Bio

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, the author of Truthspeak and his new book, The Gospel of Grace and Truth: A Theology of Grace from the Gospel of John," both available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing to Dr. Halsey at michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

Comments may be addressed to michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net.

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

Friday, December 25, 2015

THIS MAN'S BIRTHDAY

The heavyweights call a meeting. Things are getting out of hand and they, by all that's good and decent they say, are determined to do something.

We have the minutes of their hurry-up meeting and the pages throb with anger and frustration. From this record we learn why they're angry: "The chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him . . .  So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. . . [they] said to one another, 'You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.' ”

EPIC FAIL

The men at the meeting are the power hitters in Israel's capital and they're on the march against Jesus of Nazareth, They hate Him so much, they won't sully their lips with His name, but, instead, call Him, "this man." Their plot is to kill Him. Although they spoke in hyperbole ("the whole world has gone after Him") what they so desperately tried to prevent never became a reality. They wanted to erase the name they refused to say, "this man's" name, from history, just as their spiritual descendants wish to do today. But, if there ever was an epic fail, this is it.

How many men at that nefarious meeting can you name? Whose name among them lives on? Do we celebrate the birthday of even one of them? No, not one.

We're not saying that the whole world follows Him as in discipleship, but just look at the facts. In celebration of "this man's" birth, we shut down our federal government, our schools, most of our stores, our doctors' offices, all our post offices, and all our banks. We close our state offices, state courts, city, and county offices. 

EVERYBODY SING!

9 out of 10 of us celebrate Christmas; the very word carries His name. The observance of "this man's" birth includes 81% of non-Christians, 87% of people with no religion, Buddhists (76%) and Hindus (73%). Roughly a third of U.S. Jews (32%) – many of whom have non-Jewish spouses – said that they had a Christmas tree in their homes during the most recent holiday season.

It gets more interesting: far from erasing His name from history, more than 7-in-10 (73%) say that Jesus was born to a virgin and 81% believe He was laid in a manger. And similar shares say that wise men, guided by a star, brought Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (75%) and that an angel of the Lord appeared to shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus (74%). Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) believe that all four of these things actually happened. (From the Pew Research Center). Those high percentages know more than His name; they know the details of His birth and early years.

LOOK AT THE CITIES AND TOWNS

Communities, large and small, have Christmas parades, Christmas decorations, Christmas pageants, and Christmas festivals, while families gather, feast together, and gain weight together. People of all ages, complete strangers, gather together, wish each other, "Merry Christmas, and sing special songs called carols about His birth, the tunes and lyrics they learned as children. Poinsettias abound around towns. Choirs sing; orchestras orchestrate; bands play. Stores pipe in music for the season.

My alma mater, Texas Tech University, strings 25,000 red, white, and orange lights on 13 buildings of its sprawling campus. Over 20,000 gather from both the school and the city. It's dramatic. The event starts with the Texas Tech University Combined Choirs performing selections of classic holiday songs. At an appointed time, with the thousands in high anticipation, someone throws the switch, and the Carol of Lights is born anew, a tradition since 1959. 

WANT TO TALK MONEY?

Let's talk happy cabbage: Americans will jam the malls, the stores, and the grocery stores, all for the birth of this man. Parking lots will choke with stalled traffic. Impatient drivers will jam Interstates to get there. Stores will open early and keep their lights on until late. Post offices, the UPS, Fed-Ex will hire extra workers. The average American will spend $830 on gifts this year in observance of this man's birthday, totaling more than $465 billion. Wow! 

AND IT'S NOT ONLY US

More than 160 countries celebrate this man's birth. In England, royalty sets the tone. On December 25, 1932, King George V spoke on the radio to a national audience from a small office at Sandringham. This marked the beginning of a tradition which, to many, has become an integral part of the yuletide festivities - the Christmas Broadcast.
 
Since that time, a Christmas Day message has been delivered by the monarch to the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth almost every year.

THE LAND OF LUTHER

In Germany, where the Christmas tree began, they decorate their trees on Christmas Eve, prior to the evening feast. The father usually keeps the children in a separate room while the mother brings out the Christmas tree from a hidden place and decorates it with apples, candy, nuts, cookies, cars, trains, angels, tinsel, family treasures and candles or lights.

The Germans put the gifts under the tree, while nearby, beautiful plates are laid for each family member and filled with fruits, nuts, marzipan, chocolate and biscuits. The decorations finished, a bell is rung as a signal for the children to enter the room. The family reads Luke 2  during this time and they sing carols together. Often, they light sparklers.

REMEMBER THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH?

Although they choose a different day, going by a different calendar, an Ethiopian Christmas typically begins with a day of fasting, followed by church services and a feast that includes stew, vegetables and sourdough bread. Though most friends and families do not exchange gifts, communities gather to play games and sports, and enjoy the festivities together before returning to work.

OTHERS

In France, Japan, and India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and in the Ukraine, there will be Christmas celebrations. Tourists will fill Bethlehem where people display Nativity scenes and Christians mark their doors with crosses. (Even in their own country, the heavy hitters at that meeting failed to obliterate His name.)

We could go on, but you get the idea.

Today, we continue to see various attempts to erase His name, this time via political correctness and "inclusion." What does all this tell us? It tells us that that meeting long ago failed miserably. It tells us something more than that--it speaks of the impact this Man continues to have on the world.

Friday, December 18, 2015

THE CHART MENTALITY

Talk to any teacher and they'll tell you of a common frustration. Let's call it, "The Chart Mentality." The teacher gives the student a chart for the scholar to memorize. The student does due diligence and commits it to memory, dead solid perfect. It's locked in his brain. That's all well and good. But there's a problem; he doesn't know what do with it. To say it another way, he doesn't know how to apply the chart to a given situation. To him the chart, meant to be applied, isn't applied and the chart is a chart is a chart. Although he's memorized the chart, he can't connect the dots and use it in any practical way. He "knows" the chart, but he doesn't understand it. Frustrating!

To memorize the teacher's chart is a good thing, but if it doesn't go anywhere from there, it's useless. It just lies there, stored away in the vault of the student's mind, only to be reproduced in chart form for a test, should the need arise. That's harmful, but when it comes to the Bible, that's downright dangerous.

MOTHER AND CHILD

How so? Let's think about it.

What's the most memorized, most loved, and most quoted verse in the Bible? "Of course," you say, "John 3:16 is the answer to that question," and you'd be right as rain.

Two weeks ago, a little girl quoted that verse to me. She was right-on; dead solid perfect in her recitation. Her mother listened and nodded her familial approval, proud as punch. Both knew the verse. It was in the vault.

 ". . . whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's what the last part of the verse says and they knew it.

When I asked them how they knew God is going to let them into heaven, the mother cited (1) her baptism, (2) her personal goodness, and (3) she was raising her kids to be like Christ.

SOMEHOW, SHE SAW THE INVISIBLE INK

Wait a minute. Hold the phone. I don't see those three things mentioned in John 3:16. I see "believe," but not baptism, not being a good person, not raising kids for Christ. They aren't there, but she "saw" them. Why did she mention those three? Why didn't she respond with, "whoever believes in Him" as the answer to my question?

She didn't because she has a chart mentality and she's raising her daughter to have the same. She's not alone. She's legion and that legion is all over the place in our churches. John 3:16 is her "chart," but that chart never came into play when I asked, "Why should God let you into heaven?" She didn't connect the two dots, the chart (Jn. 3:16) and the question, to see that the reason is because of faith alone in Christ alone.

When I underlined the word, "believe" in the verse for them, then the "aha" moment came. The mother connected the dots; she applied the chart.

FLIP SIDE

However, for some, when we connect the dots for them, the "aha" moment is the reverse; the person sees what the chart is telling him, then, instead of saying, "Aha, yes, I see that now," he gets upset. The truth is there, right in front of his eyes as he looks upon the underlined word, "believe," but he bows his neck and goes on the defensive with statements like, "It can't be that easy," "There just has to be more," or "My mother (or pastor, grandparents, father) don't/didn't believe this." (So? Just because somebody didn't/doesn't believe Neil Armstrong went to the moon doesn't make mean that he never walked on the moon.) Instead of becoming noble Bereans and searching the Scriptures with a dot-connecting pen, they refuse to connect the dots leading to the gates of heaven through faith alone.

THERE WAS THIS GUY

There was this fellow I know who was studying for the ministry. In his studies, he read and he heard, "Christ died for our sins." That saying became embedded in his brain and he could easily have quoted it if you shook him awake at 3 AM. Those words were his chart. But, and he'll tell you this, although he could quote it, he wasn't saved.

What? Why not? He wasn't saved because he didn't know, understand, and believe that Christ died for his sins. He had no idea that He needed Christ to die for his sins or he was doomed. He had no idea that he needed to place his faith in Christ alone apart from works. Today, he's a believer, but back in the day when he was studying for the priesthood, he wasn't. (He stopped cold turkey and got out of Roman Catholicism.)

Don't get me wrong, a chart is a good thing, if it leads to application. I got through 8th grade math because I memorized three charts having to do with percentages and the finding of such. (Don't ask me what they were, they're long gone from the vault. Thieves called "Years" broke in and stole them.) For that 8th grade math, all I had to do was to memorize the charts and then apply them to real-life percentage problems and I was home free. Honor roll, here I come!

My point is not that I was hot stuff in math; I wasn't--everything cratered in the 9th grade when I ran into that grief-dealing behemoth called algebra. How I hated, loathed, and despised that monster! I only succeed in the 8th grade because I understood how to apply the charts. I could connect the dots with a vengeance. I never could connect algebra with anything, chart or no chart.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

Instead of letting the conversation degenerate into a "he-says-this-then-I-say-that" (which is witnessing by a chart mentality) do what Jesus did--inundate the person with questions. "What does John 3:16 say?" "What's this word in the sentence?" "Does John 3:16 advise baptism, raising children to be like Christ, or personal achievement?" "In what sense is it easy to trust Someone you've never seen, Someone no one living has ever seen, for everlasting life?" "Why do you think the New Testament conditions salvation on faith alone 150 times if there are works involved?" "Could the thief on the cross have done enough good to overcome all his sins in the time he was hanging on the cross?""How much good do you have to do?" "How long do you have to be good--all your life?" "Since you've learned that raising kids for Christ is the way to heaven, don't you think we ought to go right now and start telling everybody what you've discovered about how to get to heaven?"

What is all this? It's Acts 18:19 in action: "They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews." It's like Christ on the Emmaus Highway, reasoning with those two men from the Scriptures.

AND WHAT ABOUT DISCIPLESHIP?

Discipleship isn't by a chart, either. The same holds true--there is the dialoguing and reasoning through the Scriptures, there is the real-life demonstration of serving Christ to real life situations. The Christ-like life isn't lived by an outline, yet so much of Christian education is filling out an outline with three points all beginning with the letter, "B," closing the Bible, and going home. There's no such thing as chart mentality discipleship. So much instruction in our churches is chart mentality instruction. When it's all said and done, the just lies there on the page in a notebook.

There's the chart and there's life, and never the twain shall meet. The chart killeth; the Spirit giveth life.











Friday, December 11, 2015

THE MAN WITH THE MEAN, LEAN, AND HUNGRY LOOK

I'm sitting at a table talking to the lady sitting across from me. Standing beside her are two of her children, an elementary school girl and a somewhat older son. Our conversation consists of my asking her the various questions on our Survey Evangelism and recording her answers. We're at an outdoor community Christmas event where there's a parade and vendors are hawing their wares. Except, us, our evangelism team is not selling but seeking to give away living water.

She's a former Lutheran who has left that denomination for a non-denominational church where she likes the music and the in-the pew dancing during the church services. Her daughter likes those things too, especially the dancing, the girl tells me. The daughter is a live-wire kid who can easily quote John 3:16. You can't help but like her; her enthusiastic personality and smile are contagious.

One survey question stumps the nice lady: "What does the word 'grace' mean?" I ask.  (That's my favorite question on the survey and I'm eager to hear her answer.)

But she just sits there. And sits there. I think I hear crickets in the distance. She's thinking, trying to come up with something. Her pause isn't dramatic; it has become awkward. She's heard the word, but has no clue. She's as quite as Mark McGuire before a congressional committee. I break the silence by moving to the next question.

"I'm sure I'm going to heaven," she tells me, "Because I'm raising my kids to be like Christ" and "I'm a good person." She's so sure, she's 100% sure.

The survey is over; the questions, miserably answered, are all done. Now, the last question: "Would you like to hear the Bible's answer to these questions?"

"Sure," she says.

So I begin to answer the questions by drawing the diagram and explaining Christ and Him crucified. She and her daughter begin to listen with intent.

And then it happened.

I hadn't noticed earlier, but standing about 25 feet away, leaning up against the wall of a building  across the narrow street stands a man who fits the description of Cassius: "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look,"Julius Caesar remarked to Mark Anthony.

This "Yon Cassius" calls out, "Let's go!" He was semi-yelling to the lady to whom I was speaking. Like I said, I hadn't noticed him up until then, but there he was.  He's been there all along, standing there with their teen-aged son, who also had the Cassius look, both of them leaning against the brick wall, the backside of a building.

She continues to be intent and calls back to him, "No. He's drawing me a picture. Come over here and see it."

Cassius then makes his move, along with Cassius Jr., and they walk across the narrow street to have a look-see, just as they were told to do by Mrs. Cassius. I say a brief, "Hi," and continue. (Looking back, I should have backed up and started all over again. As usual, my hindsight is 20-20. I'm learning; next time, I'll back up.)

I continue, and as I do, Cassius Jr. starts to go into motion, pacing aimlessly back and forth and then he makes some snide, teen-age arrogant remark that thinks is funny. Nobody laughs. This is awkward. The problem is, I don't catch exactly what he said because he's moving around and teenagers aren't the most articulate of the population. I ask, "What did you say?" He says it again, but Jr. isn't Demosthenes; I still can't understand him. I move on.

As Cassius Sr. stands there, he's silent, standing in pout mode. (Typical; this isn't the first time our evangelism team has run into a sullen husband whose wife wants to hear the Bible's answers to the big questions of life, but he gets all huffy about it. He and his pout won't be the last. Cassius is ubiquitous.)

At the conclusion of the gospel presentation, I ask her, "Is there any reason you shouldn't trust Christ alone right now?"

She says, "No, no reason at all."

I point out to her that trusting Christ alone means not depending on all those works she's mentioned earlier, like, "raising my kids for Christ," and being "a good person." I tell her that I'm talking about trusting Christ ALONE. She agrees. (Cassius is still pouting, just standing there, aloof from me, from kith and kin.) He's silently letting me know that he doesn't like all this. He's trying to punish his wife with his silence. (He calls it punishment; I call it peace and quiet.)

I give her two pieces of our literature and off they go. Cassius is happy now.

What was all this? What was going on with with Cassius and Cassius Jr.? They were, to use a term attributed to Lenin (but that's disputed), "useful idiots." Stalin or Lenin, or somebody, coined the term to describe those in the West who blindly supported the likes of Lenin and Stalin while they committed atrocity after atrocity.

But who was using those useful idiots that day?

What I was seeing is that we often see, and that's Luke 8 in action, although unsuccessful this time: "[T]he seed is the word of God. Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart." When we plant the gospel, there's often someone, a useful idiot, leaning against a wall, standing or sitting nearby who wants to kill it, to snatch the gospel away. He's acting as the devil's tool, the devil's fool, Satan's useful idiot, but he doesn't know it.

There's a supernatural component every time we take the gospel to the lost, and sometimes that component is the wrong half of the supernatural universe. It wasn't only her husband's command, "Come on, let's go," it was also the snide remark of her son; it was also the pout.

The snatching strategy varies. It isn't always, "Come on, let's go." It can be someone standing by who trots out the old tried and true ploy of the devil, "It JUST CAN'T be that simple," they say. (They always seem to put the "JUST" in there somewhere for dramatic emphasis, don't they? It's as if they think they've come up with a new thought.)

Why can't it be that simple? Is salvation only for the brilliant? (As if it's a simple thing to trust Someone you've never seen, Someone no one living has ever seen, and Someone and whose message is in a Book that's been under attack as soon as it's ink was dry, and to trust this Person for the biggest question of them all--How can I have forgiveness for my sins and eternal life?)

She went home, trusting Christ alone. She, now a believer, is there, inside the family. So is the literature. The seed has been planted in the lives of the other four.

That's exciting!






Friday, December 4, 2015

THE WIRE

It's almost invisible, but it's there. It's there and stayed there even when Hurricane Sandy hit. What it is, is the wire, but not just any wire. It's a wire that symbolizes the bondage and lack of logic that is  legalism, yet it's hailed as a good thing.

Jewish law says that no Jew is to carry objects outside the home on the Sabbath. (That constitutes "work," and work is forbidden on the Sabbath.) So, from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown, no Jew is to carry any objects outside the house.

Bummer. That would be a depressing and mean no fun for 24 hours, every week, 52 weeks a year, world without end, amen. But it's more than just a no-fun situation. It's a spiritual nightmare. This is what Paul meant when he wrote about the Law, saying, "For the letter kills,"and that it's "a ministry of death."

LEGALISTS FIND A WAY

But wait! Smart legalists will find a way to get around the rule! Enter the wire. The legalists get together and say, "What if we string a wire between two poles in the area in which we live, like say, Manhattan? Let's call the strung wire 'a symbolic fence.' Let's think big and string the wire to almost encircle Manhattan. Wouldn't this mean that if the wire encircled a large, a really large area, like Manhattan, that the 'fence' would mean that that area was our 'home,' like, you know, your fenced-off backyard?"

And that's exactly what they did--they strung the wire from pole to pole to pole, enough to make Manhattan their "home" so that they could carry anything and everything they wanted to carry outside the house because their home was now much bigger. The wire exists today, right now.

PROTECT THE WIRE

A rabbi goes out on Thursdays to make sure the wire is in tip-top shape. If a part of it isn't in good repair, the next morning the rabbi calls a crew to come and fix it. All this doesn't just take valuable time, it also takes $100,000 per year in the upkeep of the "fence."

That's an picture of what legalism does: legalism creates hypocrites; legalism creates situations impossible to live with; legalism creates the illogical; legalism creates the need for loopholes, illogical as they may be; legalism creates harsh, judgmental, abusive people, and holier-than-thou-people. 

This symbolic fence or symbolic wall is now in over two hundred cities and areas. A "symbolic fence?" What's that? A "symbolic wall." What's that? Other than the fact that it's not logical, it's the wire strung from pole to pole to pole. 

WAIT. HAVEN'T WE HEARD OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE?

Yet, this is nothing new. The legalists of Christ's day had their inconsistent, illogical, hypocritical rules too. Jesus has just healed a man on the Sabbath, and the man, overwhelmed by joy (who wouldn't be?) violated their rules by carrying his pallet on Saturday. That was "work." 

You couldn't pluck an ear of corn, not one, if you were hungry on the Sabbath. That would be classified in the legalists' eyes as "harvesting."

For another look at the bondage of legalism back then; read on:

"If a man received a cure accidentally, it was very well; but no methods [for a cure] were to be taken with intention: as for instance:

"If a man had an ailment in his throat, he might not gargle it with oil, but he might swallow a large quantity of oil, 'and if he was healed, he was healed' (i.e. it was very well, it was no breach of the Sabbath); they may not chew mastic, nor rub the teeth with spice, on the Sabbath day, when it is intended for healing; but if it is intended for the savor of his mouth, it is free.''

Or how about this rule:

"If a beast fall into a ditch, or a pool of water, if food can be given it, where it is, they feed it till the going out of the Sabbath; but if not, bolsters and pillows may be brought, and put under it, and if it can come out: it may come out:''

LEGALISTS ON THE LOOSE TODAY

The legalists aren't confined to the ancient days of the Pharisees nor are they all living in  Manhattan today. They live and move and have their being among us, north, south, west, and east, infesting and infecting our churches. For example, a fellow was attending a church and in that church they announced that they were scheduling training in evangelism, and from that training, an evangelistic team would go out into the neighborhood with the good news. He attended and learned the how-to of evangelism, but when it came time to join the team and venture forth, they told him, "No, no, you can't go."

Why? He'd learned and done all that was required, hadn't he? Yes, indeed, but the problem was he was an attender of the church and not a member of the church. To go out and evangelize with them, you had to officially join the church. Why? Because that's what the rule said. (To be logical, we might point out that, if that were the case in Paul's day, no one would ever evangelize because they had no such thing as church membership. Paul never heard of such a thing as joining a church. No believer was a "member" of any church, as we conceive of membership today.)

Another case in point: a furor erupted in a church because of a proposal for the youth to serve the Lord's Supper to the congregation on a given Sunday. This eruption spewed lava all over the place. (Legalism will always do that.) The problem: the rules said that deacons were to serve the Lord's Supper. (And these are adults we're talking about. Legalism makes children out of adults; it breeds immaturity.)

In another church, they taught the men that true Christians have their shirts tucked in and belts on. They did allow facial hair, but frowned if a bearded one wanted to be in any position of leadership. (Wait. Didn't some Roman soldiers pluck out the hairs of one Person's beard for mocking sport?)

How about one more, for the road:

Joe is a Christian; he believes it's sinful to consume alcohol. (Joe is in error. Consuming alcohol isn't a sin; drunkenness is. But Joe goes even farther afield.) One day Fred asks him to help with a household move. Fred has packed some of his belongings in strong wooden wine crates that were given to him by Sam. Joe helps Fred move, but outspokenly refuses to handle the wine-seller's crates because they were made to contain alcoholic beverages. Good grief! You can't make this stuff up. Such legalistic activities make Christians look like idiots.

That's enough.

What if you find yourself in a church where legalism carries the day? You know what you should do, I'm sure. If you can't "cast out the bondwoman," to use Paul's analogy in Galatians, get out; get out now.








Friday, November 27, 2015

NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE OUR PERMISSION

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there was a code:

No motion picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done: 
(a)   When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive.
(b)   When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin. The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty.
The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided:
(a)   That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin.
(b)   That throughout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil.
(c)    That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right

What is this? The above is part of the motion picture code in America from 1930-1967. It was called the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America from 1922-1945. If you made a movie and wanted to show it in American theaters, you toed the mark and lived up to the Hays Code. 

Look at the words of the code: "moral standards," "evil," "sin," "goodness," "honor," "purity," "wrong," and "right." They sound quaint, absolute, and bye-gone. Yet that's the way it was back in the day in a land far, far away.

PERMISSION DENIED

So back in the day it was, "No, you do not have OUR permission to say that;" "No, you do not have OUR permission to do that;" "No, you do not have OUR permission to approve of that;"  No, you don't have OUR permission to wear that; "No, you don't have OUR permission to mock that."

The question is, who was "OUR," that is, whose permission was not granted back then, in that land far, far away? It was, perhaps, the strongest permission of them all, as far as earthly permission is concerned--it was the permission of the prevailing culture. That's why Hollywood and the arts did what they did back in the day; they didn't have the culture's permission to do otherwise. 

The culture gave it's permission to the proper use of the English language and not the coarse; the culture gave its permission to the proper behavior and not to the perverted; the culture gave its permission to approve of the good and disapprove of the bad; the culture gave its permission to proper attire; the culture gave its permission to uphold the church and those in it. The culture supported truth, justice, and the American way in that land now far, far away.

But that was back in the day. Today, the arts are the power that gives cultural permission to the coarse, the common, and the degraded. The arts give the culture permission to teenagers to be angry, sullen, and rebellious. The arts give the culture permission to devalue language to a level below coarse; the arts give the culture permission to form mobs, to destroy property, to override the freedom of speech by making heroes of those who do. Whenever we hear the coarse or see the perverted in the arts, we are seeing the giving of cultural permission to talk and act that way.

Even on the simplest level: whoever thought that we'd have to think twice before we say, "Merry Christmas"? But it's the power of cultural permission that's making us think twice. Do we have the culture's permission in this particular case and in this particular place to say "Merry Christmas"? Whoever thought we would have to think before praising our Founders like Jefferson and Washington? The culture is making us think twice. "Do we have cultural permission for such praise," we're asking ourselves.

Whoever thought that we'd have to think twice about team names such as the Washington Bullets of the NBA? They changed their name to the Washington Wizards. ( "In 1995, the owner announced he was changing the team's name because Bullets had acquired violent overtones that had made him increasingly uncomfortable over the years.") Whoever thought that the annual game between the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma would change its brand from "The Red River Shootout" to "The Red River Rivalry'? But the culture did not give its permission to anything so violent as "shootout," so away went the brand.

We may not like it, but we have to admit, no matter who you are, we're thinking twice about having the permission of the culture. That's how powerful cultural permission is. The Bible calls it "the kosmos," that is, the "world-system" a system that's organized to leave God out, and it is powerful. It carries clout and woe be to those who stand against it. 

Yet, the Lord Jesus said to us, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world (kosmos) you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world (kosmos).” Jn. 16:33






Friday, November 20, 2015

THE MOVIE MAN

They said that he came into his own as a producer, writer, and director of the 2011 movie, “The Way,” which told a story of death, faith, and family. A critic said that the movie was different--"It had no massive special effects, no parade of gore or bedroom scenes with nudity."

Back in 2011, the man who made the movie was quoted as saying, "Hollywood is a very difficult place to be earnest and be heartfelt. I'm not interested in making films that are anything but. There’s a lot of vulgarity in films. There’s a lot of violence, casual sex – things that make me uncomfortable watching – and I’m not interested in perpetuating that message.” [That sounds different.]

The movie man continues: "[My kind of film is] one that shows simple human relationships. I think we have a responsibility as artists, and if we live in that community, and we work in that community, we have a responsibility to lift it up and to raise the bar and to reject all that [mentioned above].”

His movie, "The Way," contains a subtle pro-life message, about which he says, "We give voice to the unborn, and again, that is another thing Hollywood doesn’t necessarily celebrate.” [That’s putting it mildly.]

Who is this movie man, this producer, writer, and director? Why, he's none other than the guy who played the hockey coach in "The Mighty Duck" films. So now you know the rest of the story, he's Emilio Estevez. Or do you really know the rest of the story? He's also the brother of Charlie Sheen.

THAT GUY?

Charlie Sheen? Yes, that Charlie Sheen. That Charlie Sheen who, according to reports, "has allegedly assaulted, threatened, harassed, abused, and—in one incident—shot women. Although his long history of violence toward women has been reported in the media, it seems to have taken a back seat to the actor's partying, wild lifestyle, and battles with addiction."

That Charlie Sheen who's been in and out of rehab, and by his own admission, has paid millions to blackmailers, is currently threatened with lawsuits, has suffered cluster headaches and night sweats, and has heard what he calls, "The hard letters, H, I, and V."

Yet, it was that brother America's press and people celebrated during all those years of his drugs, carousing, and rehab sessions. It was that brother who the press quoted in all his nonsensical glory. Things like: "I got tiger blood, man. My brain...fires in a way that is - I don't know, maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm." "I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." Although his words were certified nonsense, the public ate it up. They couldn't get enough of him.

It was that brother who should have been embarrassed that his father and brother got on national TV to plead with him to come to his senses and get some help. 

It was that brother that we knew all about. It was that brother who was smiling at us from the covers of one magazine after another. We saw him, whether we wanted to or not, grinning at us from too many magazine covers as we stood in the checkout lines.

THE GRIN IS GONE

It's that brother isn't smiling today. It's that brother who's grown serious; the wages of sin have caught up with him, even as he cruised through life in his own fast lane, and it's no fun anymore. The payday someday is today, tomorrow, and for the rest of his days, a fact he may not realize yet.

The other brother? Emilio hasn't had cluster headaches, night sweats, paid 10 million in blackmail, isn't addicted to drugs, hasn't made moronic statements for all to hear and read, hasn't been a complete embarrassment, isn't threatened with lawsuits, nor heard the hard letters. No ambulance has rushed him to the Los Robles Medical Center because he overdosed on cocaine and alcohol. Emilio didn't get into drugs at age 11, nor did his high school expel him at 17. Emilio didn't turn into a "crazy, chain-smoking, who-cares-about-the-consequences dervish, claiming to be fueled by 'tiger blood' and 'Adonis DNA,' waving a sword at the 'clowns' and 'trolls' who had supposedly enslaved him." (from"Vanity Fair, 2011" Mark Seal)

Why not? Because Emilio, whether he knows it or not, has lived close to what Paul calls the morality God has written in every human heart. Then, when we look at the book of Proverbs, with its admonition, "The fear of the Lord (a positive response to God) is the beginning of wisdom," we realize that one book could have saved Charlie Sheen from a life of financial, moral, and physical chaos that hasn't stopped yet.

But there's more. Assuming that neither brother is saved, we might paraphrase the jailer's question to Paul to be, "What must they do to be saved?"

First, we must recognize that both brothers are equally lost, equally, as the Bible says, "In Adam." Secondly, we must realize that Christ died for all their sins, Charlie's and Emilio's (I John 2:2). Charlie Sheen's sins were all paid for on the cross 2,000 years ago, as were Emilio's. To be saved and have the benefits of Christ's death on the cross applied to each of them, what they need to do is to trust Christ, trust Him that He is the Son of God; trust Him that His payment for their sins is finished, complete, and done; trust Him that He rose from the dead; and trust Him that He alone can save them.

"Trust Him alone" means that neither Charlie nor Emilio must beg God to save them, neither must feel sorry for their sins, neither must resolve to live for Christ, neither must put Christ on the throne of their lives, neither must  forsake their sins. That's what John 3:16 means--salvation is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone. That's what grace is--neither has to earn salvation; it's a gift.

But wait! Charlie Sheen doesn't deserve a salvation provided without cost. Surely, he must do something; he has to do something! You're right; Charlie doesn't deserve the gift of a without-cost-salvation.

Neither does Emilio. Neither do you.







Friday, November 13, 2015

THE STATUS OF THE QUO

Someone defined "status quo" as, "The mess we is in." That sounds like a more apropos definition than its literal meaning (from the Latin, meaning, "state in which").

ENTER THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER

The prestigious Pew Research Center not only researches America's attitudes toward politicians in and out of office, but also America's beliefs about spiritual matters. A couple of their recent findings of the status quo is disturbing.

HEAVEN AND HELL

In a recent study, the Pew Research Center found that 72% of us in the U. S. of A. believe in heaven and 58% of us believe in hell as literal places. OK, what's so disturbing about that? What's so disturbing is the definitions of both. The 72% who believe in heaven define it as a place “where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded.”

Hold on, Francis, it gets worse.

The Pew Group found that "The existence of heaven [with that definition] is almost universally accepted by Mormons (95%) and members of historically black Protestant denominations (93%), as well as by about eight-in-ten or more [of] evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and mainline Protestants."

We would expect such a skewed definition from the Mormons and from Roman Catholics, but from "93% of black Protestant denominations, as well as by about eight-in-ten or more [of] evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and mainline Protestants"? That's dismal.

THE BIBLE SAYS 

The Bible is clear that heaven isn't earned by good behavior: John 3:16, the most famous, most memorized, and most quoted sentence in the Bible says so: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." There's no mention in that famous sentence of "leading a good life."

 Pair that well-known sentence with another statement from the Bible's pages: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not of works so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) Here it specifically says that heaven's entrance is not based on "leading a good life," that's by works.

Has no one read the book of Romans? "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law . . . righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Has no one read the Gospel of John, where, not once, not twice, but 99 times (!) eternal life in heaven is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone? Has no one read the last promise of the Bible: "Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come, and whoever wishes, let him take the FREE gift of the water of eternal life"? Has no one read or heard that Jesus of Nazareth is God in the flesh who died for their sins, rose from the dead and GIVES eternal life in heaven to everyone who trusts Him for it? Has no one read heaven is a free gift to those who trust Christ?

I belabor the point that heaven is a free gift conditioned only upon faith alone in Christ alone, without cost to us (a "gift" is free, isn't it), but isn't such belaboring what's needed in view of those percentages?

NOW, HOW ABOUT THIS?

One might be encouraged to have read that 58% of Americans believe in a literal hell, but, again, hold on, Francis. The question is, "How did the 58% define "hell?" Read on.

From the Pew Research Center: "58% of U.S. adults believe in hell — a place 'where people who have led bad lives and die without being sorry are eternally punished.'” If such a definition isn't an example of Satan's snatching the gospel away from people (Luke 8:12), I don't know what is.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE

There are three impossible things, yea, four: to strike a match on a wet cake of soap; to put toothpaste back in the tube, to kill the idea that bad people go to hell, and to kill the idea that "repentance" means "to feel sorry for your sins." The idea that "repentance" means "to feel sorry for sin" is as ingrained in Americans as is the idea that bad people go to hell.

But repentance means "a change of mind," as seen in Matthew 21:29: "I will not," he answered, but later changed his mind (the Greek word for "repent") and went." In a salvational context, "repent" means to change one's mind about his own abilities to save himself, to change his mind about who Christ is (not merely a good man or a good teacher), but the Son of God who died for our sins, rose from the dead, and gives eternal life freely to anyone who trusts Him for it).

Why do people go to hell? Not because they are "bad" and didn't say, "I'm sorry I'm bad," (Matthew 7:21-23), but because, ultimately, they did not trust Christ alone as their Savior (John 3:36). Bad people, good people, sincere people, and religious people will go to hell if they trust in their works and their good, and even if they say, "I'm sorry." The issue is Christ and Him crucified. The issue is the Son of God.

SO WHAT?

It takes backbone to go out into the world, and sometimes into a church and talk about what we've been discussing today. That's why the Apostles taught to pray the early church to pray for boldness.

That's what we need, boldness. Why? Because of the status of the quo.




Friday, November 6, 2015

SALLY FIELD: HOUSTONIAN

We've heard it all our lives: "You can't legislate morality." Cliches aren't like old soldiers, of whom MacArthur said, "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away," because this cliche has never faded away. It, like all cliches, is catchy, pleasing to the ear. But it's wrong, very, very wrong.

The truth: all laws legislate morality. How so? What, exactly, is it that all laws do? Laws are a declaration that one behavior is right and its opposite behavior is wrong. Right and wrong. That's morality; laws legislate morality.

The reason the cliche won't die is because human beings lump religion with morality. (Turek) Legislation doesn't declare that immersion is right and sprinkling wrong. Legislation isn't in place to tell you to join Denomination X, but don't join Y or to observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday. That would be legislating religion.

Various groups are always trying to tell everybody how to treat one another. That's morality. Laws declare that we are not to steal from each other, murder each other, print lies about one another, drive drunk and slaughter each other, and laws say we're not to defraud one another. That's not religion; you don't have to believe in God or be a Christian to believe that those things are wrong. But you do have to believe in God to be able to ground laws in something more than your opinions, that is, you do need God to justify laws and to say that a certain morality is absolute, but you don't need God to create legislation.

IT'S SLIPPING OUR NOTICE

It's of interest that many an atheist does indeed attempt and sometimes succeeds in legislating their brand of morality. Many atheists support and work for legislation to support abortion, same-sex marriage, and socialized health care (among other things). They call for legislation to enshrine these "rights" into law because, they say, "It's the moral thing to do."

HOUSTON: PROPOSITION 1

In support of his preferences, the atheist will appeal to morality every time. Take Houston, for example. Houston, Texas (put your hand over your heart when you read, "Texas") has just endured a long battle to legislate morality. The question when a person entered the voting booth in Houston to vote on Proposition 1 was, "Whose morality am I voting to legislate?" The question was not, "Can we legislate morality?"

Those supporting Proposition 1 used morality to encourage others to vote for the proposal. Hillary Clinton, although not a Houstonian, got into the fray, saying, "No one should face discrimination for who they are or who they love--I support efforts for equality in Houston and beyond." President Obama, although not a Houstonian, also weighed in, proclaiming, "We're confident that the citizens of Houston will vote in favor of fairness and equality." ("Fairness," "discrimination," "equality," and "love"--those are all moral arguments.)

ENTER THE HOUSTONIAN: SALLY FIELD

Two-time Academy Award winner, Sally Field, a native Houstonian, flew to the city to champion the measure in the name of "a right," and to bring God into the matter: "I think it will wake up a lot of people if it doesn’t pass, but please god (sic) let’s not wake them up, let’s let it pass already.” A right? That sounds like a moral argument. Sally Field said that the opponents of Proposition 1 were "Lying, lying, lying." (Again, a moral argument; to be lying means there is truth.) The mayor of the fair city said that the passing of the proposition would show that Houston was a city of "tolerance." Tolerance? That's morality.

Fallen man just can't help himself; he (or she) just has to go all moral. It's in our DNA. (Take a look at Romans 2:15: morality "is written in all our hearts.")

Although atheists reject an absolute morality grounded in God, they enjoy pretending to be Him. Did you know that THE leading atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, has written his own Ten Commandments, as did Christopher Hitchens? Since their Big Ten aren't grounded in God, their Ten Commandments should be called, "My Ten Preferences," but the point is that they think that everyone should obey what they've written. So what is that? That's putting their morality into commandments and telling you and me to bow and bow now. Fallen man just can't help himself; he has to pretend to be God. (Read Psalm 2:1-4 to get God's viewpoint on such pretense.)

The support for Houston's Proposition 1 is a study in rebellion: the human being will call on morality to support immorality. The human being will call evil good and good evil. Although Eric Fromm wasn't thinking in a biblical sense, his verdict is true: "Man is the freak of the universe."

PAY BACK

The results are in: Proposition 1 failed to carry the day by a 62-38% margin. So, now those that supported Proposition 1 are beating the drums, calling for Houston to be punished for its "intolerance." (There's that moral word again.) But wait. What? What is this? Doesn't punishment involve a moral stance? Isn't punishment for those who've done "wrong?" More morality.

The question is not: Can we legislate morality? The question is: Whose morality are we going to legislate?  




Friday, October 30, 2015

FEARFULLY, WONDERFULLY

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. (Ps. 139:13-16)

When a human being is conceived by fertilization, the "fearfully" and wonderfully" of Psalm 139 begin. What starts at that moment is a construction project of intricacy and precision that has no conscious direction by the mother or the baby. Things begin to take place involving DNA, chromosomes, amino acids, proteins, and cell division and what has begun, has begun with intent. New cells are reproducing in the womb, eventually, some will do so at the rate of 100,000 per second. That's fearful ( in the sense of awe-inspiring) and wonderful (in the sense of, well, wonderful).

EVEN MORE FEARFUL, MORE AMAZING

It gets more amazing: How do the new cells know where to go? In what order do they know where to go? How do some of the cells know to become heart cells? How do some know to become brain cells? The mother isn't consciously directing them to go to this place or that place and arrange themselves in a precise order. The mother isn't directing some cells to be kidneys and others to be lungs.

The organization and the order in which they are organized show intent, the intent to become a human being. It's like a complex choreographed dance with each cell intent on being in its proper place in its proper order with the intent of becoming a human being.

What is this? This is design; this is order; this is intent. This is fearful and wonderful! This is an example of Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

THE ATHEIST'S DEMAND

Many an atheist has said, "If God would write His name in the sky or the Ten Commandments on the moon, then I'd believe" (Carl Sagan). But, according to  Frank Turek, God has done infinitely more than that--He's written His name in our DNA in every cell of the human body. "The information in DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal. The nucleic sequence in DNA is informational." (J. Warner Wallace) 

And what does the fact that DNA is "informational" mean? Let's first ask, "Where does information come from?" In the entire history of the universe, in the entire history of science, no one has ever found a single instance of information coming from any source other than from intelligence. If you were to find a set of encyclopedias on a deserted island, you'd say that some intelligence, some very smart person or persons wrote those tomes. Those who discovered and read the Rosetta Stone knew for certain that some intelligence produced it because it contained information.  

[Soldiers in Napoleon's army discovered the Rosetta Stone in 1799, while digging the foundations of an addition to a fort near the town of Rosetta. The text written on the Rosetta Stone was in three scripts so that the priests, government officials, and rulers of Egypt could read what it said.]

From this, we see not only form, order, and precision, but we also see intent, whether it be intent in the womb or intent written on a stone (the inscription on the Rosetta Stone is a decree passed by a council of priests. It is one of a series that affirm the royal cult of the 13-year-old Ptolemy V on the first anniversary of his coronation.) 

Cells in the womb, cells without a mind, yet they have programmed purpose--to fearfully and wonderfully form a human being. An intelligence must be behind this precision, order, and intent, that is, a Person must be directing it, and the Psalm 139 tells us Who. 

YET

Enter the atheist. What does he do about this form, order, precision, and intent? He recognizes it! As atheist Richard Dawkins says, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He, one of the leading atheists in the world, admits it? Yes, but hang on, there's more.

Although we actually see this form, order, precision, and intent, Dawkins, like atheist Frances Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see [form, order, precision, and intent] was not designed, but evolved." Really?

LYIN' EYES

Wait. What? They're saying, "It's obvious, but remind yourself that your eyes are lying to you."  Can blind chance explain DNA, form, order, precision, and intent? The statement, "We see design, but we have to keep reminding ourselves that it's not there," reminds us of Romans 1:18-22:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools . . ."

It's evident; it's clearly seen that there is a Person who created the universe, but "No," they say, "constantly keep in mind that what you see is not designed. . ." Paul says that this is the path to foolishness. 

Foolishness? Yes. Since they can't and won't admit God is there, their explanation of form, order, precision, and intent is foolishness: space aliens. Yes, they propose that space aliens seeded the universe and they are the intelligence behind the human race. There's even a name for this absurdity: panspermia ("seed everywhere").

Listen to Richard Dawkins: "It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

"[Popularizer, gifted speaker, and American astrophysicist] Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking panspermia from Mars, Richard Dawkins mentions ancient aliens as a possible candidate for development of complex biological processes." ("The Telegraph") This foolishness is all over the place. Think of it: if the media discovers that a man running for president of the United States believes the truth of Ps. 139, he's pilloried as an idiot, but if he advocates panspermia, would he not be hailed as brilliant?

HARDENED HEARTS

"When we discover that each person has a unique name over three billion letter long written in cells so small that they are invisible to the naked eye (DNA), the atheist who demands that God write a few letters in the sky remains unmoved." (Frank Turek) The hardened heart had rather owe its existence to smart space aliens rather that bow before the omniscient, omnipotent God of Genesis 1-2.

Paul nails it in Romans 1: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." Yet The final, absolute, and ultimate word of the Psalmist  is, "I will give thanks to You . . . you wove me in my mother’s womb. .  .  I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

Friday, October 23, 2015

THE DAY THEY DANCED IN THE STREETS

Historians say that Abraham Lincoln had an uncanny ability, one few people have. Lincoln could, in most any situation, detach himself and mentally hoover in the air above it, observing and making dispassionate judgments and evaluations concerning the issue or discussion at the moment. He wasn't entangled in the emotions of the moment, instead, he sized up the matter as if he were an observer.

That's the ability the Bible gives the mature believer. We call it "discernment," or having the "divine viewpoint." Whatever we call it, it's not due to our brilliance of our brains; it's because our intellects are bowing to Scripture, the Book which gives us God's viewpoint of man and the world.

THE DAY THEY DANCED

On June 26, 2015, they danced in the streets of America. And who were the dancers? Professor Paul Kengor calls  them, "culture-transformers" for that's what they had done--they had transformed the American culture by breaking it off from from many thousands of years of the absolute model of marriage: one man and one woman, united in holy matrimony. These culture-transformers danced in the streets because the U. S. Supreme Court had abolished that absolute standard by a vote of 5-4.

Americans saw that the culture-transformers had changed something else that day, something never before fundamentally changed in all of American history; they changed the White House. The People's House was illuminated in rainbow colors that day.

So, what was this celebration from the divine viewpoint?

Divine viewpoint gives the believer the ability to see the dancing on that June day for what it was--a joyous celebration of rebellion against God and absolute truth as revealed in His model for marriage, a model that had stood for over 200 years in America. In a historical parallel, the culture-transformers were was as Israel dancing before the golden calf in their post-Exodus rebellion against God, albeit for a different reason.

WHO WERE THE DANCERS?

The celebration was a long time coming, but no matter, the rebellious revelers have been patient. Among the ones celebrating were members of the Communist Party; they were thrilled. Marx and Engels had called for the abolition of the family back in 1848, a proposal called "infamous" back then. According to Professor Paul Kengor, Marx wrote to Engels, "Blessed is he who has no family." Marx knew Engels, he knew that he hated the family and marriage. Their intellectual descendants included Lenin, Trotsky, Margaret Sanger, and Betty Friedan, along with Bill Ayers, and Mark Rudd who also railed against marriage and the family.

THE DIVINE VIEWPOINT

From the divine viewpoint, marriage existed before the state. The biblical record shows that marriage is an institution created in Genesis 2; God instituted human government in Genesis 11. The state is to recognize marriage, not redefine it. But redefine it, it has by a vote of 5-4.

Gene Veith points out the subtle and totalitarian danger in such redefining:

"If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can [redefine] the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

Thus, the divine viewpoint gives us the ability to see what's really going on--the state's moving into an area(s) it has no God-sanctioned right to go, rejecting absolute truth, and making it up as it goes along.  

HOW DID THE DANCERS DO IT?

Theirs is a study in patience; such ideas as they were proposing to fundamentally change marriage would have been scoffed at as incomprehensible as late as the 1950's.

The big dance of June 26, came about as a result of patience plus our universities which educated the culture-transformers of today. Our colleges had pedagogical help--TV and the movies, the press, Facebook (Social media came into play with its power to shame the opponents of the culture-transformers publicly via high tech mobs.), and the White House all united around the cause.

The culture-transformers had some heavy-hitters on their side. Hillary Clinton recently encouraged another politician running for his party's nomination to join her in a "Pride Parade," saying, "Come on, it's fun."

Former President, George H. W. Bush was an official witness at a same sex marriage in September 2013 in Maine; the Washington Post ran a picture of his signing the license. His famous daughter-in-law, Laura Bush agrees:

In response to a question about same sex marriage, she said, "There are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has."

"The Christian Post" reported the words of a speech to the National Press Club in Washington DC in June of 2009, given by former Vice President Dick Cheney: "I think people ought to be free to enter into any union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish." He said that while he was running for Vice President, he kept his views secret for political reasons. (All of which shows us the truth of Ps. 118:9: "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes." According to that Psalm, a person should take out the word "princes" and insert the name of whichever candidate he's tempted to trust, Democrat or Republican.)

A FIRST

What has been overlooked is that, for the first time, the transformers had the help of people we would describe as "mainstream." Those who advocated the abolition of marriage were earlier thought to be wild-eyed radicals, a lunatic fringe group, but because of the powerful coalition mentioned above (colleges, movies, TV, politicians, the press) that coalition came to include soccer moms on Facebook, pastors, and professors all joined with those whose main goal in life is to watch TV in dancing in the streets. Such a coalition from such disparate walks of life all had a common denominator--a rejection of absolute truth.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The believer with the Bible knows something else; he knows what the dancing was really all about. He knows that same-sex marriage advocates are using the issue for a deeper cause, an even more fundamental change. The issue is a Trojan Horse to attack what they hate most: Christianity. That's why they were dancing. Their attack has worked. For the time being.

But dancers beware: there is a day coming when "every eye shall see Him." That will be the day their dancing stops.


Friday, October 16, 2015

THE SOUND OF TWO HANDS CLAPPING

"In the seventh century, as the Roman empire was in the decline period of its decline and fall, the emperor Heraclitus made plans to meet with a barbarian king. Heraclitus wanted to intimidate his opponent, but he knew that the Roman army, in its weakened state, was no longer terribly intimidating, particularly when the intended intimidatee was a barbarian. So the emperor hired a group of men to augment his legions -- but for purposes that were less military than they were musical. He hired the men to applaud." ("The Atlantic," March 15, 2013)

HIRED TO DO WHAT? WHY?

That's an interesting tactic, isn't it--the use of applause to intimidate. Somehow the emperor had learned that applause is a powerful means of non-verbal communication. It's a powerful way for human beings to create thunderous and rumbling noise, signifying approval.

10,000 AGAINST 1

I was in the coliseum on the SMU campus, an arena filled to capacity to hear Francis Schaeffer and his son Frank who would be speaking after the previewing of an anti-abortion film they had made and were about to release, mainly to churches.

After the film, Frank spoke to the assembled throng with a what-do-we-do-now theme. In his speech he called for the use of what Paul would call, "Carnal weapons of warfare"--the blockading of hospitals, doctors' offices, and clinics that performed abortions. (This meant breaking the law by trespassing on private property, but that issue never came up.) There were other carnal weapons Schaeffer told us to to use--demonstrations, picket lines, and marches--you get the idea. With each (and I mean each) suggestion of what we were to do once we got back home, thunderous applause broke out all over the coliseum as people stood and clapped and clapped and clapped at each carnal suggestion. His film went on to be shown in churches all across the land and many Christians put his proffered ploys into practice.

As near as I could tell, I was the only one who never stood, never cheered, and never clapped, although at the time I couldn't tell you why I didn't, other than something just wasn't ringing true in all of this. I was just as much against abortion (and still am) as the other 9,999 were, but something just wasn't sitting right in these suggestions. Later, after studying the subject, I knew why it didn't have that truthful ring to it.

But that's not the point. The point is that the effect of all that noise from the applause was as Heraclitus knew it was--intimidating. (Since that time, Frank Schaeffer has left the faith and written a book saying that his parents were crazy and Christianity a sham.) I don't remember all that much about the weaponry he was advocating, but I do remember the 19,998 hands applauding, the throats cheering, and the noise, the intimidation they generated. (Not to stand, not to cheer, not to applaud took no courage on my part; no one was going to accost, criticize, or attack me in any way. But I realized I was all by lonesome, even in a room filled with with a multitude of believers. Not applauding can do that to you.)

UNCLE JOE

Alexander Solzhenitsyn penned a terrifying description of what life was like for Russians under Joseph Stalin in his book "Gulag Archipelago." One part of the book is especially and dramatically intimidating:

A district Party conference was under way in Moscow Province. It was presided over by a new secretary of the District Party Committee, replacing one recently arrested. At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with “stormy applause, rising to an ovation.” For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the “stormy applause, rising to an ovation” continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin. However, who would dare be the first to stop?

The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had just called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who’d been arrested. He was afraid! After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on—six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly—but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them? The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten!

In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even then those who were left would not falter. . . . Then after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down.
         They had been saved! The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel.

         That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was        how     they went about eliminating them. That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding!”

AND HERE WE ARE

And so, here we are today; we must applaud, or else. Professors must applaud evolution or face firing. Teachers have to applaud multiculturalism or face firing or censure. California school mascots must be changed by law, and one must not criticize the law. Infer, hint, or even obliquely refer to your belief that same-sex marriage is sinful, anti-bibilical, or unnatural and you have shown that you aren't applauding, so down you have to go until you "evolve," or do some "re-thinking" of the subject and then apologize and repent of your ways. Your business, livelihood, liberty, occupation, and property hang in the balance until you applaud. We're not talking "tolerate" here; we're talking "applaud."

One way or another, no matter what, they are showing us that we must applaud. And as we stand and clap, we might remember this warning from Solzhenitsyn:

"The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation’s spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse …by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."







        
 

Friday, October 9, 2015

THE BLANK STARE


It’s the 1st century A. D., the days of Paul, Peter, James, and John, and you are there.

What’s it like for those living at the time? As the average Joe goes through the blocks of time of his daily, 1st century life, what’s he thinking, seeing, and hearing? Is he different from us, those of us who live 2,000 years later? The answer is, “Yes, in one way, he’s very much different from us.”

PUBLIUS

Let’ change his name from “Joe” to “Publius,” and take a look at him, this citizen of the Empire, a first century A. D. contemporary of Peter, Paul, James, and John.

As Publius grew up, he would know the Lares and the Penates, the special gods of his household, represented by small, portable, carved statues. At home, he would learn how to worship these ancestral family gods. Each morning, his father would lead the family to the little shrine in the home which contained the sacred things of the family and the statues of the Lares and the Penates. He would offer gifts, incense, flowers, or wine and pray to the little figurines on behalf of the family.

THE DOOR, THE HEARTH

Then there was Janus, the god of the door, who would bless the comings and goings of Publius and the family. Vesta was the goddess of the hearth, to whom the family prayed before the main meal everyday. She was important because everyone needs fire. Publius and his family would celebrate births, marriages, plantings, and harvests with religious rituals.

SIGHT-SEEING

As Publius traveled through Rome, he saw and entered the great and gleaming temples of the city, temples to the gods and goddesses, and would interact with the priests and priestesses therein. When he traveled to Athens, he would note that there was an altar with an inscription to a god or goddess on every corner.

The temples were everywhere throughout all Italy and Greece. Worship was organized under collections of priests.

In Rome, he would enjoy religious holidays once every three days and could participate in the rites accompanying each one. When he was in the mood to be entertained, there were the gladiatorial games dedicated to the gods.

POLITICS

When he learned the politics of the Empire, he was taught that the Emperor was also the high priest of the state, the priest called the “Pontifex Maximus.” In the Empire, there was no separation of “church” (religion) and state. The “church” was the state and the state was the “church.”  The priests were elected officials; there were augurs who had to ensure that everything the state did had the approval of the gods. Something so common as the flight of birds and the feeding habits of chickens were looked upon as messages from the gods.  Upon the death of the Emperor, the emperor became a god, and seeing a comet or shooting star streak through night sky proved it; it was the soul of the deceased emperor.

Publius lived in a day of curses, incantations, gods and goddesses and their stories. His history books told him of the assistance of the gods and goddesses in the founding of his Rome; he had cut his teeth on the ten thousand line epic, “The Aeneid” by Vergil which told of Aeneas, the founding of Rome, and of Venus the goddess and mother of Aeneas, who protected and brought Publius’ hero to the shores of Italy from Troy.

Paul, Peter, James, and John, along with the early church, lived in a day where religion was everywhere and in everything, a day when a person was enveloped in religion from day one, saturated by religion embedded in his history, his home, his politics, his calendar, and his architecture. Religion was ubiquitous in the days of Peter, Paul, James, John, and the early church. It was to such gentiles they brought the gospel.

NOW, 2,000 YEARS LATER

It’s today, the 21st century A. D., and we are there.  

We have lived through days and now decades of a systematic drive to eliminate all holidays devoted to, all references to, even all mentions of, and all traces of God from our society. In world history books, Paul, who, humanly speaking, changed the Western World, is rarely and barely mentioned, only in a line or two, maybe.  Students learn little to nothing of Luther and the Reformation which shook the foundations of Europe and brought light and hope to England and then into America. The influence of the Bible on world history? Forget it.

There are words we are not to say, holidays we are not to observe. Our school calendars give the students a “Winter Break,” not “Christmas Holidays.”  Our festivities have drained the “thanks” from Thanksgiving, its historical roots expunged from the record. Resurrection Day? What’s that?

A teacher forbids students from saying, “God bless you,” to one in the class who sneezes. Crosses must be removed, the 10 Commandments taken down; valedictorians can thank their parents but not God in their speeches.

Lawsuits await those who dare to violate the expunging of the historical record. An atheist organization threatens a Marine Corps base in Hawaii with a lawsuit if their decades old sign is not moved to the chapel, a sign which reads “God bless the military, their families, and the civilians who work with them.” They are the latest in a long line of atheists looking for something which offends them.

In our TV shows and movies, there’s a strange omission of the church. Churches, pastors, Christians, and Bibles don’t exist on TV or the movies, and if they do, they’re only there as a prop for a ceremony or for some nefarious purpose. When in trouble, the hero of the plot never prays. No one ever consults or reads from a Bible. In the movies, no person in America owns a copy of the Scriptures, although there are millions of Bibles everywhere in the land.

SO?

And there’s the big difference. Publius would have been raised to think about the gods and goddesses; there was no way he could not. But what we’re seeing in our day is a younger generation which has no ability to think about God or spiritual and ultimate issues.

While checking out at a supermarket and with no one behind me waiting for service, I asked the checker, “What do you think happens after you die?” He was in his early twenties and when he heard the question, what do you think he did? He just looked at me. He wasn’t insulted or upset. He just looked at me. And looked at me. And looked at me. Then he said, “I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it.” He was puzzled; he wasn’t trying to be evasive; he gave an honest answer.

SURVEY SAYS

In our Survey Evangelism that we at the Hangar Bible Fellowship do in public venues, we often get that same blank stare and that same response to our questions about spiritual and ultimate issues: “I don’t know.” “I’ve never thought about it.”

WHY NOT?

Why not? Why have they never thought about God? It’s because they can’t think about God; our society has been hell-bent to remove all references, spoken or silent, to Him. From history books to Marine base signs to school calendars and classrooms, the erasures continue.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE BALNK STARES?

So, we need to back up and start with questions, not answers, which would cause the staring ones to think about God in a meaningful way—questions like, “If God does exist, do you think He would communicate with us?” “If a Person did die and rose from the dead, do you think that would impact your life in a meaningful way?”  Such questions would stimulate a person to thought.  Christ irrigated His conversations and discourses with questions. (That would be a good study: “Questions Jesus Asked, Why He Asked Them, and What’s the Answer.”)

Such questions are what some have called, “Pre-evangelism,” and are necessary before launching into the gospel message. Pre-evangelism is to get the person to thinking about God and the ultimate issues of life.

I know, I know. You and I are anxious to give the good news, but maybe we ought to slow things down a bit and develop and ask basic thought questions. Basic questions about ultimate issues act as mental burrs; we can’t get them out of our heads. They can keep us awake at night, tossing and turning them over and over again in our minds.

It’s often the case that the more educated a person is, the more he’s unable to think about God because, unless he’s been educated in philosophy, such thinking is foreign to him; besides that, he’s busy, and after a busy day, he’s tired. He wants to turn his mind off, and TV is just the thing to do it. (Think: “Gilligan’s Island.”)

THE COMPARISION

We often make comparisons between the 1st century Roman Empire and our day and find many similarities, and rightly so. But what we face today and what the early church faced back then in this regard is different. We have to adjust without changing the message.





Friday, October 2, 2015

THREE CHEERS FOR THE BRITS!

Three cheers for the Brits, the older version, that is, not the modern day socialistic, "Better Red Than Dead" version. In days gone by, the Brits had backbone, spines ramrod straight. Yes, that was back in the day, the early 19th century, to be exact, the time when India was part of the British Commonwealth.

THE PYRES

For hundreds of years, India had a custom called "suttee," the practice of requiring the death of the widow of her recently deceased husband. (A demon-inspired custom if ever there was one.) When they burned her husband's body on the funeral pyre, they burned her too, burned her alive. As one might imagine, there were women who refused to die, so they had to be pushed or thrown into the flaming pyre. Yet there were those who willingly perished in this way at their husband's funeral. No matter which way, by free will or by force; it was a public spectacle.

THE BRITISH CAME

Then along came the British with their colonialism. England, by that time, had been saturated with the Bible, starting with John Wycliffe in the 14th century. It was Wycliffe who wrote: "Trust wholly in Christ; rely on his sufferings; beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by his righteousness."

From history we learn that John Wycliffe "believing that every Christian should have access to Scripture (only Latin translations were available at the time), he began translating the Bible into English, with the help of his good friend John Purvey.

"The Roman Catholic Church bitterly opposed it: 'By this translation, the Scriptures have become vulgar, and they are more available to lay[men], and even to women who can read, than they were to learned scholars, who have a high intelligence. So the pearl of the gospel is scattered and trodden underfoot by swine,' they responded.

"Wycliffe replied, 'Englishmen learn Christ's law best in English. Moses heard God's law in his own tongue; so did Christ's apostles.'

Wycliffe was such a thorn in the side of the Roman Catholic Church, that forty-three years after his death, officials dug up his body, burned his remains, and threw the ashes into the river Swift." ("Christian History," Aug. 8, 2008)

William Tyndale followed Wycliffe in the 16th century. He also broke the ban on the translating of the Bible into English imposed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1408. (For his "crime," Tyndale was burned at the stake on October 6, 1536.)

 Tyndale was outspoken about his desire to translate the Bible into English. "He often added spice to the table conversation as he was confronted with the biblical ignorance of the priests. At one point Tyndale told a priest, "If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that drives the plow shall know more of the Scriptures than you do." (From "Christian History," July, 2007)

BACK TO THE WIDOWS

From the Bible, the British knew that God has a special concern for widows--the Mosaic Law had provisions for their sustenance and protection, Psalm 68:5 is a warning for those who would take advantage of them, Christ condemned the Pharisees for their treatment of them, and the early church supported them when their families couldn't.

And so it was, that in 1824, that the Brits outlawed suttee. British General Sir Charles Napier, confronted with the fact that suttee was part of the culture of India, was told that there was a collision between the British law and the cultural practice of suttee, said: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.” (Three cheers for the Brits!)

WAIT. WHAT?

General Napier's attitude would be condemned today; he didn't follow the dictates of multiculturalism which holds all cultures with their customs and practices as equally valid. That is to say, that multiculturalism makes people say that the American culture which takes care of widows is fine and the Indian culture which burns them alive is fine, because all cultures are equally valid. (The end result of relativism.)

Thus, in multiculturalism, no culture is believed to be any better than the other, even if it burns widows alive. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, thinking that the god of the sun needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky. But hold your criticism; all cultures are equal.

A college class reflected such thinking. Allan Bloom tells of the incident in a college class in which the professor brought up the practice of suttee and the British outlawing it. The teacher asked the class if they were right to do so. One girl spoke for the group when all she could say was, "Why were the English there in the first place?" She was implying that England had no right to interfere with the custom because she'd been taught that colonialism was evil. (Bloom, "The Closing of the American Mind")

IN THE REAL WORLD

In the real world, everybody knows that burning widows to death is wrong, even evil. Yet, the further a culture gets from the Bible, the more that culture can't see reality and the people of that culture or a multiculturalist society aren't living in the real world where there is good and there is evil, yet they can't admit it. The sad fact is that multiculturalism shuts people up and doesn't allow them the freedom to say the obvious, "2+2=4." (George Orwell)

The British saw suttee and said, "2 + 2 = 4." Three cheers for the Brits!