches who, by and large, have an organic, believer-to-believer, congregational unity that is minimalistic in the area of doctrine and founded upon Scriptural truths, are more united, in a genuine sense, than another church with a contrived unity,  founded upon untruth.

Agree or disagree, one thing is for certain: wherever we are in our pursuit of Christian unity, we can do better and, with God's help, we will. 

Is Apologetics a Biblical Mandate? You Tell Me!

We are living in the Golden Age of Christian apologetics. 

Never before in the history of the Church have believers had more access to in-depth, comprehensive materials (available through every conceivable form of media) which we can use to better understand and defend our faith.

Yet, in a sad twist of irony, it seems too many of us in Protestant evangelicalism are completely unequipped to give a rational defense of the Christian faith.

Before the 2009 "Does God Exist" debate between Christian apologist William Lane Craig and the late "New Atheist" proponent Christopher Hitchens, I was completely unaware there were any deductive arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, much less good ones!

Many Christians are struggling with profound doubts and questions that might be availed if they were only exposed to some of the sound apologetics material out there, written by solid Christian men and women. 

However, defeating ignorance is the easy part, what is more difficult is convincing those who are sure that they don't need to defend their faith.

I've often heard complaints such as:

 ....God doesn't need us to defend Him!
 Apologetics isn't necessary. We ought to just love people...
...Everyone already knows God exist, in their hearts. 
You can't argue someone into the faith!...

These misguided sentiments do much harm, as they prevent people from benefiting from biblical mandate that is apologetics.

There are ample apologies for apologetics, like those from Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias Ministries, so I won't retread that ground.

 The sole purpose of this post is to highlight the passages of Scripture that can be used to show that defending the faith is a Christian discipline expected of Christians, in both specific and general contexts:


The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,  with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. -- 2 Timothy 2:24-26


We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. -- 2 Corinthians 10:5-6
 

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect -- 1 Peter 3:15

 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. -- Philippians 1:7

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.-- Titus 1:9

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. -- Jude 3-4

  preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. -- 2Timothy 4:2
 
I encourage the reader to examine these verses in context and see if what I'm saying is true.
 
It is time time to recover an interest and appreciation for this God-ordained privilege of defending the Christian faith!

Why Marriage Should Be A Man/Woman Union, In Illinois.

Typical of shady politicians and shady Illinois politicians, in particular, the Democrats along with some Republicans of the Illinois legislature are making a move to amend the Illinois Constitution as soon as January to allow for gay marriage. 

(Illinois recently legalized civil unions for same-sex couples).

While pro-marriage advocates are facing an uphill battle, I do not believe the fight stop the redefinition of marriage in Illinois is over and I am personally willing to do what I can as an Illinoisan to see that marriage remains the union of a man and a woman in my state.

However, it must be admitted that the pro-marriage crowd hasn't done the best job of making a positive case for man/woman marriage, making efforts to preserve it that much harder.

I'm going to try and put forth three secular reasons why I do not believe the legislature should amend our state constitution, redefining marriage as the union of two persons, rather than a man and woman.

My proposition is as follows:

The government has a public purpose in preserving and promoting marriage as a unique and gendered union.   

(Reason 1.) Male/female unions are the only unions that can create new life.

While not every heterosexual couple can or will have children, every person, man and woman, is the product of a male (a father) and female (a mother).

This is the wonder of human biology. 

It seems obvious that the government has public purpose in preserving and promoting the only unions that can naturally produce and replenish it's citizenry, while maintaining a stable matrix for child rearing and said pro-creative acts.

A state (or country) with a low birth rate will soon be a state (or country) in peril (the present birth crisis in Russia is attestation to this fact).  

If the gender requirement is removed from marriage, the government would no longer be able to treat marriage as a unique and life-giving union that connects mom's and dad's to their kids, for to do so would be to discriminate against same-sex married couples, who cannot have children naturally. 

This is not a case with marriage of older and/or sterile couples because that is only an exception to the rule of human biology (ie: that man/woman unions, alone, create new life)

Thus, redefining marriage would be a public ill, in this sense.

(Reason 2.) Male/female marital unions connect mothers and fathers to their biological children.

(This next argument has been advanced and defended most recently by such notables as Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and summarized here by me. I take no credit)

Marriage serves a public purpose in this sense by providing a suitable framework for parenthood.

Who would deny that attaching moms and dads to each other and to their biological children should be promoted, as much as is possible and responsible?

By way of the presumption of paternity, natural marriage connects parents to each other and to their biological children.

The presumption of paternity simply means that a woman's husband in presumed to be the father of any children she has.

As one natural marriage advocate explains, "the presumption of paternity, combined with a social and legal norm of marital sexual exclusivity, means that marriage routinely and systematically attaches children to their biological parents" (emphasis mine).

Redefining marriage directly leads to redefining parenthood, replacing the presumption of paternity with a presumption of parentage, meaning that a child born to a couple in a same-sex union is presumed to be the child of both partners.

This directly undermines the biological basis for parenthood, getting rid of the idea that a child is entitled to a relationship with his biological parents.

We've already seen this applied broadly in Delaware to both same sex AND opposite sex partners, where a live in, cohabiting, opposite sex partner who is neither the parent by biology or adoption (ie: non-parent) of their partner's child, may be awarded parental rights, by way of the presumption of parentage.

This means that we are attaching parental rights to non-parents and the redefinition of marriage, by removing the gender requirement from marriage and then trying to keep everything equal, will be the vehicle by which this is accomplished and applied broadly.

 Dr. Morse explains:

"By redefining marriage we are undermining several principles of law and social practice that are currently widely accepted and understood."

These include...

(1.) The right and general entitlement of children to have a relationship with both of their parents.

(2.) That mothers and father are not, in general, interchangeable.

(3.) The long assumed biological basis for parenthood. 

(4.) The current relationship of the state to civil society, where instead of the state simply recording parenthood, it creates parenthood.      

Do you think that a normative function of the government should be to create parents?

This will surely be the reality if gender neutral marriage replaces gendered marriage and the presumption of paternity replaces the presumption of parentage, as our frame of reference for understanding parenthood.

This would open up parenthood (which precedes the advent of the state) to a kind of unprecedented intrusion into our lives.

 (Reason 3.) While retaining the current laws on marriage doesn't affect the protection of same sex persons under the law, removing the gender requirement from marriage may subject citizens with religious objections to same-sex "marriage" to criminal penalties under the law.   
Already we have seen Christian wedding photographers, cake decorators, and chapel owners sued for refusing to acknowledge same-sex unions.    

Others are being forced quit their jobs, as opposed to violating their faith in notarizing same-sex marriages or issuing same-sex marriage licenses.   

I could give more and more examples of this is on-going and dangerous trend which can only get worse if same-sex marriage is made the law of the land.

The government can keep the peace by recognizing and protecting same-sex civil unions under the law, with special protections for people of faith, and by keeping marriage the union of a man and a woman.
 
In conclusion, these three arguments, combined with a number of negative arguments, give us a strong basis for affirming the above proposition that the government has a public purpose in preserving and promoting marriage as a unique and gendered union.   

This is not an emotional, heart-tugging case, but a case based on logic and fact, as any good argument should be.

It is my hope that people would take hold of good arguments for preserving natural marriage and speak out boldly and frequently to their friends, neighbors, and public representatives. 

Together we can curb the tidal wave against man/woman marriage.