One of the topics that Romans raises is the notion of election vs. free will. I took a rather strong position from Romans 9-11 that God chooses who will be saved. I taught that everyone has the freedom to choose God, but because of sin’s deceitfulness no one does unless God makes the first move to choose them and draw them to himself.

This has raised some very interesting questions in our church’s “CONNECT” cards over the past couple of months, and one that came in this past week really got me thinking. Tonight, I wrote a long response to the couple that asked the question, and I thought it would make sense to post the answer here as well.

My Response

I wanted to give a response to your connect card question from 10/7. On it you wrote:

…what if one of your children isn’t God’s “elect”? Do you have peace saying that’s a possibility and even God’s will that they are destined to be separate from you & Jen and God for eternity?

I’m hearing a few different questions in that, and I’m not sure which is the central question, so let me bullet point the options, and perhaps one of them is the one that is really weighing on your heart.

• First, I’m hearing the emotional question of whether I personally have peace in my heart knowing that I may not spend eternity with my family.
• Secondly, I’m hearing the faith question of whether I can accept a God who would choose to take ME to heaven while not choosing to take my kids.
• Thirdly, I’m hearing the theological question of whether it’s really accurate that God chooses some for salvation.

Let me take them in reverse order briefly.

Thirdly, my theological decisions are based 100% on my absolute best understanding of what the Bible teaches. On this point, the Bible seems to me to be completely clear on three counts: (1) Righteousness is required for heaven and every human being has been given the choice to pursue righteousness or selfishness. (2) Every human being save Jesus himself has consistently chosen selfishness over submission and has willfully lived in sin which in combination with Adam’s sin and the blinding power of Satan has locked each human into a perpetual cycle of sin. (3) Though salvation is offered to all through Jesus, no one in their sinful condition has ever nor will ever choose that salvation unless God does a special work of grace in that person’s life first, which he graciously does for those whom he has chosen.

The biggest point of debate among pastors and scholars comes from these statements. Catholics deny that humans are locked into sin. They teach that once Adam’s sin is washed away through christening, the person is “free” to choose good or evil. Many Protestants uphold that too claiming that God has given enough grace to everyone that they may choose “freely” to follow God. I don’t deny that claim. However, the Bible seems abundantly clear on point #3 that no one ever chooses salvation without a special work of God. Some today believe God does that special work for everyone and people still reject. Others believe that God does that special work for a few who always respond, Others believe it’s a combination of both. I personally believe that when God chooses someone for salvation, he does everything necessary to woo that person toward a response.

The bottom line is that I do not think there is any real biblical support for a position that denies point #3. Furthermore, I believe there is strong biblical support for the notion that ALL who are chosen WILL respond while ALL who are not chosen WILL NEVER respond.

My conviction in this matter is not based on any sense of “peace” but on a straightforward and rigorous study of the Bible’s actual teaching on this topic.

Secondly, with regard to my own faith in a God who would select some and not select others, I actually love God MORE and respect him MORE now that I understand election. You see, if it is true that no human ever chooses God unless God chooses him first, then for anyone to be saved requires an INDIVIDUAL act of grace from God to that person. He doesn’t do anything from a distance, but he is greatly involved in people’s lives. Now, of course, the problem with this notion is that if God chooses some, then we conclude he is “rejecting” others, and we have a problem with a God who loves some and rejects others. Well, that’s really more of a personal problem than a problem with God. According to Paul in Romans 9-11, God has the RIGHT to choose whom he will. I believe he COULD save everyone on the planet, and some Christian pastors believe he WILL. For myself, I don’t go that far because the Bible never indicates that he will save everyone. Therefore, I completely disregard the notion that God “rejects” some, because honestly, I don’t know how that process works with him, nor do I know how many will be rejected. On the contrary, I focus on the immense love and grace of a God who rescues SOME even if he doesn’t rescue ALL.

First, on a personal emotional level, there is only one Christian sect that guarantees my children will end up in heaven with me, and it is the Catholic tradition. According to Catholic tradition, if I “baptize” my children, keep them in church through their age of confirmation, and teach them the principles of confession to a priest, attending mass, and saying prayers, I will be guaranteed that they will be in heaven eventually even if they must spend some time in purgatory. My problem with that tradition is that it is unbiblical. Such promises about my children are never found in the Bible. Would I like a guarantee that my children will be in heaven with me? Sure! However, the Bible gives only one such guarantee regarding anyone’s eternal condition. It is found in many passages, and in many different phrasings, but the gist is captured in Romans 10

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. — Romans 10:9-10

Since I will never know the true condition of the heart of anyone but myself, I will never have 100% certainty that ANYONE I know will be in heaven. I can accept your declaration of faith, but I cannot see your heart. The same thing goes for my children. I will never have certainty over their eternal security, nor does the Bible indicate that I should. As it so happens, my children are both professing believers. They have not been baptized and I am not pushing for them to do that before they are ready to do it for themselves and their own reasons. However, even if they were, my belief in their eternal destiny would be based on faith and hope more than certainty.

However, you didn’t ask about what I believed. You asked about whether I had peace with it, and the truth is that yes I completely do have peace with it for three reasons:

• When I get to heaven, I’m convinced that my love for Jesus will overshadow all earthly loves, my awe for Jesus will overshadow all my earthly doubts and questions, and his glory will make all other allegiances fade into the background. I believe I will know my wife in heaven, but I don’t believe that we will have in any sense a “special” relationship. It’s possible we will, but I’m certain that Jesus himself will overshadow all of that so greatly, that if I love the Tav family with a 5, my children with a 7, my wife with a 9, I will love Jesus with a 1,000,000, and that will pretty much win.

• I trust God’s goodness, sovereignty, and glory so much that if for his purposes, he chooses to grab Charlie’s heart but not Katie’s heart, I will still trust Him. I will on this earth mourn the spiritual loss, but I will still have “peace” in my heart that God is in charge.

• Finally, it will never be my role on earth to determine if God has chosen my children. Rather, I will live from the assumption that he chose them and is working to woo them toward himself. I, therefore, am to consider myself part of God’s wooing work in their lives. I am called to be God’s representative toward them and give them every opportunity to know him. In fact, I believe God put those kids in my family because of his work of choosing them for himself. I simply assume that he has chosen everyone, and so I call everyone to respond.

Now, this answer has been two things: long, and rational/male. I’m guessing that you want to know if this teaching should cause you to worry about your own kids. I’m guessing your question is either because you are firmly convinced of your own beliefs and want to challenge my belief or what I think is more likely, you think I’m firmly convinced and this concept has challenged a belief of your own.

So before I close, let me say a couple more things for you to ponder and pray over.

First of all, your love for your children is evident to everyone. The way you look at them, both of you at each of them, reveals a twinkle in your eyes. You love those two angels, and rightly you should. They are precious, beautiful creations of a loving God who has used you as his agents of creation to bring them into this earthly world. I believe he is continuing to use you and will continue to use you as his agents of creation in their lives to bring them into his heavenly world. I believe that all signs so far point to him choosing them for himself by placing them in your care for this earthly sojourn.

However, the very thing that brings him great glory and joy also brings a parent great anguish: Independence. Every parent who loves his child fears the days when the child will need to make decisions on his or her own. Every parent is concerned about those moments. There are some church traditions that try to say, “Even if your child screws up down here, there are things you can do as parents to guarantee their life in heaven,” but those traditions are not biblical. The sad reality is that if your children don’t choose to receive the gift of salvation for themselves, there is nothing you can do to make it happen. If they reject the offer of salvation, the Bible tells us it’s because the standard human pathway is the pathway of rejecting God. If they reject God, it’s because God has seen fit to honor their Independence and allow them to go their own way. However, the awesomely wonderful truth is that God is strong enough to overcome every sinful tendency they have. You aren’t strong enough but he is, and if your children choose to follow God, it’s because God did the work in their lives first… not the least of which was putting them in your household.

Therefore, our job as parents is simply this: To be agents of God’s election in the lives of our children; to woo our children toward God as effectively as we can.

You are doing a great job as far as I can tell so far. Just keep demonstrating the love of God to your children, and he will demonstrate his work of election in their lives through you. I have no doubt that God loves your kids even more than you do, and I have no doubt that He is trustworthy and good.

Grateful for you and your example as parents,

Jeff

We look at all pain and suffering from the human side of the cross, from the perspective of the disciples on Friday. From that angle, the crucifixion is the most terrifying work of evil ever done. Evil got Jesus, and it might get me too. God sacrificed his son, and he might sacrifice me too.

However, if we wait around just three days, we can gain a glimpse of the cross from God’s side, and in light of the resurrection, we see that the worst possible evil, was only temporary. The apparently careless God was working out an eternal plan.

Evil is temporary. Good is forever. The most apparently evil moment in history was simultaneously the moment of the greatest good.

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance…

Of course, knowing the Sunday school answer and being okay with it are two different things entirely, but this week, I have gained a new perspective on the question that I thought I would share with you. Here are some significant verses from my devotional reading this week:

Judges 2:20-3:4 (New International Version)

20 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and said, “Because this nation has violated the covenant that I laid down for their forefathers and has not listened to me, 21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. 22 I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the LORD and walk in it as their forefathers did.” 23 The LORD had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.

Judges 3:1 These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan 2 (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience): 3 the five rulers of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites living in the Lebanon mountains from Mount Baal Hermon to Lebo [a] Hamath. 4 They were left to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the LORD’s commands, which he had given their forefathers through Moses. — Judges 2:20-3:4

Three phrases in this passage stood out to me when I read them:

“Because this nation has violated the covenant…”

God had clearly commanded the people of Israel to enter the promised land and to oust all the people who were living there. He had given them three really good reasons. First of all, the land was what God had promised to Abraham, and it was rightfully theirs. Secondly, God was using them to judge the Canaanites for their idolatry and wickedness. Thirdly, God knew that if they Canaanites weren’t totally driven out, they would be a stumbling block to the Israelites forever.

However, the Israelites didn’t do the job all the way. They left certain societies untouched, and they began to adopt the religious practices of those societies. God’s response was much the same as it was in the days of Kadesh Barnea. Back then, God told them, “If you won’t enter the land I give you, then I will prevent you from entering the land for 40 years.” Now, it’s as if God is saying, “If you won’t drive out all the people who live there on my time schedule, I won’t let you drive them out ever. I will let them remain.” As a result, those other nations were a consistent source of frustration, irritation, and distraction for the people of Israel throughout their history.

This clearly indicates that sometimes God allows us to struggle with difficult circumstances because we have failed to act according to his will. Sometimes we waited too long to get our act together with God and now we face the consequences. Sometimes the irritating circumstance you find yourself in is the direct result of God allowing you to taste your own medicine.

“I will use them to test Israel.”

This second phrase actually shows up twice in the passage I quoted above, and it gives us the second reason God will allow us to face trying circumstances. Specifically, God is “testing” us. That is, God will allow us to face difficulties so that he can gauge the temperature of our heart toward him. If we have rosy lives, we could give great lip service to God while practically living like he doesn’t exist.

However, if we face difficulty, that experience of crisis will force us to make a decision. Will I press on with my own way or will I continue to give my life to God? Will I live by faith in him, or will I take matters into my own hands? Will I obey his will even when it doesn’t make sense or will I follow my own path?

Difficulty is always a better testing ground than is success, pleasure, or ease. External peace can mask the rotting soul within, but trials expose the heart to the light and let us see what we are really made of.

Sometimes God lets you go through a difficult time simply because he wants to test you. Like a coach with a stopwatch timing your 40 yard dash, God will sometimes ask you to run an uncomfortable distance at an uncomfortable pace to see where you stand with him.

“…he did this only to teach warfare…”

This phrase is the one that took me off guard. See, the other two phrases fit perfectly well in my worldview of a God who isn’t really wrathful anymore because of Jesus, but who allows us to go through difficult times for different reasons. However, this phrase here indicates that God is a God who values warfare.

Now, of course, we could sanitize this statement and say that it was really only for the ancient Israelites. See, the young people who survived the desert wandering and were part of the initial conquest of Canaan were now old and dying and the next generation was coming up. It seems quite reasonable that they would need to learn warfare, but check this out: If God had driven out all the other peoples, there would be no need to learn warfare, right? Instead, God intentionally allowed the other peoples to remain because he valued the lessons of warfare for his people!

What’s up with that? What could warfare possibly teach us? How could it possibly be good for us?

After reflecting on this for a couple days, I think I have a few answers.

Warfare Teaches Bold Faith

Throughout the book of Judges, you see story after story of someone who was called by God to act on bold faith. Gideon was called to attack the Midianites with only 300 men carrying trumpets and flashlights. There is no life experience that so dramatically teaches people the lesson of trusting God in the face of fearful circumstances as warfare does.

Are you going through a time of struggle now? Perhaps it is God’s will to teach you bold faith as you stand up for him and his word, as you live according to his principles regardless of how it feels.

Warfare Reveals Leadership

Another lesson that seems to only be learned in warfare is the lesson of leadership. As humans, we tend to be overcome with the desire for independently following our own way. However, the most common biblical word describing God and his relationship to humanity is LORD which means that He is in charge of us and not the other way around. Neither are we in charge of ourselves.

Thus, at the core of humanity’s sin problem is a leadership problem. We want to lead ourselves, but God is the only true leader. As a result, then, one step in our spiritual growth is the ability to relinquish leadership to others when appropriate and take it up when that’s appropriate. Warfare puts us in the place where we recognize the need for good, strong leadership and where we either learn to exercise it ourselves for the sake of others or to follow someone else who is appointed to lead us. Whether as leader or follower, you learn leadership in the crucible of warfare.

Are you going through a time of struggle? Perhaps it is God’s will to get you to grasp leadership. Is there a leader to whom you need to learn to submit? Is there a leadership role you have been reluctant to take? Is there a leadership role you have been abusing?

Warfare Is How God Moves the World

God had given the ancient Israelites the task of “cleaning up” Canaan. He was tired of the wickedness of the people who lived there, and just as he brought the flood in the days of Noah, so now he was bringing the Israelites into the land to wipe out the Baal worship and Asherah worship and child sacrifice and other detestable practices. God wanted to eliminate the Canaanite wickedness and chose to use the mechanism of earthly warfare to accomplish his purposes.

God has known for a long time that the process of changing people always involves death. Either they need to die to themselves and begin to live for God or they need to die to the earth and be sent to the grave, but without one of those deaths taking place, each person will remain in a state of selfish pursuit, and the society made of such people will follow the same path. Therefore, in ancient days, God moved the world through earthly warfare, and he moved against the people of Israel as much as he moved on their behalf.

Are you going through a time of struggle? Perhaps God is preparing you to be an earth-shaker. Or perhaps he has a plan to do something big in the world, and part of his greater activity intersects your life. It doesn’t mean he’s mad at you. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about you. But it might mean that you are a simple foot soldier in a bigger battle he’s orchestrating.

Oh, and this “warfare moves the world” concept doesn’t end with the cross. No, in fact, God is still using warfare to move the world, but a lot of the warfare he employs these days is of a spiritual nature. Today, he is moving the world by getting people to die to themselves and give themselves to Jesus, and doing that requires a great deal of warfare in the soul of those people. I’m sure you know stories of the warfare in the heart of a loved one or two. Perhaps you have a story of the struggle in your own heart. But if God is going to move the world by changing hearts, he must have foot soldiers who are equipped to handle that kind of warfare too.

Perhaps your struggle is simply God’s way of giving you the preparation you need to speak into the heart struggle of someone you know.

God’s People Always Face Opposition

Finally, on this warfare concept, I recognize that God’s people have always faced opposition. Sometimes the opposition comes in the form of earthly warfare, physical persecution, economic hardships and more, but we would be missing a great deal if we forget the “spiritual warfare” that is going on around us all the time.

I don’t talk about spiritual warfare that much simply because I’m convinced that in the cross, Jesus has already defeated the powers of hell, making a spectacle of them (Colossians 2:15), making us more than conquerors (Romans 8:37). I believe that Christians need fear nothing because we have overcome the world and it’s power by the power of Jesus himself (1 John 4:4). Nevertheless, I also believe that Christians face a struggle not against flesh and blood but against all kinds of dark powers (Ephesians 6:12).

I also don’t talk about spiritual warfare because those who practice “spiritual warfare” these days often do so with a specific set of techniques and prayer styles that aren’t found in the Bible.

Nevertheless, the Word of God is clear that we have a spiritual struggle on our hands, and we must be prepared to oppose whatever schemes Satan throws our way (Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Corinthians 2:9-11).

Are you going through a trial? Sure it could be the result of a satanic “scheme” against you, but it could also be that God is training you for the kind of warfare that knows how to hold ground against future more stringent attacks.

Conclusion

I was surprised to see these three lines right there in this passage so clearly display the reasons God sometimes chooses to “not drive out” our opposition. We want a God who will pave the way before us, but of course, we want him to pave it on our time schedule. He, however, wants a people who are obedient and who are capable to fight the battles he has planned.

Sometimes he leads us through places of trial and struggle because he wants to test us. Sometimes it’s because we have failed to follow him and are simply facing our due consequences. Sometimes it’s because he is preparing us for “warfare.” But I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the time, it’s a mixture of all three.

What is the Rapture?

Before I talk about anything else, I should probably define what I mean by the rapture and why I want to talk about it now.

The Rapture refers to the event described in the Bible of Christ returning to earth and his followers being “caught up” to meet him in the air.

The major biblical controversy is twofold:

1. Do the biblical statements on the rapture event indicate a literal and physical departure from the surface of the earth?
2. When does the rapture event happen in relation to the rest of prophesied end-time events?

In the past hundred years or so, the most vocal portion of end-times theorists have proposed what is known as the doctrine of Pre-Tribulational Rapture. This position holds that the biblical depictions of the rapture condense two disparate events: the “catching up” of believers is one event, and the establishment of Christ’s kingdom is a second. The Pre-Trib perspective holds that in between these two events will be a time of “Tribulation” which will involve great spiritual persecution.

There are many other positions as well, but rather than examine all the possibilities, we will simply consider a few relevant biblical texts that cover the rapture event and see what the Bible says for itself. However, I’ll say one more word of introduction. Because the “rapture” has been identified differently from different scholars, I will limit the selection of verses here to those which directly address the moment when Jesus “catches up” his believers from the earth.

The Clear Teaching

John 14:3

• Jesus promises to come back to get us and take us to be with him.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

• [When Jesus returns] God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
• Jesus comes down from heaven with a loud command, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet call of God.
• The dead in Christ are raised to life.
• They and the living believers will be caught up into the air to meet Jesus in the air.
• Believers will be with the Lord from that moment on, forever.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

• Resurrection comes through Jesus to all men.
• Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the resurrection; when he comes back, his followers will then be resurrected as well.
• Then, the end will come, but not until Jesus has destroyed all competing authority, including the final destruction of death.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55

• Some believers will be alive when Jesus returns.
• Our physical bodies cannot enter heaven without being transformed.
• Believers will be transformed and given imperishable bodies.
• This transformation all happens “at the last trumpet.”

Matthew 24

• Jesus is answering questions about “the sign of his coming” and of the “end of the age.”
• He predicts false Christs, wars, famines, and earthquakes. They are the beginning of birth pains.
• He predicts his followers will be “handed over” to be persecuted.
• Those who stand firm to the end will be saved.
• He predicts great distress, “unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again.”
• He predicts those days will be shortened for the sake of the elect.
• He predicts that the elect will also be protected from deception.
• He predicts that his coming will be loud and obvious everywhere.
• He predicts the darkening of the sun and moon.
• He predicts his visible return in glory, a trumpet call, and the gathering of his elect.
• He predicts that the gathering will be preceded by signs, but that the timing is unknown even to him.
• His coming will be a surprise, and some will “be taken” while others will be left.
• Additionally, Jesus uses temporal language to indicate a sequence of events: general distress, persecution, great distress, and cosmic events, ending with his arrival, the trumpet call and the gathering of his elect.

Revelation 19:11-20:6

• Jesus comes from heaven with army in tow.
• The beast and kings of the earth assemble and prepare for battle, but their loss is immediate.
• The beast, his prophet, and Satan himself are imprisoned in the Abyss.
• The “first resurrection” takes place raising up faithful followers of Christ to reign with him for 1000 years.
• The rest of the dead will be resurrected (for judgment) after the 1000 years are ended.

Less Clear Passages

Revelation 4:1

Some have postulated that this verse is a metaphorical indication of a “secret” rapture of the church preceding the Tribulation. John hears a voice “like a trumpet” and then hears “Come up here.” He is caught up into a vision of the heavenly throne room, and from that moment until the chapter 22, the church is “conspicuously” absent from the events on the earth. The conclusion is that when John is caught up to heaven, it is symbolic of the church being caught up in the rapture. Support for this view comes mainly from the end of Matthew 24 when Jesus talked about the surprising nature of his return. However, there is no way to reconcile that with the fact that in Matthew 24, the surprising return comes after a great deal of distress and in Revelation 4:1, the distress has not happened yet. Further complicating this position is John’s own statement that when the “Come up” call is heard, he immediately is “in the spirit.” John has an ecstatic visionary experience that in no way indicates he was physically transported anywhere.

Revelation 11:12

The two witnesses hear a loud voice and are caught up physically into heaven. They could be a symbolic representation of the rapture of the church. However, no one takes the two witnesses to be symbolic of the church in general, so it seems unlikely to treat their ascension as symbolic of the rapture.

Revelation 12:5

When the woman gives birth to a male child, we are told that the child is “snatched up to God” for his protection. Perhaps this is a symbolic rapture of the church away from the distress of the Tribulation. Supporting this is the fact that three and a half years of distress are predicted after this child is snatched away. The association of the church with the male child in this case is quite attractive, except for two problems. First, it would be quite unlikely for God to use the metaphor of a “male child” to refer to the church. Though “son” is used in the Old Testament to refer to the nation of Israel, the New Testament reserves the concept of a single male offspring for Jesus himself. In fact, just a few chapters after this, the church will be referred to as a bride. Secondly, Revelation 12:17 indicates that the there are “those who obey God’s commands and hold to the testimony of Jesus” still living on the earth as a target for Satanic persecution. Therefore, the snatching away of the male child cannot refer to the rapture of the church.

Conclusion

Pulling together a few things:

• The account in Matthew 24 seems to line up pretty clearly with the account in Revelation 6-7 of seals 1-4 and 6 that earthly, cosmic, and spiritual distress come while believers are on earth and before the victorious return of Christ.
• The account of 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to line up clearly with both Matthew 24 and Revelation 19-20 that the return of Christ will be boisterous, undeniable, victorious, and final. (Note also that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is possibly a reference to the same ancient practice that manifested itself at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. When the victorious king comes to the city, the faithful rush out of the city to meet him on the way, and then remain with him to escort him back into the city. That understanding of 1 Thessalonians would put it in perfect harmony with both Matthew 24 and Revelation 19-20.)
• Revelation 20:5 claims that the first resurrection occurs after Jesus defeats the kings of the earth and immediately before he establishes his millennial reign. However, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, the core rapture passage, is clearly a resurrection event. Therefore, the only way for Revelation 20:5 to be the “first resurrection” is if the two passages are speaking of the same event.
• The text of 1 Corinthians 15 seems to coincide well with Revelation 19-20 that Jesus will return, claim his followers, and then take some time (1000 years?) to finally eradicate all evil before handing the kingdom finally over to his Father.

Therefore, drawing from the different passages that most directly describe the gathering of believers from the earth, one picture has become abundantly clear to me.

• First, there will be distress on the earth greater than any before or after including political unrest, natural disasters, demonic activity, and the outpouring of God’s wrath.
• Secondly, Christ begins to return, and the powers of the earth, motivated by Satan himself, will assemble in opposition to him, but his victory will be swift, accomplished by his angelic army in advance of his arrival.
• When he arrives, his victory will be announced with trumpets, those dead in Christ will rise, those alive in Christ will be caught up to meet him in the air and escort him back to Earth as the rightful King where he will reign for 1000 years before one final battle.

Of course, there is room in this understanding for a secret rapture of the living saints to happen at any point in time God wishes. God raptured Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus himself, and he can do it again if he so chooses. Matthew 24:40 could be speaking of this kind of event. However, such an event would cause certain living Christians to precede those who have fallen asleep in Christ apparently contradicting Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. As such, a secret rapture without a resurrection seems unlikely. Additionally, any resurrection happening before the imprisonment of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 would also seem to contradict its identification as “the first resurrection.”

Based on all this, I am confident in saying that the Bible clearly teaches a rapture of the church which coincides with the victorious return of Christ and the establishment of his millennial kingdom, though a secret rapture of living saints at any point in time is still within God’s prerogative should he choose.

The image used on this post was obtained from a blog post at lavrai.com. I am in no way endorsing that blog or its contents, although it seems to take the same perspective as that taken here.

In conflict situations, I like to ask a few questions:

• Describe all the sin in this conflict. Who has committed sin and what is the exact nature of each sin? (the goal is to seek reconciliation with God and forgiveness from each other over sins committed)

• Describe all the pain in this conflict NOT CAUSED BY SIN. What actions caused your pain and why were they so painful? (the goal is to get people to explore their own inner life not blame others or air dirty laundry. The WHY is powerful.)

• Describe the goals and desired outcomes on both sides. What is the bigger picture, the vision, and how do we get there now? (the goal is to establish a plan of action and guidelines for future relationship through listening to each other’s joys, hopes, needs, and dreams)

After all, as believers in Christ, we know the power of forgiveness, we have the presence of the Holy Spirit, and we have a purpose that goes far beyond our petty differences.

One of the questions I get a lot is the question about sexual morality as it relates to the Bible, and it’s one I have thought a lot about as well considering that I do quite a bit of marital counseling and also considering that I’m a guy and I think about these issues myself!

Of course, the biggest question about sexual morality is whether the Bible actually prohibits premarital sex, and if it does prohibit it, why?

I’m going to try to answer that question simply from three angles: What does the Bible teach about sex? What effect does sex have on people? Where should the limits be drawn (i.e. what is the Biblical definition of “sex”)?

What does the Bible teach about sex?

There are many passages in the Bible regarding sexuality and sexual behavior. Jesus talks about lust, the ten commandments prohibit adultery, Leviticus and Romans both explicitly address sexual behavior, and the prophets rail against “sexual immorality” repeatedly. However, in the midst of all the condemnation people throw around regarding “what the Bible says about sex” very few people seem to have an overall grasp of the topic. Let’s look at a few key passages.

Sexuality is God’s design.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number…” — Genesis 1:27-28

It’s important to remember, and we’ll come back to this later on, that sexuality inherently contains the power of procreation, but an even more powerful truth is that sexuality is wired into humanity so that humans can more accurately represent God in this world. There is something about “male and female” that can better represent God as his “image” than male or female could do on their own. The existence of two sexes is somehow an aspect of what it means to be made in God’s image. As God is neither male nor female, the fullness of the image of God can only be expressed in the harmony of male and female. Therefore, the sexual union of a man and a woman touches an aspect of the image of God in a way that no other human behavior can.

Sexual intimacy always assumes, requires, or violates marriage.

As a teenager, thinking through these issues, I realized for myself that the Bible carries very little instructions on the process of getting married. In fact, though there are a number of lessons on how husbands and wives ought to treat each other, there are no instructions on how a marriage union should be initiated or made official. It confused me for a while until I recognized that in the Bible, marriage was simultaneous with a couple’s first sexual encounter.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. — Genesis 2:24

Eve is called Adam’s wife, but there is no description of the marriage—only that they have left their families to be united and to become one flesh. The imagery of sexual union is clear and sexual union then becomes a metaphor for the unity of the rest of their lives.

Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death. — Genesis 24:67

Isaac “brought her into the tent” and “she became his wife.” Even more explicit is this account of Jacob.

So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her. And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant. When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn’t I? Why have you deceived me?” Laban replied, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.” — Genesis 29:22-27

“Giving in marriage” is what happened when Laban gave Leah to Jacob and he slept with her. The bridal week began with the first sexual encounter.

Finally, the link between sex and marriage was institutionalized in the Mosaic Law:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” — Exodus 22:16-17

If a man slept with a woman who was a virgin and not engaged to another, he was required to marry her or at least pay whatever “bride-price” the father of the girl demanded of him. This same regulation was repeated in Deuteronomy 22:29, and in that context the additional command is given that “He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

To put it bluntly, the command found in the Ten Commandments “You shall not commit adultery” is serious business. Deuteronomy 22 describes in detail other scenarios of extramarital sexual relations and the consequences:

• If a woman marries a man, and the man can find no proof of her virginity, the woman is to be stoned for promiscuity.
• If a man sleeps with another man’s wife, both of them are to be killed.
• If a man sleeps with a woman pledged to another man, both of them are to be killed.

Sexual passions have a place only in the context of marriage.

The Bible outlines a world of prohibited sexual behaviors, but they can nearly all be subsumed under this heading: marriage is the only place where sexual passions can find expression. The two places in the Bible where this principle is made most clear come from Jesus and Paul respectively.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. — Matthew 5:28

Jesus clearly outlines that a lustful gaze is equivalent to adultery. By implication, lust must be equivalent to sexual behavior and if the object of your lust is not your spouse, then it is adultery.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. — 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Paul writes that there are only two options for those with “uncontrollable desires.” They can get married or they can “burn with passion.” In other words, there is no middle ground where sexual passions can be satisfied without getting married.

Therefore, the only place for sexual passions to be expressed is in the context of marriage. However, no one should get the idea that sexual passions are in and of themselves wrong. Quite to the contrary, Paul himself says in the same chapter:

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. — 1 Corinthians 7:2-5

This is a clear teaching that sexual expression in the context of marriage should be free and encumbered only by one’s consideration of the needs and desires of the spouse. The husband and wife give their entire bodies to each other, and deprivation of any sort is to be intentionally avoided except in cases of mutually determined times of spiritual focus. In other words, it appears that there are to be no limits for marital sexual expression except for concern for the needs and desires of each other.

What are the social implications of premarital / extramarital sex?

I don’t want to spend all my time here, or even a great deal of time here, but I will address what I believe to be the three fundamental truths of sexuality and the implications these hold when taken outside of the context of marriage.

1. Sex has life-creating power.

Undeniably, human sexuality has the power of creation wired in. Every sexual act IS a reproductive act, and though I am not opposed as others are to the use of contraception, though I might oppose certain forms of contraception, it cannot be denied that sexual behavior is a reproductive behavior with the power to create life. It’s life-creating power is so great that we must engineer methods to bypass it.

This is a sobering reality, and I cannot stress enough that the context in which sexual behavior is found must also be a context where the creation of life is held to be something sacred and welcome. Furthermore, that kind of context is rarely found without a lifelong commitment between two people. In our language, we call that lifelong commitment “marriage.”

2. Sex has life-unifying power.

Way back in Genesis, the sexual / marital union was described as a “one-flesh” relationship because it carries the power to unify not just two bodies, but two lives as well. Men generally feel that a commitment to a woman without accompanying sexual freedom makes the commitment hollow, and women generally feel that sexual freedom without an accompanying commitment is artificial. Despite what TV tells us about sexual promiscuity, most men and women are inherently aware of the unifying power of sexual union.

3. Sex has life-destroying power.

The sad reality is that many of us have seen first hand the life-destroying power sex has. Nearly all of us know someone who has been through sexual abuse of some kind or another, and we can see the results it has. Just one inappropriate sexual encounter can require a person to go through years of psychological counseling to find healing and future sexual health.

However, divorce or promiscuity before marriage can be just as destructive.

Therefore…

It would be naive of me to claim that because sex has this kind of power, we should therefore conclude that all sex outside of marriage will destroy people. That is the claim made by many advocates of teen abstinence; however, there are many people who seem to think that sexual promiscuity has not destroyed them but has instead made them stronger and better able to determine with whom they are “compatible.”

I won’t get into all that here. I’ll simply say that because sex has such life-changing power, we should treat it with a sense of sacredness. Keeping sex exclusively within the context of marriage preserves its sacredness. Freeing it from marriage, on the other hand, allows it to become something as casual as going out to dinner or enjoying a cup of coffee.

What boundaries should we draw?

Before I address any of these boundary questions, I need to be very clear about one thing. If you choose to reject or deny the Biblical teaching on sex as I’ve outlined above, then my only advice to you is to keep sex “sacred.” But since “sacred” can mean anything to anyone, that’s not saying much. Honestly, you’re on your own, and you don’t have any reason to follow my suggestions.

However, if you accept the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality, there are some nearly obvious boundaries that you should draw for yourself.

I will not view, listen to, or read explicit material.

Lust for men is often found in the domain of the eyes, but lust for women is often in the domain of the imagination, but since the admonition is against lust, those things which enflame sexual passions are to be thoroughly avoided.

The only exception to this, as we shall see below, is in the context of marriage where the husband and wife together agree on what they watch, listen to, or read. However, I still maintain that explicit material of any sort has crossed the line if it brings to mind lustful thoughts about anyone other than one’s spouse. Specifically, I’m convinced that strip clubs, adult films, and explicit romance novels are never acceptable, nudity on film or in print (even if “tastefully done”) is rarely acceptable, and even “love scenes” and TV commercials have the power to take the mind away from one’s spouse.

Integrity in this matter in our culture requires vigilance.

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

I will not give or receive sexual pleasure.

Of course, this eliminates all behavior involving the major reproductive organs, but careful consideration should also be given to kissing and “making out.”

I will express sexuality fully, freely, and exclusively with my spouse.

For the unmarried, this is a promise made to a future spouse, but for the married, this is a covenant of freedom and joyful expression with each other.

One More Thing: What about love?

To conclude this whole article, I want to address briefly the single most prevalent argument in our society for premarital and even extramarital sex: “We love each other!”

My response is this: Do you love Jesus? (Profound, I think.)

You see, loving Jesus doesn’t imply sexual behavior with him. Of course not! Love does not imply sex. Love implies commitment and sacrifice.

If you love Jesus, you will remain committed to what he taught and the values he held.

If you love Jesus, you will sacrifice your own passions and desires for his will.

And, if you really loved each other, you’d get married.

I learned about this video from http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-and-freedom-of-choice-act.html. Be sure to visit that blog and check out the information there on the Freedom of Choice Act. Morally disturbing.

What’s the real issue?

Apparently, we are facing the same questions now. What is the real issue when it comes to abortion? Those in the Pro-Choice camp say the issue hinges on the right of women to determine when they have children. In the video linked above, (at about 11 minutes) Barack Obama says that even the most conservative person will answer yes when asked if he wishes his daughter to have the same opportunities as men. He says the battle must be fought there, on those big questions. However, those in the Pro-Life camp say the issue revolves around the right of an innocent human life to not be unduly terminated. Those who advocate the repeal or weakening of Roe v. Wade say the life of the unborn must be protected (and of course, the woman could have taken the responsibility to limit her own reproduction through means prior to conception not least of which is abstinence).

So who is right. Which issue is this? A consideration of history will help.

Back in the days of the civil war, each side had an understanding of what they were fighting for. The North was fighting for the sake of the Union and the freedom of the slaves. The South was fighting for their right to govern themselves.

According to the North, it had to do with justice for all. According to the South, it had to do with freedom and the rights of the states.

So what was the real issue? It was an issue of rights.

This is only one example. World history, and personal experience consistently teach that each party in a conflict is fully convinced they are right and within their rights to hold their position. Each party is convinced the other party is infringing on their rights.

In other words, those who are within the conflict are incapable of settling the matter from the basis of who is right. The only way to avoid direct violence is to appeal to an authority outside the conflict.

In our country, that authority has been and will continue to be the federal government.

Whose rights will the government protect?

Civil War: Should we protect the rights of the states or the rights of the powerless slaves?

Civil Rights Movement: Should we protect the rights of the majority or the rights of the oppressed?

In both cases, the federal government stepped in and said (eventually), we will defend the rights of the powerless and oppressed. However, when it comes to Abortion, the question reached a new level of complexity. No longer is there a clear line of demarcation between the oppressor and the oppressed.

Historically, women have been powerless and oppressed. One reason is that women are the ones to bear our children, and both pregnancy and nursing significantly limit what a woman can do. Technology and medicine have alleviated some of those issues, but historically, pregnancy and nursing have kept women in the home while men go out and “do the real work.” In addition to that, the average woman is shorter and weaker than the average man, so physical abuse has been the norm for many societies throughout history.

In other words, women have been oppressed and their rights have been infringed, and much of it surrounds the fact that pregnancy and nursing takes a woman out of the working world for months or years on end. If a woman is not in charge of her choices regarding pregnancy, she is at the mercy of others and therefore less free.

It is a clear cut argument. In order for a woman to be on the same level as a man in every aspect of society, pregnancy and child rearing must become a non-issue. So what happens if a woman accidentally gets pregnant? At that moment, she becomes less valuable to her workplace. Her ability to work will be limited and there will be months if not years where she will be absent from the workplace. To offset this, legislation has been enacted to preserve a woman’s job after a reasonable “Medical Leave,” and many women work quite productively throughout their pregnancies.

However, that legislation doesn’t change the fundamental reality that women are regularly far more responsible for child rearing than men are, and even one child irrevocably changes that woman’s life.

Therefore, in order to give women equal rights with men, they must have full and complete control over the biological realities of their bodies.

So, on one side of the issue, it appears to be one of women’s rights.

However, a new reality has emerged since the dawning of Roe v. Wade. More than 48,589,993 otherwise healthy infants were terminated through elective abortions between 1973 and 1997. Did they have rights? Were they humans? Were they alive?

If the unborn are living human beings, then they should have at least as many rights as the newly born or the nearly dead. They may be thoroughly dependent on another person, they may be completely helpless on their own, they may be a total inconvenience on people who didn’t ask for the responsibility, and they may not even be consciously aware of all the work that is being done for them, but if they are living humans, they have inherent rights, not the least of which is the right to life. Finally, all scientists agree that the fertilized egg is two things: (1). Fully human, with distinctly different DNA than the mother, and therefore, a distinctly different human from the mother. (2). Alive as much as any other living organism is. Therefore, the fertilized egg is a living human and should have all the rights of other living humans.

Whose side are you on?

So people have been taking sides on this issue for thirty years, and the tone of our government has been to take the side of women’s rights instead of the rights of the unborn. Why is that? Well, the government of the US has wisely through the years learned to take up the cause of the oppressed. This is a noble thing, and federal regulations have equalized the playing field in many respects between those who historically were oppressed and those who were the oppressors.

However, the unborn are oppressed in staggeringly large numbers (48,589,993 abortions from 1973 to 1997 equals nearly ten times the Jews who died in the holocaust, and nearly 20% of our total population). Why is the government not standing up against this violation of human rights?

// OPINION ALERT // OPINION ALERT //

The only thing different in this human rights case and any other human rights case throughout history is that the unborn have no voice. The slaves were oppressed, but they had a voice. Writers such as Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) gave them that voice. In the Civil Rights movement, men like Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a voice to those oppressed by segregation. In the Women’s Rights movement, many voices have continued to speak up since the 1966 formation of NOW.

But the unborn have no voice. Others have attempted to speak up for the unborn and on their behalf, but the unborn have no voice of their own. Additionally, the voices on the side of women’s rights can make a very rational argument on why reproductive decisions are a fundamental right of every woman, while the voices for the unborn always seem to sound simplistic (“Don’t kill babies”), traditional (“Pregnancy is a woman’s gift”), religious(“God made that baby”), or misogynistic (“She made her choice, got pregnant, and now she has to deal with the consequences”).

The voice of women’s rights is far louder and far clearer than the voice of unborn rights.

And in any government of the people, the loudest voices win.

One Possible Solution

The battlefield has been defined as one for women’s rights just as the civil war battlefield was defined by the North as one of slavery. The South tried to redefine the battle, but lost anyway. Likewise, anyone who wants to be pro-life must realize that redefining the battle here and now will not work, and will instead appear to the rest of the world like a Confederate holding on to antiquated ideals.

Here’s my proposal for a solution, and it is simple: MEN, GET OFF YOUR REARS, BE THE MEN GOD CALLED YOU TO BE, AND LEARN TO LOVE WOMEN PROPERLY!

1. Love your wives sacrificially, pursue their best, promote their best, and encourage them to achieve their best.
2. Love your wife so much that if you are not married now, you will still honor your future wife by keeping your pants on now.
3. Love your wife so much that whether you are married or not, you will stand up for the honor of the women around you and call other men to behave honorably toward them too.
4. Love your wife so much that no matter what difficulties you come across, you will stay faithful to her alone.
5. Love your wife so much that YOU MAKE THE CHOICE to be involved in the raising of your children.

Perhaps that was all a little too wordy, so if I wasn’t clear enough, let me be straightforward:

• Pay women just as much.
• Listen to women just as much.
• No sex without marriage.
• No sex unless one of you is sterile or you are both okay with pregnancy.
• No divorce or threats of divorce.
• No cheating.
• No laziness.

Real men stand up for women.

Listen, if men were honorable enough to have sex only with their wives who were willing to be pregnant, abortions would decline dramatically! Abortion is a problem of no self-control, and I blame the men.

Just a final thought.

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson had a reason for putting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in that order. Should the right to life supercede the right to liberty?

Technorati Tags: abortion, obama, feminism, women’s rights

The first reason I have for my own belief in God is that the universe needs a creator.

WARNING: I have a degree in philosophy and some of the concepts I use for my belief in God require the use of some technical terms. Here’s a quick glossary of the terms I will be using:

• contingent: anything that is contingent is something that depends on something else. My own existence is contingent on the existence of my parents. If my parents didn’t exist, neither would I. I am a contingent being.
• necessary: anything that is necessary is something that exists on its own merit. You might think that the fact 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. But it actually only exists as a fact of logic which means it is contingent upon the existence of logic.
• sufficient reason: since the realm of possibility is so much greater than the realm of reality, it’s easy to conclude that in order for anything to exist, there must be sufficient reason for it’s existence. Things by default do not exist therefore, there must always be “sufficient reason” for something to exist.

If something exists, it must be either necessary or contingent.

Philosophers have identified two different categories of existence. Anything that exists must be either contingent or necessary. In other words, whatever exists owes its existence to something else, or it exists on its own merit alone.

There really isn’t anything more to explain, because the two categories just described encompass what is called a tautology. It’s like saying that every whole number must be either odd or even. It covers all the bases. Things that exist either exist on their own (as necessary things) or they exist because of something else (contingent things).

If anything exists, then something necessary must also exist.

This is actually the most debated part of the proof for God’s existence because it seems to jump the gun to many people, but if we break it into smaller bits, it makes perfect sense.

Every contingent thing is preceded by a necessary or contingent thing.

1. Assume we have an object Z.
2. That object must be either contingent or necessary.
3. If it is necessary, then something necessary exists.
4. If it is contingent, then it must be contingent on another object we’ll call Y.
5. Go back to step 2 with object Y leading to object X and so on.

Now, the only two options left are that this cycle goes on infinitely, or that this cycle eventually ends in a necessary object A.

There can be no infinite chain of contingent things.

If the cycle continues infinitely into the past then either this chain took an infinite amount of time or it took a finite amount of time.

Now, if the chain has taken an infinite amount of time, then we must conclude that the chain of contingencies has always existed and that the chain itself must be necessary.

If, however, the chain has taken a finite period of time, then there was a time before the chain began and the chain itself, therefore, must be a contingent thing owing its existence to something else.

In other words, an infinite chain of contingent things, must either be necessary in itself or owe its existence to a necessary being.

Something does exist

If you don’t believe that, you might as well stop reading right now because you don’t exist either!

Something necessary must exist

I call the necessary being God, and I use the personal pronoun “he” to refer to God. This necessary being exists completely by himself and for himself. He doesn’t owe his existence to anything or anyone else, but his existence is the reason that everything else exists.

God is necessary

Now, depending on your perspective, you may say this God is an impersonal force, an energy, quantum fluctuations, or a divine being as depicted in one of (or all of) the world’s many religions. I personally believe the God who exists is the one revealed in the Bible as Yahweh, Lord of Lords, the I AM.

Whatever you may think, you have to agree that there is something “necessary” that exists.

In my next post, I’ll address why the necessary being must be personal.

REVELATION

General Revelation

I believe that God has made Himself known to all people at all times and in all places. He has revealed Himself through the grandeur and the intricacies of the natural world (Ps 19:1-4), the moral awareness of the human conscience (Ro 2:15), and the faculties of human reason (Ps 14:1; Ro 1:21-22).

I believe that this general revelation communicates all that is necessary for people to be accountable before God. Since general revelation testifies to God’s existence, God’s moral requirements, and God’s supremacy, people are without excuse (Heb 11:6; Ro 1:20, 2:13-15). However, no one will come to proper relationship with God through general revelation alone. Humans universally repress what is made known through general revelation, reject God, and refuse to submit to Him (Ps 14:1-3; Ro 1:18-23).

Special Revelation

I believe that God has revealed Himself with more particularity to specific people at specific times for the purposes of reconciling them to Himself. In His great mercy, God has made Himself known through dreams, visions, saving acts, theophanies, and prophetic teaching (Ge 12:7, 15:1; Ex 6:6-7; Lev 22:32-33; Dt 5:5; 1Ki 3:5; Dan 2:28; Heb 1:1).

I believe that special revelation consists of both propositional truth about God and personal encounter with God. The simplest form of special revelation is God’s direct speech to prophets and to others through them (Ex 3:6ff; Jer 2:1; Ez 3:16ff.).

I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, divinely inspired human agents to record special revelation in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. This inspiration is such that the written words of Scripture are fully the words of God and fully the words of the human who penned them. Thus, they reflect the personalities and proclivities of the individual authors but are the completely inerrant communication of God to people. That is, the Scriptures as the authors originally intended them are entirely free from error in all matters to which they pertain. They are the final authority of faith and life (Ro 3:2, 16:25ff.; 2Ti 3:16f.; 2Pe 1:20f.).

I believe that Jesus himself is the ultimate revelation of God. In him is prophetic teaching, saving act, and theophany (Jn 14:9; Heb 1:2).

I believe that God continues to reveal Himself specially through the prophetic teaching of the Scriptures, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the other means already mentioned. However, all present day revelation stands under the Scriptures even as the Scriptures stand under the revelation found in Jesus (Jn 1:1ff.; Heb 1:1-3).

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

As a pastor who’s got a blog, I’ve been thinking about how this verse relates to blogging. I’ve been blogging for over a year, and I don’t yet have a “manifesto” like this guy on what my blogging policy should be. However, I’ve been prompted this week by some friends to consider it, so I’m thinking through the issues.

As I see it, there are three ways for a pastor (or anyone for that matter) to do a blog.

1. Use the blog as a personal journal where you “get naked” (according to a book on blogging by Robert Scoble the guy I linked to above.) in front of your virtual audience and basically share anything and everything. Of course, there is some room for discretion, but in general, it’s your personal journal viewable by the world.
2. Use the blog as a “content management system” which basically means you maintain your own online magazine with articles essays and whatnot and use a blog mechanism to manage your content and people’s comments on your content. One example of that is The Resurgence.
3. Use the blog as a hodge-podge mix of the two—blogging about whatever seems to come to mind. (I’m not sure it fits, but I’ll link to it anyway.) See Tim Challies’ blog for an example of a blog that attempts to be personal & academic though it weighs more toward the academic side.

As I’ve been around the net a while, it seems to me that the majority of “Gen X” church planters who blog opt for version 3 with a heavy leaning on option 1.

I’ve been using this site as mostly #3 so far. As you can see from my categories on the sidebar, I’ve got sermons, Bible studies, personal journal entries, exposing my own spiritual life, computer issues, and even some posts on internet fraud. You can see it is all over the map like a Christmas tree with every kind of ornament ever invented showing up on it.

In fact, it seems that my posts on self examination and internet fraud are my most popular. Are people even reading my blog to grow spiritually?

So the question I’m asking myself now is this: What kind of web presence should I have? If you have any comments on this, I’d like to read them. Or you can give me a call on my cell at 765-404-0807 to tell me what you think personally. If you want to think this through with me, check out the links I placed above or my links in the sidebar of my .

Where would the X fall for you?

I’m not sure how this is going to work, so I’ll just get started.

If you subscribe to my blog by email, this is the only post you’ll be getting about this project. If you want to read my posts on the Bible, you will need to visit my site regularly, subscribe by rss, or update your email settings through the link in your email.

God bless.

The victim was a young man who had tried unsuccessfully to “recover” from homosexuality through the counseling and support of a religious group called Regenesis. One of the supporters of the organization was a local doctor who had been promoting research that homosexuality was a reversible condition.

Along the way, the show took a few cheap shots at moral conservatives. Here are the two things that offended me the most:

1. They connected the concepts of “Regenesis” and homosexual “recovery” to the attitudes of the vicious anti-gay religious protesters such as the infamous “God Hates Fags” pastor Fred Phelps. In so doing, they were trying to say that whether your methods are “acceptable” or not, a negative perspective of homosexuality in any sense is “unacceptable.” It’s the basic TV belief that tolerance is paramount (of course, the exception to this rule is that we must be intolerant of the intolerant).
2. They directly attacked the efforts (not the research or the results as much) of the homosexual recovery agencies. In fact, they basically said that it was stupid for anyone to think a homosexual could “change.” I think they presented the “Regenesis” group in a good light but then quickly tore them down as being just as unaccepting, bigoted, and irrational as the Fred Phelps types.

I’m offended by these things because I feel they are dealing with a religious / moral issue as if it were a rational one. They are downplaying the heart of love many Christians have for homosexuals if it is ever combined with a belief that homosexuality is, as the Bible claims, an unnatural behavior. They are basically saying that people have to be idiots, bigots, or something worse to think that homosexuals can change or even control themselves.

I for one, have a higher view of both God and people than that. Yes, I unashamedly believe that people can change. I am a sin-aholic. My body is addicted to so many sins that I can’t even get into it all here. But I am undoubtedly addicted to sin. However, an amazing thing is true for me. My love for God oftens outpaces my desire to sin. There have been times in my life when I have been strongly tempted to sin but have instead resisted and claimed the promise God gives me—resist the devil and he will flee from you!

My point is simply this: We are all sinners. Each of us struggles with different sins with different levels of consequences in this present world. So what if the jury is still out on the present-day consequences of homosexual behavior? The jury is still out on the present-day consequences of coveting too! But that’s why God didn’t tell us to decide these things based on a jury. He’s simply told us what he wants, and we need to find our place in his will as we are set free from sin by the power of the cross and bound to righteousness by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I’d love to hear your comments on this one. Is there recovery for homosexual people? Do you know anyone? Have you experienced it yourself? Please write some thoughts and help me make this blog entry a helpful one for others too.

1. What is Scripture’s major theme and purpose?
2. How would you defend the authority of Scripture?
3. Where do you stand on the inerrancy of Scripture? Why?
4. What were the standards followed to develop the canon of Scripture?
5. Explain and defend your view of the Trinity.
6. How do you understand the ministry of the Holy Spirit and His gifts in the church today?
7. What are the conditions of salvation? (believe? repent? confess? surrender? subsequent obedience?)
8. Assurance of salvation: Can I lose my salvation if I continue to sin?
   How can someone know with confidence that he or she is a Christian?
9. What is your understanding of church government? (a) Can women be elders in your church? Why or why not? (b) Does the pastor have a greater authority than other leadership positions? (c) What are the functions and qualifications for your leaders?
10. Support the ministry priorities of your church from Scripture.
11. Under what conditions would you discipline someone from your church? How?
12. Which is more important: numerical growth in your church or the spiritual growth of the people you already have coming? If your church grows, how will you insure the spiritual growth of your people? In other words, how do you understand the process of sanctification?
13. Eschatology: What is your basic understanding of end times and how central will issues
    related to end times be to your ministry?
14. Explain and defend the concept of believer’s baptism.
15. What is your theology of stewardship? tithing?
16. What will you require of those wishing to be married under your ministry? Live-ins, divorced.
17. What is Biblically acceptable worship? What is the Biblical basis for contemporary music in worship?
18. What is your position on social issues: abortion, homosexuality, cloning, surrogacy, genetic engineering, war, nuclear weapons, death penalty, feminism, masturbation, use of alcohol, dancing, Halloween, Christmas decor, religious symbols & art, etc.
19. If a person from any of the following groups were to challenge you to show them at least three major differences between what you believe and what they believe, what major differences would you delineate? Mainline Christian denominations, Catholicism, Liberal Christianity, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Scientology, New Age Movement, Occultism, Free Masonry, Eastern Mystics, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam
20. Define and defend the concept of “justification by faith.”
21. How do you determine God’s vision for your church? How will you know it is from God?
22. What is the role and importance of prayer in the planting of a church and seeing lives
    changed?
23. To whom are you accountable? Who has authority over you?
24. Describe the role of God’s sovereignty and human free will in the process of salvation.

I was reading Psalm 62 this morning for my quiet time, and this verse popped out to me. Reading it sparked a little “wow” moment somewhere inside me.

Everything about this verse is almost cliche to me. Sure, my salvation depends on God. Sure, he is my mighty rock. Sure, he is my refuge. All those things are “old hat” to someone who has been in the church since he was born.

However, there is that extra little word thrown in there—honor. My honor depends on God.

It just got me thinking. How much time do I waste during my day trying to preserve or earn “honor” for myself? I imagine that 90% of my day is about gaining honor in some way.

When I do my todo list, my motivation is usually to impress someone. I want to impress my wife who really values getting things done in a timely way. I want to impress the people I know in Lafayette, so they will trust me more as their pastor. I want to impress unbelievers so they will listen to my message. Whenever I do anything, on some level, I’m trying to earn honor from others.

But my honor depends on God.

That’s a new thought for me. I have always thought that my honor depends on me and my performance. Sure, people tell me all the time that “It doesn’t matter what you do as much as it matters what kind of person you are,” but when it comes to honor or reputation it really seems to depend on what I do, doesn’t it?

Well, according to King David. Our honor doesn’t depend on what we do before people. Our honor depends on God. My honor—how I am evaluated by others—doesn’t depend on me or on the fickle nature of other people. My honor depends on God.

Now that is a refreshing thought!

Suddenly, I feel more empowered to focus my energies on pleasing God rather than people. If it is true that my honor really depends on God, then he should be my only concern. I should invest myself in pleasing him, and if he so desires to honor me in the eyes of others, that is his prerogative. If my honor really depends on God, then my attempts to please others will always yield lackluster results.

Lord, I just want to thank you for teaching me this lesson today. I want you to please you. I want to concern myself more with how I stand before you than with anything else. And I want to know what means to stand before you robed in Christ. I want to know your grace.

Thank you for showing your grace to me this morning by teaching me something new. Help me to always remember that my honor isn’t about how well I can impress people. My honor depends on you.

What are the right things?

Despite the popular demands for customized programs and the innumerable things that churches could be doing, there really are only a few things that churches should be doing. Here is my (non-exhaustive) list:

• Spurring people on toward a deeper walk with God.
• Teaching and coaching people to understand and take their next steps of faith.
• Putting people into healthy, loving, supportive relationships.
• Commissioning people into ministry to a lost and dying world.

From the standpoint of an individual in the church, the right things are:

• A deep walk with God
• Taking next steps of understanding and faith
• Supportive, loving relationships
• Ministering

Make them easy

So if those are the right things to be doing, how can we make them easier?

Well, churches have for many years been making these very things the most difficult things to be doing. We have had services of worship that are based on following traditions more than on helping people to go deeper with God. We have had classes that focus on learning some truth rather than changing our lives. We have had programs that put people in antagonistic relationships (volunteer committees to name but one), and we have put high restrictions on who is qualified to be in ministry.

To make these easy, I suggest these things.

Make worship accessible.

the church needs to focus on making worship accessible to people (service times, styles, locations, etc.) so that everyone can have an experience that helps them go deeper with God while at the same time making the practice of personal devotions easier (I’m still working on that). Now, of course that means that services can’t be all fluff and feel good stuff. They have to really take people to the deeper realities both emotionally and intellectually to see the truth of who God really is.

Make loving relationships cultural.

Churches talk about small groups and whatnot being a part of what they do as a church. However, small groups don’t work unless they are part of the underlying culture of the church. Something cultural is something that everyone knows is expected of them and they are fine with it. It’s cultural in Brazil for people to speak Portuguese. People in Brazil expect that other people will speak their language and people who live there are okay with that.

The thing is that we Christians in North America have lost the sense that relationships are part of our culture. It isn’t expected of us that we will have strong relationships with other believers. What is expected in many cases is that the pastor will meet our needs if we have them or that the church’s benevolent fund will come to our rescue if needed.

I advocate churches that require small group relationships instead of “membership.” In fact, I advocate a church whose membership consists entirely and only of those who are in a small group of some kind.

Make change fun.

At the core of Christianity is the concept of “conversion” or being “born again.” In other words, the fundamental starting point for any individual believer is radical life change. Beyond that, the Bible consistently stresses that believers are in a process of continual change to become more and more like Jesus all the time.

Why is it, then, that the single most unchanging organization in the world is the church? I’m serious; there are churches that have traditions going back to the dark ages! Literally. If we are to be people undergoing constant change, then why can’t we be part of an organization that is undergoing constant change? Because change is threatening for most of us. In response, I think we need to change our attitude toward change. We need to make change fun. Why can’t we rejoice with every change that happens?

Now, I know that for spiritual growth, there needs to be some kind of stability in our lives and especially in our churches, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have parties now and then. I think the church should throw a party every time something changes.

I recently heard of a church where every time the pastor finishes a series of messages, they throw a party to celebrate the completion of that season of learning!

Make ministry earth-shattering.

Aha! You thought I was going to say something like make ministry available to everyone, huh? Yeah, many churches have limited ministry to the seminary trained elite or others who have a specific skill set, but the solution isn’t simply to open up ministry to everyone.

To open up ministry to everyone does nothing more than cheapen what ministry is all about. Instead, we need to propel ministry into the position of being absolutely essential to the church. And to do that, we need to talk about the real, big ministries of the church not the little tiny ministries of the church.

If your church has a sound team, don’t talk about working on the sound team. Instead, talk about the incredible impact the worship service has on people’s hearts and lives and then mention that people who are interested in sound equipment can serve on the worship sound team or something like that.

People need to hear that they can make an eternal difference in someone’s life.

Perhaps there is nothing as important as simply helping people to realize that they themselves are as qualified as they need to be to share the truth of Jesus with others they know. A couple weeks ago, I taught my congregation that Jesus plants a seed in our hearts that he wants to grow and produce fruit, and though we often think it is our job to produce fruit, we need to realize that the fruit of our lives is really found in the spreading of the seed to others. The bottom line is that we need to take the seed Jesus gave us and pass that to others.

How did Jesus save you? That’s the gospel that someone needs to hear. You don’t have to take them through a tract or something artificial, you only need to tell them how Jesus saved you!

Conclusion

We can allow ourselves to get distracted by many things, but at the end of the day, there are only a few things that Jesus has called the church to be doing. As church leaders, we can lead and make decisions that make those things natural and easy for those in our churches. If we do that well, we won’t just have happy “customers” we will have a church that consistently brings greater glory to God as people get closer to him, get closer to each other, take steps of personal growth, and minister to others.

Actually, I wasn’t able to give it the time it deserves in the brief message or two I was able to address it, so I thought I would go into a little more detail here on my blog.

During my senior year of college, one of my best friends sat me down to talk with me one night. I listened to him tell me how that he had struggled his whole life with a strange desire to be with other men. He flirted with girls and dated a lot, but never wanted to get close to any of them. Instead, he always wanted to be close with another guy. He confessed to me that night that he was a homosexual.

Within the next five years of my life, four other friends of mine shared the same basic story with me. I was regularly heartbroken to hear the stories about the struggles my friends had with their feelings, their desires to do what is right, and in one case a strong belief that God hated him.

I’ve spoken with men dealing with homosexuality. I’ve cried with them. I’ve engaged them on deeply spiritual issues.

I’ve also read books about it, done research, and cried some on my own. I’m not fully qualified to give the world’s best answer to this issue. But it is on my heart, and I think I have something worthwhile to say anyway.

What’s the authority?

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, we have to realize that apart from some spiritual authority, there is almost no practical way that any discussion can be anything more than the sharing of opinions. However, we also have to realize that among those who accept the Bible as their spiritual authority, there are differing points of view. What I want to do is approach the issue from two sides to do justice to both arguments.

Before I do, though, I want to say that I will not be wasting my time trying to refute the extremists. I completely disagree with the fellow who runs the “God Hates Fags” website and “ministry.” However, I also completely disagree with the majority of the homosexual lobby. There are clearly extremes on both sides of the issue, but there are also people who are really trying to find some middle ground. Those are the people I want to address.

Two Approaches to the Bible

On the one side of the argument, you have people who believe that the Bible clearly teaches a prohibition against homosexuality. Not only is this the most traditional view of the teaching of the Bible, but it is also the one that seems to take the Bible with the more “literal” of interpretations. Here are the key points they generally make:

• The Bible clearly outlaws all forms of sexual interaction except for that between a husband and a wife.
• The key passages relating to this are Leviticus 18:22-23 and Romans 1:26-27 where sexual relationships between men and men are put in parallel to sexual relationships between women and animals.

However, there are those who argue that the Bible makes room for those who practice homosexual monogamy akin to heterosexual monogamy. Usually, their reasons are these:

• There is no passage in the Bible that talks about wholesome, loving, monogamous homosexuality.
• Sexual orientation is not chosen. Your sexual orientation is just who you are. Therefore, homosexuals are “naturally” homosexual. When Paul mentions homosexuality, he was talking about either temple prostitution or pedophilia or perhaps heterosexual men having sexual relations with other heterosexual men. Two heterosexual men engaging in sexual activity would be acting “against their nature” but two homosexual men doing so would be acting in accord with their nature.

Now, I can understand the approach of those who believe homosexuality should be accepted; but I cannot agree with their conclusions. In fact, I feel that their arguments in support of the acceptance of modern day homosexuality are weak for the following reasons.

• Homosexual monogamy is not discussed in the Bible because God never addressed homosexual love from a “relationship” or “commitment” aspect. God only addressed the physical sexual act. In fact, there is never any prohibition in the Bible about men loving other men. The prohibition is focused on the physical act.
• Homosexuality, however powerful of an innate feeling it may be, is not natural according to either God’s design in Creation or God’s revealed will for human beings.
• Loving, homosexual monogamy is largely a myth. There are exceptions to this, but the majority of homosexuality is practiced with high levels of promiscuity.

What is love?

Homosexuality is not an easy issue to deal with today because there is no doubt that the people who call themselves homosexual have strong internal feelings that they have experienced in most cases “all their lives.” Additionally, they often have discovered those feelings most profoundly in the relationship with one key individual who has sparked a real sense of love within them. There can be no denying their sexual urges or their feelings of love. Therefore, if God is love, and if “that’s the way he made them,” shouldn’t they be allowed to live out that love? Why would God be so cruel as to give them desires that can never be lived out? As a result of that kind of thinking, a large number of people who believe in the Bible want to warmly accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, and those are the people who seem to be showing the most love—those are the people who seem to be “acting Christianly.”

Is that really love, though? Let me give an extreme example to illustrate my point. Every individual on earth has extremely powerful urges within them to drink. The infant’s first experience of love comes from drinking her mother’s milk. Thirst is more powerful than hunger. There can be no denying that the urge to drink is powerful and universal.

However, there are some people in this world who have extremely powerful urges within them to consume alcohol as that drink. There are powerful biological forces that are driving them to pursue the buzz brought on by alcohol. They have great friendships that have developed around alcohol. However, it is ruining their lives. Take a person like that, and it isn’t hard to imagine that those who love that person the most are also the ones who will confront him with the inappropriateness of his behavior and maybe even stage an “intervention.” Through counseling and support, that person may be able to defeat the biological urges and even the memory of past experiences for the sake of greater good.

Likewise, one might say that all human beings have a powerful internal drive to experience sex. The problem is that while most people have their sexual drive attuned to members of the opposite gender, there are some who feel that attraction toward members of the same gender. If the analogy with alcoholism holds, then those who most love the homosexual will be the ones to confront the homosexual with the inappropriateness of his behavior.

So then, does the analogy with alcoholism hold? In order for the analogy to hold, two things must be true:

1. Homosexuality must be an unnatural and damaging behavior.
2. Homosexuality must be a mindset that can be controlled or at least managed.

Homosexuality is unnatural and damaging

Regarding #1, the clearest teaching of the Bible is that homosexual behavior is both unnatural and damaging—Romans 1:26-27 & 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul argues that those who engage in homosexual activity (again note that it is not those who are tempted with homosexual feelings, but those who become “offenders” by indulging those feelings) will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That’s a pretty strong claim. Of course, those who use this verse to point fingers at homosexuals should be sure to read the context where Paul also says that greed, slander, and drunkenness are also things that will disqualify a person from heaven!

Now, there are those who will say that homosexuality as practiced today is “natural” and “wholesome;” however, if the Creator calls it unnatural, then it’s unnatural, and if it might land someone in eternal punishment, that seems to be damaging. If nothing else, doing something that is outside of God’s will is clearly going to be something that causes spiritual damage to a person’s soul.

Homosexuality can be controlled or modified

Regarding #2, all sexual behavior can be controlled. Ascetic monks, of course have been doing it for centuries, but throughout human history, there are countless examples of men and women who have restrained themselves from indulging their sexual desires until their wedding dates or in fact for their whole lives. Controlling sexual behavior is clearly possible. This does not guarantee that the desires can ever be changed although there is a significant body of evidence developing that supports both the claim that homosexuality is not based in biology alone but also in environmental and social aspects of a person’s early childhood and also the claim that homosexual tendencies can actually be lessened or even reversed through sensitive psychological counseling! There are a number of well-documented cases where just such a reversal has taken place.

If I had the time, I would review my old research and do new research to grab some of the best cases and make them available here, but a quick Google search should reveal a number. Try looking up “testimony of a former homosexual” and see what that gets you. You might also want to check out Focus on the Family to see the research they have on the topic.

As it stands now, these are just my thoughts on the matter. I don’t have an academic paper to which I can refer you, but I do have the Bible and my own logical thinking. I’d love to interact with you about this more. Just post a comment below, and let’s start the conversation.

This was a profound thought to me, but consider with me why I can make such a claim based on the teaching of the Bible.

1. Elizabeth, and many other women in the Bible were barren until it was God’s time to give them a very special child (Luke 1:5-25)
2. The Bible teaches us that God is ultimately behind everything that happens.

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails. Proverbs 19:21

1. The Savior of the World came into being as an unexpected pregnancy.

We can so often think of the events of this world as if they are all up to the whims of human beings. Even Christians and other religious people can easily forget that there is another will at work in this world. It is God’s will, and his will is ultimately what will happen.

Now of course, there are always the questions of “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and I’ll address that in more detail at another time, but one question we can address is this: if God is always in control, and if God’s plans are the ones that always succeed, then from God’s perspective, there are no unplanned pregnancies, so what about…. (fill in the blank with your own “unplanned” pregnancy idea).

God has a plan for every baby.

I know there are many times when a woman gets pregnant without actually planning to be pregnant, but that doesn’t make the baby unplanned. I believe that God has a plan for every single baby. Here are my reasons:

I have 2 parents. I have 4 grandparents. I have 8 great-grandparents. I have 16 great-great-grandparents. They have 32 parents. They have 64 parents. They have 128 parents. They have 256! If I consider only the past 20 generations of my family tree, I have over two million total parents! Here’s my point. Out of two million parents, I am certain that at least one of those pregnancies was “unexpected” by the parents involved. And yet, the Bible tells me that God has a purpose for my life. Therefore, if God has a purpose for my life, then God had a plan to bring that particular baby into the world at that particular time so that someday, he could work out his purpose for me!

If I believe that I have a purpose and that God has a plan for my life, then I must believe that every single pregnancy in my family tree was planned by God.

Additionally, I’m a white man descended from European blood, and back in the middle ages, there was a great deal of warfare and barbarism going on in Europe. In fact, I can almost guarantee that one of my moms in my family tree got pregnant with a child as the result of an abusive situation or perhaps even a rape.

What does all this mean? Biblically, every child has a purpose and no child is unplanned—consider that the Savior of the world chose to be born as an unexpected pregnancy! Practically, I have a purpose for my being here, but I don’t have the right to claim that any other child doesn’t.

But what about…

Let me cut to the chase. Let’s deal with some terrible examples.

You tell me about any pregnancy. I know there are some “trouble” issues when it comes to issues of abortion, so let’s consider the worst possible situations a mom could be placed in.

• A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.
• A woman becomes pregnant and the baby is threatening the mother’s life.
• A woman is pregnant and the doctors have determined that the baby has severe deformities that will diminish that child’s “quality of life” severely.

I claim that in each case, God can still have a purpose and a plan for that baby.

• Perhaps the baby is in the womb of the raped woman because God wants to give her something beautiful out of the tragedy.
• Perhaps God wants to teach someone about the beauty of forgiveness.
• Perhaps God wants to teach someone about unconditional love.
• Perhaps God allows for an ectopic pregnancy today to prevent ovarian cancer in the future.

Now, I believe that there are some biblical grounds for terminating a pregnancy in the rare case of a mom’s life being severely threatened as in an ectopic pregnancy, but in every other case, I think it’s time for us to realize that there are no unplanned pregnancies, and we should let God’s plan work itself out until it becomes clear what it was or we can ask him ourselves face to face.

Never forget Jesus

More than anything, our God is a God who turns terrible evil into glorious good. After all, he is the one that brought forgiveness to the world through the tragic and evil crucifixion of Jesus.

The next time you encounter a situation that seems evil to you, ask God to give you patience and wisdom to someday see the good he will bring out of it.

The next time you encounter a woman who is debating abortion, encourage her to trust in a God who has a plan for her and for her unborn baby.

Nothing surprises him.

One of the things I do each Easter is to try to come up with the single most reasonable explanation for the resurrection story that doesn’t include an actual resurrection. In other words, each Easter, I try to disprove the resurrection to myself. If I can come up with the best counter-argument, and then show how it is insufficient, my belief in the resurrection will be confirmed again in me with enough strength to let me present an Easter message with confidence and conviction.

This year, I have been studying the Gospel of Mark, and I’ve come up with my best and most plausible counter-argument to the resurrection that I’ve ever had. (Of course, I always think that each year’s argument is better than the previous one.) Here it is…

Joseph of Arimathea Faked the Burial

Many theories have been proposed throughout the years to account for the resurrection stories, but there is always one incontrovertible issue that they must all deal with—the tomb was empty on Sunday morning.

There are many ways that the tomb could have been empty.

• Jesus could have been truly resurrected and left the tomb in one way or another.
• Jesus could have been resuscitated somehow after having only “swooned” on the cross and was never really dead in the first place.
• Jesus’ body could have been “dissolved” in some spiritual way similar to the way Yoda or Obi-Wan Kenobi “die” in the Star Wars movies.
• Jesus’ body could have been stolen from the tomb by someone.

However, all of them have weaknesses in the argument that others have dealt with at length. You can see the links below for some other websites that deal with these issues. (I have never seen a website that addressed the Star Wars theory, but then again, I don’t think it really matters!)

Just this week, though, I thought of another possibility. What if Jesus’ dead body had never been placed in the tomb in the first place?

There are three specific times during the biblical account where there is the greatest potential for deception.

1. During Saturday night when there was a small attachment of guards on duty and no one else around. This is when the “stealing” of the body is supposed to have taken place. Last year, my theory was that one of the soldiers himself had done the “stealing” while it was his watch and the others were sleeping.
2. During Friday afternoon after Jesus was buried and before the guard arrived. There is no evidence that there was any delay between those periods of time, though there might have been. The biggest problem with this idea, though, is that there simply weren’t any of Jesus’ followers who were willing to show their faces in broad daylight on the day Jesus was crucified.
3. During the time after Jesus was taken off the cross and before the body was placed in the tomb.

My counter-argument for Easter 2005 takes place during time period #3, and it centers on the activity of Joseph of Arimathea.

All four gospels agree on a man named Joseph from Arimathea who approached Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). Taken together, they teach us that he was a rich member of the Jewish council but had disagreed with the crucifixion of Jesus and was secretly a follower of Jesus.

All four Gospels agree that Pilate granted the request and gave Joseph leave to take the body of Jesus. After that, we are told that Joseph wrapped the body in clean linen and placed it in a new tomb. We are told that some women were there watching where the body was placed, but we are not told that they witnessed the preparation of the body.

However, this may have been an opportunity for Joseph to play a little trick. Here’s the scenario I’ve come up with. Joseph took the body off the cross and into a room to “prepare it for burial” where he actually got a co-conspirator who was still alive to consent to being wrapped in graveclothes. After placing the decoy in the new tomb, Joseph would use his considerable wealth and influence to find an alternate place to bury the real body in an inconspicuous and unmarked grave. The plan could then have been that after a couple days (according to a prediction Jesus had made), Joseph or someone else would return to open the grave, and the co-conspirator could walk out unwrapped from the linen, but dressed in white acting like an angelic messenger proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead or perhaps acting like the resurrected Jesus himself who had been “transformed” in physical appearance. After all, we are told that people who saw the resurrected Jesus didn’t recognize him at first.

I don’t believe it.

This is the best scenario I’ve come across yet to explain the resurrection as a “hoax”; however, I’m not convinced by it for a few of reasons:

• The Gospel of John tells us that Nicodemus helped Joseph to wrap Jesus’ body together with nearly 100 pounds of spices. Therefore, at least three people were in on the conspiracy, and the likelihood of it remaining secret is reduced with each new person added. Additionally, the tight wrapping of the graveclothes with the profound amount of pungent spices was quite likely to endanger the life of the one who had consented to being wrapped up.
• We are also told that the women took a serious interest in the burial procedures for Jesus. It doesn’t seem likely that they would have allowed Jesus’ body to be out of their site for the length of time it would have taken to prepare this ruse.
• This scenario doesn’t do anything to explain the numerous accounts of personal encounters people had with the resurrected Jesus. Sure, the people didn’t recognize the resurrected Jesus at first, but all of them became convinced that it was really him, and they became convinced enough to die for their claim that they had seen a living and breathing Jesus three days or more after he had been crucified. Thomas also could claim to have touched the holes in the hands and the side of Jesus. Such things would have been difficult for an imposter to fabricate.
• Finally, it was well known that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the high council and also the one who administered the burial of Jesus. If there had been any opportunity for deception, he would have been the first person to be interrogated about it by the council. Therefore, it’s most reasonable to assume that Jesus’ body was not prepared for burial privately but that there were a number of witnesses to his preparation and burial.

None of the “hoax” descriptions of the resurrection are convincing to me. Don’t get me wrong. I find the whole resurrection account amazing and almost unbelievable, but whatever doubts I have are because of my inherent, human, North American doubt in the reality of the supernatural and not because of any historical evidence. The evidence of the Bible, the witnesses, and the history still convinces me that the resurrection is real, and if it’s real, it must make a difference in my life!

The resurrection tells me that Jesus is who he claimed to be—the divine Son of God.

The resurrection tells me that Jesus has conquered death and the sin which causes it.

The resurrection gives me the hope that one day, I too will experience resurrection.

Acts 2:32, 36 — God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact… Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 — But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

1 Peter 1:3-4 — Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you.

Links to other sites

Here are some quick links to interesting websites on this topic.

• A great article at answers2prayer.org from the Evangelical Christian viewpoint.
• A detailed article at laborlawtalk.com attempting to address all sides of the issue.
• A poorly documented but interesting sermon at exchangedlife.com discussing many aspects of the resurrection and raising some controversial claims about non-christian support for the resurrection.
• Some anecdotal information on the Catholic Church’s tradition of what happened to Joseph of Arimathea is here, here, and here.

Deuteronomy 26:2-15

1. Verse 2 says to take “some” of the firstfruits. What happens to the rest? Is it sacrificed?
2. Verse 12 talks about tithing every 3 years. What’s up with that?

The Old Testament teaching on the tithe was quite a bit more complicated than the simple 10% that is advocated these days. In fact, some estimates have the ancient Jews giving roughly 30% of their income back to God through sacrifices and other forms of worship. Nevertheless, there are three key principles that today we lump together into what we call tithing.

1. Firstborn. (Exodus 13:1-16) God claims for himself the firstborn male of every womb. Firstborn animals are to be sacrificed, but firstborn sons are to be “redeemed” by substituting another sacrifice or by giving roughly 10 ounces of silver to the high priests (Numbers 3).

2. Firstfruits. (Exodus 23:19; Deuteronomy 18:1-4 & 26:1-11) God claims the best of the first produce of the land for himself. Nowhere does he tell how much of the firstfruits belong to him. Nowhere does he say how long it takes for the “firstfruits” to end and the regular harvest to begin.

3. Tithe. (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:26-29) The tithe specifically refers to a tenth of the produce and is intended to be an easily computed amount that also equalizes people of different economic status. For animals, the tithe means that as the sheep enter the pen, you simply count them off and every tenth one is set aside for the tithe. It’s probably best to understand the tithe as a method to quantify how much of the “firstfruits” should be given to God.

When Deuteronomy 26:2-15 says to take “some” of the firstfruits, what happens to the rest? This particular passage is talking about the very first crop to produce fruit after the Israelites enter the promised land. Putting some firstfruits in a basket and taking them all the way to Jerusalem is a symbolic gesture specifically for that very first harvest. The rest of the firstfruits would be handled just like the firstfruits would be at any ordinary year. How were they handled? The answer to that will also address your second question regarding the tithing every three years thing.

The tithe, the firstfruits, and the firstborn all belong to God. But God commanded them to be used together for three specific purposes:

1. Celebratory worship
2. Supporting the Levites (vocational ministers)
3. Supporting the poor

You can see these three themes in Deuteronomy 14 which directly addresses the tithe.

From Deuteronomy 14:22-29.

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Every year, the tithe is to be enjoyed and celebrated in Jerusalem. However, the local Levites in one’s home town were to be remembered each year as well. Additionally, once every three years, a person’s tithe should not be eaten in Jerusalem but should be storehoused in his home town to take care of both the Levites and the poor.

These same three themes appear in the passages on the firstfruits and the firstborn.

(It’s also important to know that the poor people (who have no income of their own) are not commanded to tithe, but the Levites are commanded to obey all three (tithe, firstfruits, and firstborn) by giving their portion to the high priests at Jerusalem. One final thing to note is that Jesus reaffirms the tithe but never directly addresses the other two, so it seems that the tithe principle might encompass the other two.)

As I understand it, all these principles can be summarized like this.

• A portion of the first and the best of everything that enters my household should be returned to God. In our money economy, a tithe off my gross income should be considered the baseline starting point.
• My tithe should be used to directly support local vocational ministers (the Levites), to help the poor people in my town, and to give my family positive worship experiences. In a healthy church, these things can be accomplished by giving the entire tithe to the church.
• Both ministers and ministries should also “tithe upward” from their income to regional bodies.

Nevertheless, the best news about tithing should always be remembered that God promises great blessings to those who are faithful with the tithe.

Deuteronomy 14:29

…so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands…

Malachi 3:10

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

However, the Bible clearly teaches that to rest lazily upon that truth is actually a dangerous thing to do. It’s a sticky situation to deal with when you try to reconcile human responsibility and the sovereign grace of God, but truthfully, we don’t have to deal with all that. The spiritual life is really simple. Consider some of these verses.

2 Peter 1:3-9 (MSG)

Everything that goes into a life of pleasing God has been miraculously given to us by getting to know, personally and intimately, the One who invited us to God. The best invitation we ever received! We were also given absolutely terrific promises to pass on to you–your tickets to participation in the life of God after you turned your back on a world corrupted by lust.

So don’t lose a minute in building on what you’ve been given, complementing your basic faith with good character, spiritual understanding, alert discipline, passionate patience, reverent wonder, warm friendliness, and generous love, each dimension fitting into and developing the others. With these qualities active and growing in your lives, no grass will grow under your feet, no day will pass without its reward as you mature in your experience of our Master Jesus. Without these qualities you can’t see what’s right before you, oblivious that your old sinful life has been wiped off the books.

You see, in these verses, Peter teaches that on the one hand, we have been given everything we need to live a life that pleases God. The power has been handed to us simply because we know Jesus. More than that, our old sinful lives have been wiped off the books! But that doesn’t eliminate our responsibility. What it does is free us to be able to make spiritual progress in character, understanding, discipline and more.

So how do we make spiritual progress?

Simple, we decide to! That is, we make growth commitments, work on them, and then celebrate our success. I’ll talk about that more later, and it will come out especially if I ever get my “LWL 301 — GROWTH” class completed. However, you don’t have to know all the details about effective “growth commitments” in order to take the attitude of a growth commitment.

Here is the spiritual life in simplest terms–every day, renew your commitment. Here are four basic commitments you should make regularly.

• Commit to the person of Jesus: My first commitment needs to be to Jesus himself more than any other person who has ever walked this earth. My heart and soul belong to him. (CORE COMMITMENT: Worship)
• Commit to the people of Jesus: My second commitment must be to the family of God that has been created through the work of Jesus on the cross. God has adopted me into his family, and I need to acknowledge that I’m not alone. If I’m not in a small group, I will seek one out. If I’m not a member of a church yet, I will pursue that as well. I want my family to know I’m committed to them. (CORE COMMITMENT: Community)
• Commit to the purpose of Jesus: The whole reason Jesus came into this world was to touch people’s heart with the love of God and to change their lives into being more like himself. Jesus’ purpose is to bring growth to me and to you and to all who will respond to him. I commit to being a part of the growth he is bringing about in this world, this neighborhood, and in myself. (CORE COMMITMENT: Growth)
• Commit to the plan of Jesus: Amazingly, Jesus plans to use people to accomplish his purpose in this world. He plans to use people gathered together into local fellowships called churches. He plans to use each local church to reach its neighborhood. And he plans to use me. That’s his plan; he has no backup plan. I’m making a commitment to do what I can to be part of it. (CORE COMMITMENT: Ministry)

These are really the four basic commitments of the spiritual life! Make these commitments this week. Renew them every day. Do something about them. And watch the great growth that God will bring in your life over the rest of this year. You will be amazed!