Seasons of Hope

My new book, Seasons of Hope, will soon be coming out. We're in final formatting and are hoping to have it listed on Amazon around Easter. But I thought I'd share a few quotes from it:

HOPE'S FALL

I did a little research on the season we call “the fall.” Do you know why we call it that? It’s because of the “falling” of leaves during this period. Things fall in the fall. Leaves fall, branches fall, flowers fall. Pay attention, this is important! Everything that needs to fall falls in the fall. Fall is a pruning time. Fall is when things that are dead, diseased, and infested are removed. Fall is the season when everything that is superficial is stripped away. But, it’s also the time when seeds fall.

Several years ago, there was a grove of oak trees outside of my office. Every fall, you could walk in that grove and find numerous acorns peppering the landscape. Those acorns each experienced a long fall on their way to the ground. I bet if a typical acorn could talk, it would say that its fall wasn’t a pleasant experience. It would complain, “One day I was on top of the world enjoying the view. I was well fed, had plenty of friends, and had plenty of sunshine. My life was all blue skies. Then it happened. I fell and my life turned upside down. I went from the top to the bottom!”

Hope is like an acorn. It begins with a fall. But after the fall, it gets planted and grows into something beautiful . . .

 

Take a look at Romans 5:3-4. Paul seems to be talking about noble suffering here, like when we suffer for Christ. Look at what he says:

3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. Romans 5:3-4 (NIV) (emphasis mine)

Notice in this passage how there is a direct line from suffering to hope. Hope begins with a fall of some sort in the passage. Paul says that “suffering” produces perseverance, perseverance, character, and character, what? Hope! Suffering eventually leads to hope in the hands of God. Hope very often begins with a fall.

 

If you're at the end of yourself due to some sort of fall, look up. God may just be up to something big in your life.

The End of the World

This is an excerpt of a sermon of mine on The End of the World. For those curious, I thought I'd do a quick summary of the future that the Bible predicts:

In the future, a world leader will emerge and finally bring peace to the Middle East. He will sign a seven-year treaty with Israel. This leader in the Bible is called The Beast and the Antichrist. During that seven year treaty, there will be worldwide wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters the likes of which the world has never seen. This seven year period is called "The Tribulation." Three and a half years into that treaty, the Antichrist will break the treaty with Israel and declare war. He will also go to the great temple in Jerusalem, desecrate it, and proclaim that he is God. This is called the "Abomination of Desolation" in the Bible. The second half of the Tribulation is called "The Great Tribulation" in the Bible and will be the most horrifying period in all of human history complete with disease, bloodshed, massive natural disasters, and terrifying persecution.
It will end with a worldwide assault by the Antichrist on the people of God as the armies of the earth align themselves against Him. Just when the battle is the worst, Jesus Christ will return and defeat the Antichrist and his armed forces and cast him into eternal fire. Jesus will also have Satan bound and placed in a prison, called "The Abyss" for 1000 years and Jesus will visibly rule the earth, fulfilling all His Old Testament covenants to Israel. This period of the visible and complete rule of Christ as King is called "The Millennium." At the end of it, Satan will be released briefly and he will again fool people into following him. He will try to defeat Christ again and this time will be eternally cast into a place called the lake of fire.

Christ will then preside on a great white throne and judge everyone who has turned from Him in all of history. People like Adolph Hitler and Osama Bin Laden will actually be resurrected and stand before Christ to be sentenced just as Satan was and they will be thrown alive into the eternal lake of fire along with all those who have refused to accept the blood of Jesus for their sins. When this most Supreme of all Courts concludes, it will be the end of all evil for all time. Jesus will then form a New Heaven and a New Earth where there will be no more sin, no more sorrow, and no more death. All wrongs will be made right and we will finally experience the world as it was meant to be with all the longings of our souls fulfilled.
In addition to all these events, at some point around The Tribulation, Christ will take all those who believe in Him out of this world and actually meet them in the air. They will literally be "caught up" or raptured by Him and taken to Heaven. This event, known as "The Rapture," could happen before the Tribulation, during the Tribulation, or after it as part of His Second Coming. This writer believes the biblical evidence points to it happening before the Tribulation. Regardless, the only sure way to take part in this wonderful event is to believe the Gospel and give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord.

***Thanks to http://www.gotquestions.org/end-times.html#ixzz3HkbPwmRi for their excellent summation as a source. I also recommend my book, All Things New, available at Amazon.com.

How Does Satan Get Away With This?

I recently had some excellent questions asked of me regarding the story of Job:

"Why would God allow Satan to come back up to heaven (after being thrown out)…..and allow him to accuse believers before God?

"Why does he even HAVE the ear of God . . . an unholy, fallen angel, standing before a Holy God . . . and God listens to him?"

Here's my response:

Good questions. My quick answers (there are volumes written on this though) are the following:

1. God may have allowed Satan to approach Heaven in order to further humiliate him. Think about it. If you're thrown out of your natural home and habitat but allowed to visit it as an outsider with no rights of ownership, wouldn't that be agonizing, especially if you lost yet another contest with God? As for the accusing part, where does it matter where Satan accuses? It is his nature to accuse, and God is omniscient, so He can see everything all the time. Whether in Hell, Heaven, or on Earth, God hears the accusations as does His people. Which leads to the next response:

2. Part of Satan's goal is to defeat God and all that is good. God permits Satan's efforts at this for a season (however at the Second Coming, this will completely end). There are at least two reasons: a. To completely discredit evil (which in the discrediting, ultimately glorifies God). And b. To allow an alternative for humanity to choose. If there is no alternative, humanity cannot choose to love God. This explains why Satan is allowed in the Garden. The freedom to genuinely choose God (which loves requires) also means an alternative must exist (the freedom to choose evil). However, one day, this choice will no longer exist among humanity, at the consummation of all things (the End of the world as we know it).

 One of my Professors, Dr. Roy Zuck, says this in his commentary on Job:

 "The Book of Job does more than raise the question of the suffering of the righteous. It also, through Satan's words, deals with the motives for godly living. Will anyone serve the Lord if he enjoys no personal gain from it? Is worship a coin that buys a heavenly reward? Is piety of a contract by which to gain wealth and ward off trouble . . . Job, Satan claimed, would no longer insert his coins of worship if nothing came out of the machine . . . Surely God knew Job's heart, but He used Job as a demonstration to silence Satan. In addition, God wanted to deepen Job's spiritual insight."

 Also helpful is S. Michael Houdmann's insights from his excellent website, gotquestions.org

 "Here are some other facts to note: 1) Satan does not have open access to God’s presence. He is summoned by God. 2) The visits are temporary. His time before God’s throne is limited. 3) In no way is the purity of heaven tainted by the brief, God-ordained presence of a sinful being, “quarantined,” as it were, by God’s regulatory power. And, 4) Satan’s access is only granted prior to the final judgment. After the judgment, God creates a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), wipes away all tears from our eyes (verse 4), reveals the New Jerusalem (verse 10), and promises the complete absence of sin (verse 27)."

 Hope this helps! PR

Can I Lose Salvation: 4

In my previous three entries on this topic, I addressed the concept of being "born again" as a permanent, unchangeable condition. Then I discussed the mechanism of salvation, which is life-altering faith. This, again, appears to be permanent in Scripture. My last post on this topic discussed the gift of salvation, and how, by its very nature, a gift is not earned but given. In this post, I continue the discussion (remember, this is a letter written to a Roman Catholic friend regarding the relationship between works and grace in the saving of our souls). In this post, I examine some passages that are supportive of the view that it's possible to lose our salvation after it's given. Be warned, this is a lot of heavy exposition and theological discussion. If you like academics, it's for you. If you want more practical stuff, look at some of my other posts:

Now, can we lose salvation once we’ve had it? Some would argue yes based on several passages. Personally, I think the Hebrews 10:26-27 is the strongest text given in support of this view. The other passages often quoted can be interpreted within the framework of either “true faith will produce good works” or “it wasn’t true faith to begin with.”
Let's start with the Prodigal Son. First of all, I don’t believe Heaven and Hell are the main issues here. If anything, the story points out that works, again, are not part of the equation because neither the prodigal nor the older brother deserves the Father’s love. They don’t receive any sacraments, don’t do anything good, and both are clearly wrong. Jesus is pointing out the unconditional love and forgiveness of the Father and how much He longs for the lost to turn to Him in faith/repentance.
Look at the structure of Luke 15. The Prodigal parable comes after two other parables with the same theme: The Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin. The chapter begins with Jesus hanging out with tax collectors and “sinners.” The Pharisees, who had all their confessions done and tithes paid, complained about Him and couldn’t get over the fact that Jesus spent time with such unrighteous people. The Pharisees were paid up as far as good works were concerned. But good works aren’t the standard of God’s favor, grace is (and thank God for that, because I’d certainly be lost with all my sins!). In the first parable, God seeks out the lost sheep (who, incidentally does nothing but trust God to carry him). In the second parable, He seeks out the lost coin (who, also, does nothing to merit salvation). And, finally, He seeks out the lost, prodigal (who, also, does no good works meriting God’s favor). What’s the point? Well, we don’t have to guess. Jesus states it very clearly:

I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. Luke 15:7 (NAB)

In just the same way, I tell you, there will be rejoicing among the angels of God over one sinner who repents."  Luke 15:10 (NAB)
The theme is the joy God has when someone comes to saving faith (i.e. repentance). Repentance is the other side of the coin of faith. To repent means “to change one’s mind” and make a radical decision of faith. It’s an extension of tangible faith (see Mark 1:15: This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.).
Matthew 6:12 is another passage cited: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (KJV)  However, I believe this is referring to intimacy with God as a family member, not divorce from the family. That is to say, God is asserting the “reap what you sow” principle. If, in this life, you want to have an intimate relationship with God, you have to be forgiving. If you harbor bitterness, your holiness is compromised and God is not pleased with you. But Jesus doesn’t say here that you’ll go to Hell if you don’t forgive. I also believe there is a hint here that true Christians will, eventually, forgive because the Spirit of God in our hearts will bug us so much and make us so miserable in our bitterness that we’ll probably give in. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is primarily about practically living out our faith in this life and the consequences, in this life, of not living out who we are in Him. The Lord’s Prayer isn’t a prayer for salvation, it’s a prayer for daily living “. . . give us this day our daily bread.” The whole context is about living on this side of eternity (see also 6:34—clearly Jesus is speaking about living in the here and now). Also, Jesus isn’t vague about Hell in Matthew 8:5-13. In the passage, he’s approached by a Gentile (like you and me) in faith (not works). Jesus contrasts this Gentile with the kingdom of Israel who has rejected Him and the Gospel. Take a look:
The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. 9For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, 12but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth." Matthew 8:8-12 (NAB)
Notice, the centurion states he is not worthy and has no good works to offer Jesus. Then Jesus says, “in no one in Israel have I found such faith.” Then He says that sinful Gentiles, of all people, will sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Heaven but those in Israel who have rejected Him will not, “the children of the kingdom (i.e. Israel) will be driven out . . .” Those who don’t accept Him by faith won’t make it.

 Another often quoted passage in favor of losing salvation is Matthew 18:21-35:

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” ²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

²³ “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. ²⁴ When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. ²⁵ But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. ²⁶ So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ ²⁷ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. ²⁸ But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ ²⁹ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ ³⁰ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. ³¹ So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. ³² Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. ³³ Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ ³⁴ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. ³⁵ My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.” (NAB)A rhetorical question: “Was the wicked servant a righteous servant before he was forgiven or was he always wicked?” In other words, did the master just pronounce what was always true, or was the man a good man who turned rotten immediately after the master forgave him his debt? The text indicates that the servant immediately, right after he’s let off the hook, runs into a fellow servant and demands his money. Here’s the point. The parable displays forgiveness as a fruit of a righteous person. A true believer forgives, period. A “professing believer” is very willing to accept God’s forgiveness, but is not a true Christian. And he’ll demonstrate his true colors by his actions. This guy was rotten all along. His actions proved where his heart really was when he asked for forgiveness from the master. It was never right. He never had true, saving faith. The point: true believers forgive.
Matthew 7:1-2 is another passage worthy of discussion: Do not judge so that you will not be judged. ² For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Again, I see this as talking about this life as stated above. I will say that the passage isn’t talking about “judging” like we typically think. It’s talking about being judgmental. A true believer will stop being judgmental as God sanctifies her. If nothing changes, the “believer” was never changed initially and doesn’t have the Spirit indwelling her. But I think Jesus is stating, again, the “reap what you sow” principle. God will bring back on you in this life what you dish out. If you’re a judgmental person, He’ll discipline you by having others be judgmental with you.
Another confusing passage is James 2:24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NAB) A few things to note. As I mentioned earlier, St. Paul in Romans 4 uses the same illustration as St. James in James 2 in a seemingly contradictory way. But, they were close friends and commended each other theologically. Also, St. James himself recognizes that we will blow it at times but not lose our salvation (see James 3:2).
So what’s James saying? Well, the Book of James is often described as the Proverbs of the New Testament. It’s written for practical instruction and is full of all kinds of wisdom. It’s one of my favorites. The Book of Romans is a theological work written from an almost legal perspective. Paul is teaching for doctrine. James is teaching for practice.
Also, the term “justified” can have two shades of meaning. One is to legally “declared righteous” and one is to practically “demonstrated righteous.” Paul is speaking of the declaration aspect, and James is speaking of the demonstration aspect.
The main message of James is: You cannot separate your faith from your lifestyle. If your lifestyle shows no evidence of true faith, you have a fake faith and it’s worthless.
Paul is saying: Grace alone, through true faith alone saves. He’s not addressing the good works that spring from true faith. He’s hitting the issue soteriologically (from the perspective of salvation). In Galatians 5:22-25, St. Paul does hit the more practical theme that St. James is alluding to.
If you notice, James distinguishes between two “faiths” in v. 14. He says:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14 (NAB)
Notice, he refers to “that faith” as distinguished from “faith that has works.” There are two “faiths” in the people who call themselves “Christian.” One is true faith that always produces good fruit, because the person has the Spirit of God inside and is born again. The other is “professing faith” that is just intellectual assent and not trust . . . the kind of faith that demons have of Jesus (as James points out). That is not saving faith. It’s not real. It’s fake faith and is not what Jesus was talking about when He refers to believing in John 3:16.
Ezekiel 33:18 is another notable passage: When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. I, however, take the passage as is. Nobody believes a righteous man won’t ever sin. But, if he chooses to commit serious sin and stays there, he’ll both be miserable and is in danger of actual death. Death can be a consequence for individual sins. I knew a man who was virtuous who chose to give in to sinful pleasure. He had affairs and experimented with other sins. He was miserable and finally died in a car accident. Do I believe he’s in Hell? No. I believe he is in Heaven as we speak. He had a real relationship with God and real faith. But his death was God’s discipline.
Also, keep in mind, Ezekiel is speaking to a people under the Old Covenant of the Law. God’s Spirit is not permanently in them like He is when people come to know Him now. However, Ezekiel 36:27 talks about what happens today when someone with real faith accepts the Gospel:
I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. 27I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees. Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NAB)
Isn’t it reasonable, just by this passage alone, to say that once that new Spirit is in us, we will not turn completely away from God ever again? Isn’t it reasonable that the description of a person’s heart above suggests that the true believer will, indeed, persevere?
Below are several more passages in the argument:
Matthew 12:50: For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother. (NAB) We’ve already seen what the primary will of the Father is: To believe in His Son (see John 6).
John 14:12 and John 15:12-14: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father...This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. ¹⁴ You are My friends if you do what I command you. (NAB) Can’t these verses be taken to mean that we will love and will do good works if our faith is real? That would certainly square with the other statements Jesus says throughout John’s Gospel.
Rev. 3:5: He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. (NAB) The passage is given as comfort to those who are “overcoming” because of their true faith. It’s a promise of assurance, not an implication that names will be erased. It would be like if my 5-yr-old came to me and said, “Daddy, will I ever stop being your daughter?” I would take her little face in my hands and say to her, “Precious, you will never, ever stop being my daughter.” That would encourage her, not make her think that it’s possible that she could ever not be my daughter.
Matthew 10:22, (see also 24:13, 7:21):  Jesus is simply stating a fact, not a condition. “You’ll know if you’re the real deal with real faith if your faith stands in the midst of persecution.”

In the final post on this topic, I will address the Hebrews 10 passage, which is the strongest biblical argument for losing one's salvation.

Skin Color, Cannibalism, and Courage

Recently, I preached a sermon on Joshua and the courage God gave him to conquer the Promised Land. In researching the message, I came across a claim that the Canaanites in Jericho were cannibals who especially targeted enemies of lighter skin, believing that they gained power by consuming these lighter races. After I preached the sermon, I started chewing (sorry for the pun) on this concept and decided to do more research. To my surprise, I couldn't find anything on skin color linked to Canaanite cannibalism. While it stands to reason that skin color in the ancient world would quickly identify different people groups as well as enemies, and while it's also possible that the Canaanites had darker skin than the Israelites, I found it suspicious that I couldn't substantiate the assertion that skin color was a major factor in the detestable practice. I did, however, find support for the idea that Baal worship included cannibalism along with the belief that participants would somehow gain power from their enemies if they ate them. So, for those of you who may have a bone to pick (sorry) with me about this, I'm modifying my sermon on the website and leaving you with the following revision of the main point I was making. And, by the way, the next time you're thinking of making a meal of someone, leave skin color out of it :-)

All of us have Jerichos God calls us to. Some may, indeed, involve skin color. God may call us to stand against overwhelming racism or some other social evil. Some Jerichos look like an illness or a divorce or joblessness or a broken family. Regardless, we will face overwhelming challenges in this life. And some of them will absolutely terrify us. In the midst of it, remember, courage comes from seeing the perspective of the Almighty. In Joshua's case, God gives him the monumental and horrifying task of conquering the literal city of Jericho, which was basically an evil version of the Emerald City complete with two massive stone walls that were at least six feet thick and 20 feet high. And, and by the way, Jericho was inhabited by big, harry, gigantic zombie warriors who made the Klingons look like tooth fairies. Oh, and what were these zombie people called? They were called "Canaanites." There is a word in our language that comes from the Canaanites. It’s the word “cannibal.” Evidence suggests that "cannibal' is a compound word that may come from “Canaan" and "Baal." Baal was one of their gods and the Canaanites were known to eat their enemies in worship to him (see Num. 13:32). Can you imagine how frightening this must have been for Israel!!! They're going to war against giants who literally want to eat them for lunch! And if all this isn’t bad enough, God tells them the way to conquer this warrior city is by circling it a bunch of times with a marching band. "March and make noise and you’ll kill the Hannibal the Cannibal Klingons." For those of you in Rockford, talk about the Phantom Regiment! This is a band that is about to turn into ghosts because these giants are going to skin them alive! But I want you to see something. Look at Joshua 6:2:
"Then the Lord said to Joshua, 'I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.'”
What’s interesting about this is that God speaks in the past tense about something that hasn’t happened yet. God tells Joshua He has delivered Jericho before they even take one step in their march. You see, from our lower story, we see a terrifying battle that is so big we don’t know how we could ever win. Haven’t you ever said, “I don’t know if I can do this? This is too much for me!” I have. The battle is so overwhelming, I feel I’ve lost before it even starts. But in God’s upper story, it’s already won. Listen, when we’re close to God, the battle is over before it even starts. Nothing and no one can beat God. Pastor Kyle Idleman has a great quote. I love this: "Courage is fear that has said its prayers." It's okay to be afraid. Courage isn't the absence of fear. Courage is the result of focusing on God instead of Jericho. So, be of good courage. The Lord your God is with you!

Why Nice Is Not Enough

I was recently reading Henry Cloud's book, Integrity, and found his insights into connecting with others fascinating. Cloud discusses how being a nice person doesn't always translate into close relationships. Have you ever met a nice person that you couldn't connect with? Perhaps he always had a smile on his face and went out of his way to greet you, but you found yourself avoiding him. Or perhaps she was syrupy sweet, so much so that you found yourself looking for a way to escape long talks with her. Why? What could possibly be the problem? We're talking about nice people! Well, perhaps the problem is a lack of empathy. A person can be nice but simply not get you. Years ago, I counseled a couple that was having problems. The husband was a very successful businessman and the wife was a delightful, attractive, friendly person. But I noticed something when they were in my office. She did all the talking. She always had a smile on her face, a genuine cheerfulness, and kind words to say. But she had to be the center of attention. There was very little two-way communication. It was non-stop, high energy, fire hose in your face of gushy sweetness. And it soon became exhausting. In order to be in a relationship, you have to be more than cheerful. You also have to step into the experiences of others. You have to feel, at some level, what they are feeling. You have to understand what they're going through. Syrup doesn't lubricate tragedy or heartache or anger well. It can come across as condescending and aloof. If you're a cheerful person by nature and, yet, you find yourself lonely, ask yourself, "Am I empathizing with others well?" "Am I trying to feel what they feel and understand where they're coming from?" One of the things I love about Jesus is that He gets me and He gets you. Hebrews 4:15 says, "This High Priest of ours (Jesus) understands our weaknesses, for he faced the same testings we do, yet he did not sin." Jesus was nice, but He was more than nice. He was also empathetic...to the point of actually living our struggles with us. What must I do to become more like Him, for in doing so I go beyond nice and make a true difference with others.

A Narnia Christmas

I have yet to meet a child that didn’t like magic. As a matter of fact, every Christmas Eve, I do a little magic show for my kids and even my teenage daughters enjoy it. Every trick is tied to something in the Christmas story. Perhaps the reason children enjoy this is that their innocent hearts know there is something to it. I’m not saying magicians like David Copperfield are really flying between buildings and making the Statue of Liberty disappear. I’m saying that there is a real and noble “magic” in the world that lives in the realm of God’s workings. And, perhaps more than any other time, Christmas makes us think of such realities. If you’ve seen The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, you know that there is an unbending law that governs all of Narnia. It is called “the deep magic” and is binding on all residents of the land. It is the natural law of Narnia written by the Emporer-beyond-the-Sea which cannot be violated without destroying the Narnian Universe. At one point in the story, a character named Edmund betrays his siblings. And the deep magic of Narnia says that when there is such a betrayal, the betrayer must forfeit his life as an act of justice. Edmund eventually realizes that he’s been tricked by the White Witch and feels sorry for betraying his brother and sisters, but justice demands that his sin be paid for nevertheless. And there is a scene in the movie where the White Witch demands that Edmund be punished for his crime because the deep magic demands it. Listen to the White Witch as she cites the deep magic to Aslan: “You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill.” Later she talks about Aslan’s knowledge of the deep magic and says, “He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.” Because Edmund sinned, justice demanded that the sin be paid for. What’s interesting about this is that Narnian law reflects universal law in our world. An articulation of this law is found in the Bible in Hebrews 9:22: In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22 (NIV) This is cosmic, divine justice. Sin must be paid for. Wrong must be made right. Sin must be penalized. Another way of putting it is: sin always results in a sacrifice. All of us have committed many sins. We’ve betrayed our families and our friends. We’ve all stolen and cheated and lied and slandered and gossiped. All of us have committed so many sins against the real, deep magic that we couldn’t count all of them. But here’s the great news about Christmas. We have hope. You see, there is a deeper magic than even the deep magic. The Bible calls it a number of things. It’s known as the “New Covenant” (or the “New Testament”), the “Law of Faith,” and the “Law of the Spirit.” In Narnia, the deeper magic states that if someone who is perfect and without sin takes the penalty of the sinner on himself, the deep magic will be appeased and death will be reversed. Forgiveness will be offered to the sinner. Remember, the most traumatic part of the story is when Aslan is humiliated and killed on the stone table by the White Witch. Aslan doesn’t fight back at all and voluntarily offers himself. Soon after this, Lucy and Susan (Edmund’s sisters) hug Aslan’s dead, shaven body and weep over him thinking all is lost. Lucy says she’s cold. Winter is without Christmas. But when they get up to leave, something happens. All of a sudden, Aslan’s body is gone and the stone table breaks in two: “. . . though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of Time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.” When Jesus came on the original Christmas, He came to give his perfect life to appease the true deep magic, the Law. He came to sacrifice Himself for our sins as the Law demanded. He appeased moral justice. And when he died, the holy curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem actually ripped apart like the stone table broke apart in Narnia. With the death of Jesus all sacrifices for sin were paid in full. The Old Testament temple sacrificial system was no longer needed. The stone table is no longer necessary. All that is required for the sins of the entire world has been paid. Look at Hebrews 9:15. Christ came with this new agreement so that all who are invited may come and have forever all the wonders God has promised them. For Christ died to rescue them from the penalty of the sins they had committed while still under that old system. Hebrews 9:15 (TLB) We’re not under the deep magic any more, we’re under the deeper magic of God’s grace. Christmas is about a plan that God conceived to save the human race from it’s own destruction. It’s about God’s Son coming to Earth and dealing with our sins. Now, with all that in mind, here’s an idea. During the Christmas Season, watch the movie The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe with your kids and tell them about the deeper, true magic of Jesus Christ. And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." 13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." Luke 2:8-14 (NIV) Merry Christmas! Pastor Rusty

Biblical Genocide and Zombies

Recently, I preached a message on the consistency between wrath and love in the character of God. In the message, I touched upon the rather uncomfortable portions of the Bible in which God orders Israel to wipe out entire people groups. What could possibly justify such violence? The following is one way I have wrestled with this question. I want to be honest with you about something that you’ve probably felt before. There are some troublesome passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand. Someone referred to these as "the embarrassing uncle of the Christian faith." All of us have an Uncle Fester who burps a lot and tells everyone he believes in Bigfoot. It's understandable that we might want to avoid him with guests. And there are passages in the Bible we typically don't want quoted at the family reunion. Those passages are the ones when God orders Israel to kill entire people groups. For example, in Deuteronomy, God tells Israel to completely wipe out the Canaanites. And He commands them to kill everyone in the city, no survivors. He doesn’t tell them to just kill soldiers, He tells them to kill everybody. How do we deal with that? Here’s how I deal with it. God knows everything and he sees every heart and every potential. And, apparently, there have been a few times in history when an entire people group became so wicked that it was beyond repair. In other words, every part of their society was completely consumed by evil. And history bears this out. Historians have noted that among the atrocities of the Canaanites were child sacrifice, bestiality, torture for amusement, incest, and other extremely evil practices that I simply cannot describe in a public forum. Put it this way, when you study the Canaanites, it’s like stepping into a horror movie and everyone is the killer. And God sees it, so He deals with it. We get a glimpse of all God sees in Gen. 6:5 before He unleashes the flood judgment. Look at what Moses tells us: "The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 6:5 Notice, evil had deeply infected humanity. God saw that every single inclination of the hearts of these people was only, always evil. There have been times in history when a people group has been so evil that God was forced to remove them. He, in essence, saved the human race by removing a plague of wickedness. He checked evil. Such an action is never given to us as normative and is rare in the Bible itself. But God has apparently stopped the spread of evil in the human race in this way in the past. Now, I was thinking about how this could be illustrated and I thought of Zombies. I know, what in the world? Hang with me. Right now, Zombies are very, very popular. One of the top cable shows of all time is "The Walking Dead." Right now, books about Zombies are top sellers and there are a ton of video games about Zombies. Brad Pitt just made a very successful movie called "World War Z" as in World War Zombie. And the most popular music video of all time is "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, which has a bunch of Zombies dancing with Michael in it while Vincent Price actually uses the word "y'all's" in a rap (how bizarre is that!). Even my own neighborhood park is having a Zombie Run soon and you can run a race dressed as a Zombie. Zombies are huge now! Interestingly, the typical Zombie story has a basic pattern: people become infected by evil and they are so infected by it that they become the walking dead. Anything good about them is completely gone. And all they want to do is kill. Therefore, the theme of all Zombie books and movies is this: The only way to save us is to annihilate them because if you don’t destroy them, they will destroy us all. Evil will consume the entire human race without radical intervention. Here’s a question. Is it possible that a society could become so evil and so satanic that the entire society becomes like Zombies? I wonder if that’s why we have this fascination with Zombies. Maybe we know that we are capable of becoming like them. Maybe, deep down inside, we know that even an entire society can become that depraved. And, apparently that level of evil is possible because the Bible describes it in places like Sodom and Gomorrah. So, what did God do with places like that? He dealt with them because, apparently if He had not, the human race was at stake. Now, that doesn’t answer all the questions about those passages, but if God is God, then I trust Him to do what’s right all the time, even when I don’t understand it. I should also mention that nowhere does God ever tell us this is normative. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that we as Christians are to engage in genocide or an unjust war. So, any group that takes isolated biblical incidents of divine judgment and normalizes them into a mandate for murder is profoundly unbiblical. Jesus is very clear that as Christians we are to love our enemies and reach the lost with the good news of Christ. The rest is up to God and the comforting thing I find in Scripture is that God knows what He’s doing even when I don’t know what He’s doing. It's also comforting to know that should Zombies start to take over, we have a God who will deal with them.

Great Emails

Just had this sent to me via my friend, Pastor Brian Petak. Helpful: Write E-Mails That People Won't Ignore by Bryan A. Garner | 8:00 AM February 21, 2013 Your clients and colleagues don't have time to engage fully with every e-mail they get. Some of them receive hundreds of messages per day. That's why they start with the ones they can deal with quickly. They may never get around to answering — or even reading — the rest. So how do you earn their attention? Try these tips: Stick to standard capitalization and punctuation. Conventions of good writing may seem like a waste of time for e-mail, especially when you're tapping out messages on a handheld device. But it's a matter of getting things right — the little things. Even if people in your group don't capitalize or punctuate in their messages, stand out as someone who does. Rushed e-mails that violate the basic norms of written language bespeak carelessness. And their abbreviated style can be confusing. It takes less time to write a clear message the first time around than it does to follow up to explain what you meant to say. Get straight to the point (politely, of course). Be direct when making a request. Don't butter up the recipient first — although a brief compliment may help ("Great interview. Thanks for sending it. May I ask a favor?"). Spell out deadlines and other details the recipient will need to get the job done right and on time. Be brief — but not too brief. People find long e-mails irksome and energy-sapping. The more they have to scroll or swipe, the less receptive they'll be to your message. They'll probably just skim it and miss important details — or skip it altogether. So rarely compose more than a single screen of reading. Focus your content, and tighten your language. But as you're trimming the fat from your message, keep the meat intact. When giving a project update, for example, supply enough background information to orient your readers. Consider your message from their perspective. They aren't as immersed in your project as you are, and they probably have many other things going on. So remind them where things stood when you last sent an update, and describe what's happened since then. Plot out what happened, and when. When a serious dispute arises at a company, the lawyers will typically ask their clients to produce a "chronology of relevant events," detailing the most important incidents leading up to the dispute. This document helps everyone involved think more clearly about how things unfolded. Try taking a similar approach when writing your e-mails. It will help you organize your thoughts into a coherent narrative. A story with a clear beginning, middle, and end will hold your readers' interest more effectively than jumbled facts interspersed with opinions. Add a short but descriptive subject line. Before hitting "Send," check your subject line. If it's generic or blank, your message will get lost in your recipient's overstuffed inbox. Are you asking someone to take action? Highlight that in the subject line. Make your request easy to find — and fulfill. Copy people judiciously. Include only those who will immediately grasp why they're on the thread; don't automatically click on "Reply All." Your correspondent may have been over inclusive with the "Copy" list, and if you repeat that mistake, you'll continue to annoy the recipients who shouldn't be there. And avoid using BCC unless you are quite sure it's necessary. It could get you a bad reputation as being indiscreet. This is the third post in Bryan A. Garner's blog series on business writing. The series draws on advice in Garner's new book, the HBR Guide to Better Business Writing. See original post at http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/02/write_e-mails_that_people_wont.html?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc89a0&utm_medium=twitter

Musings on Music

Below is a link to a post written by my younger brother, Steve, who is also a pastor. The text is also below. Thought I'd share his insights with you about Christian music.

http://www.cajunroastbeef.blogspot.com/

Cajun Roast Beef


Thoughts on Life, Religion and Stuff

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Christian Music That Isn't Embarrassing
I grew up in the church, and, in the mid-late 80's, I became obsessed with Christian music. Bands like Petra and White Heart and artists like Russ Taff and Michael W. Smith were commonplace in my tape deck (that's right, I had a tape deck!). Heck, I even went to a Stryper concert! I was a bonafide Christian music junkie.
But at some point Christian music lost it's soul, and it became rehashed top 20 radio with a "Christian" message. Really, it felt like a cheap imitation of top 20 radio. At some point I became embarrassed by it. I wasn't embarrassed that it was music about Jesus, but that it was music that, in my opinion, wasn't good art, and therefore didn't make Jesus look good.

Some of my issues were just typical college-age angst, but some of my thoughts were very legitimate. I still have a tendency to feel that way about much of the Christian music that hits Christian radio. So, what I try to do is scour iTunes for Christian music that is artistic, original, non-cliche' and grace affirming. Lately, I've found a few artists who meet my picky criteria, and I'd like to share them with you.

Now, I am an open music snob, so you have to factor that in. Some of my criticisms are probably unfair, and I am certain that most of the artists who make music today are extremely talented. These are just some of the artists and songs that are hitting me these days. I hope you enjoy this list of Christian Music that Isn't Embarrassing:

Daniel Crawford - Home

I haven't been this excited about a collection of songs by a Christian artist in a long time. The writing is honest and artful, the music is folksy, but with enough pop influence to make it playable, and the production is fantastic, especially for a self-released record (can you call it a record anymore?). Listen to Prodigal Son, Brought Me to You, and Changing Lanes. Really, the whole thing is excellent. Watch out for this guy, because he's really good. Oh, and by the way, he's an Aggie (which isn't necessarily a good thing, but might interest some of you who read this. You know who you are.).
Here's Daniel's song, Prodigal Son:

Vineyard Worship - Discover Roots Worship

This collection of grass roots worship is full of honest songs, the kind you could listen to on a dirt road or around a pool table. These songs reverently exalt Jesus Christ, but they are unlike the slick, overproduced numbers that pass for most mainstream worship these days. Not all of this record is great, but it definitely has its moments. The songs that feature Ryan Delmore are particularly good (Find My Joy and Flood). This one's worth a listen.

Citizens - Citizens

This band, if I'm not mistaken, is associated with Marc Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. While I appreciate and respect Driscoll, I'm not a huge fan. This band, however, has tremendous potential. The song, Hail The King, is one of the most original Christian rock songs I've heard in a while. Some people won't like the punk rock flair, but I really like it. There's a lot of passion in this one.
Need to Breathe

This band has really grown on me. The lead singer has a Kings of Leon feel, but the music is layered and unique. They will get some Christian radio air time, but this is not a band that seems overly concerned with the mainstream. They're sort of Creedence Cleerwater Revival meets Coldplay in the sense that they blend country soul with concept pop, and it really works. It may take a little while for it to fit, but if you're patient with it, you'll be really happy you gave it a try. This may be the next Christian super group (Not sure such a thing exists, but you know what I mean), and if it is, that would be real progress.

Why Tebow Will Be Fine

I'm a big fan of Tim Tebow. Despite the fact that he was so successful in college over my beloved LSU Tigers, I loved the character and inspiration he displayed. He is an outstanding young man and a worthy role model. While he may or may not put on another NFL uniform (which, by the way, I think will happen again), he will be just fine. Here's four reasons why:

1. He's truly a good person. People like Tebow, who are so kind to others, will have the kindness repaid eventually. As the old saying goes, you reap what you sow. Tim has sowed a lot of genuine goodness and it's been my experience that good people usually land on their feet.
2. He is a great athlete. As an athlete, Tim is elite. He may not have the greatest quarterback mechanics, but he's as strong as a bull and has the work ethic to squeeze every ounce of athleticism out of himself. I could see him continuing as a quarterback, transitioning to a tied end, being a fullback, or even calling plays as a "defensive quarterback" (a linebacker). But let's say he doesn't go back to football. Does anyone think he wouldn't be a great motivational trainer? Forget Tae Bo. Think Tebow!
3. He has tremendous charisma. With GQ looks, a cheerful disposition, leadership ability, and a heart for the hurting, he is a welcome alternative to the self absorbed celebrity of today. Tebow would be a great host for any humanitarian reality show. He could also continue his celebrity status indefinitely as a college football sports analyst. And I'll bet most college teams would love to have him on their coaching staffs.
4. He's close to God. Enough said.

So, I'm not worried about Tim Tebow. Although, out of all these options, my hope is that another NFL team will take him on and parley his tremendous potential into a successful career. I love watching the guy play and I love the role model he represents to our country. Geaux Tebow!

Can I Lose Salvation: 3

This is the Third of Five Posts on the Topic of Salvation. This post examines the magnificent Epistle to the Romans:

One of the clearest Epistles, and probably the most theologically rich, is the Epistle of Romans. It spends a lot of time on salvation. St. Paul wants us to understand salvation.


So, let’s dive into it a little. Let’s begin with Romans 3:23. St. Paul says,
. . . all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 (NAB)

Here, Paul states the obvious. None of us are perfect and we don’t deserve God, ever. We have “all sinned” and have not, and cannot, earn “the glory of God.” We don’t deserve to be in God’s house. But check this out:

They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24 (NAB)

Justification here is offered “freely by his grace.” Works are not added. Salvation is an act of grace (“unmerited favor,” or “favor without works”). And, just to be clear, Paul specifically says good works are not part of the salvation equation (although they are very important):

A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. 5But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven
and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record." Romans 4:4-8 (NAB)

What’s the natural reading of this text? Paul is comparing the idea of earning salvation through good works with the idea of receiving salvation solely as a gift. If you work for something, it’s not a gift. But something received through trust or faith is a gift: “his faith is credited as righteousness apart from works.” This isn’t vague language. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

Other passages that teach, very clearly, this principle are the following:

But what does it say?
"The word is near you,
in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
9for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:8-9 (NAB)

Notice, there’s a promise, a done deal sealed in the heavens, “you will be saved.” Also, the faith is more than mere profession, it’s real faith, from the heart.

But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:6 (NAB)

Here, St. Paul is emphatic. Grace cannot be confused with works. If works have anything to do with grace, grace is no longer grace. This is very clear.

What then can we say that Abraham found, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. 3For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. 5But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:1-5 (NAB)

Again, Paul makes it clear that the “credit” we receive is not our own, but Christ’s and is given as a remarkable “gift” and not earned.

Can I Lose Salvation: 2

Another passage that has often hit me is John 5:24:


"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24 (NAB)

Notice, again, true faith changes something permanently. The believer “has eternal life,” “will not come to condemnation,” and, “has passed from death to life.” It’s interesting to note that in the Greek text (the original text John wrote this in), the verb “passed” is in the perfect tense. This tense refers to a completed state. It’s a done deal.

One other St. John discussion is worth noting: John 6:28-29:

"So they said to him, 'What can we do to accomplish the works of God?' 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." John 6:28-29 (NAB)

The main deal, the thing God looks at as the saving condition is belief--that is, life-altering faith.

One of the rules I use in interpreting the Bible is “Use clear passages to interpret confusing passages.” That is to say, some passages in Scripture are like the picture on the box and some are like jigsaw puzzle pieces in the box. Use the picture to figure out the puzzle pieces. Picture passages are clear. They’re very easy to understand without adding a lot of interpretation. If you never read the Bible and were an unbeliever and read these passages, you’d come away thinking, “The Bible teaches that eternal life is given to you when you believe.”

Can I Lose Salvation?

Years ago, I led a class on Catholicism and Evangelicalism at my church. I have many friends and family who are Catholic, so I read all of Vatican II plus a number of other official Roman Catholic documents. I also took a course on it in my doctoral program. I loved studying it and came away with a great appreciation for my brothers and sisters (or to use Vatican terminology, our separated brethren) in the Catholic Church. At any rate, when I did the class, a nice woman who was Roman Catholic actually came to my church to take the course. She was very engaging in the discussions and asked some excellent questions. Eventually, she wrote me a lengthy letter asking for clarification on the issue of salvation and works. Over the next several posts, I will be sharing my answers to her questions. I suspect that they are questions that most of us, in some form or another, have asked. I hope this blesses you as much as it did me in writing it.

Born Again

Let’s begin with the classic, “football game verse,” which is probably the most famous verse in the Bible: John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." John 3:16 (NAB)
Notice, the passage begins with God’s love (“God so loved”), followed by grace (“that he gave his only Son”), followed by faith (“everyone who believes in him”), followed by eternal life (“not perish . . . eternal life”).
The requirement in the passage for eternal life is faith. Not a superficial profession, but a true faith, a life-altering trust in God, alone, for salvation. Now, what’s the context of the passage? It’s a theological discussion Jesus is having with Nicodemas, a Pharisee who knew his theology well and thought that people were saved by doing good works. And Jesus says something remarkable to him. Look at John 3:3:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." John 3:3 (NAB)
The NIV translates “born from above” as “born again.” Either way, the clear idea is that there is a new birth that happens. Something is radically changed. This person is re-created.
Nicodemas is stunned by this and asks the following:
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" John 3:4 (NAB)
Then Jesus launches into his discussion about belief and how the Holy Spirit actually causes someone to be born again. So here’s the question. If salvation is given at the moment of belief as John 3:16 suggests, and the Spirit causes such a change in the heart of that person that he/she is described as “born again,” can a person become “unborn” by his/her bad works and undo what the Spirit has done in his/her heart?
I don’t think so. The text speaks in permanent images. It says that we receive “eternal” life at the point of belief. Not “temporary life that could turn into eternal life if you keep your nose clean.” The text also presents the state of salvation as a constitutional, permanent change: “born.” It’s permanent. Birth is not reversible.
However, it also suggests that this new state of salvation is more than just a mere profession accompanied by smells, bells, and sprinkles (or, in our case, dunks and saw dust trails). There’s a life-altering change. Once I’ve truly believed, my heart is changed. I’ve been born again and, while I will struggle with the temptations of sin and fall at times, I have been altered, at the soul level, to do good works.

Mass Murder and Christmas

The following is the intro to the sermon I preached on 12/16/12 shortly after the mass murder of Sandy Hook Elementary. It addresses why I think Christmas is more important now than at any time in my life. If you'd like to hear the sermon in its entirety, you can listen to it at:  http://firstfreerockford.org/sermons.htm#2012
Good Morning Everyone. As you know, a tragedy occurred in Connecticut that has shaken our nation. As a father of four, my heart is very heavy. I’ve felt shock, rage, frustration, and an almost unbearable sense of sadness for the families that lost those children. I don’t know about you, but I can barely watch the news. I saw a picture of a mother and father in the aftermath that immediately caused me to weep because their despair was so evident. I’ve been crying daily over all of this. How about you? Has this hit you as hard as it has me? It’s a terrible, terrible national wound.
You know, this morning, I was going to give you a cheerful Christmas message. It was going to be fun and engaging and inspiring. But after what happened on Friday (which, by the way, I heard about right after I preached at our Mother’s Day Out program and was with little kids) I decided to change this message. I even considered not preaching about Christmas at all because, what does mass murder have to do with Christmas? Right? How do you reconcile this horrific event with Christmas? That seems impossible.
But then it occurred to me. The first Christmas was not as peaceful as we tend to think. In actuality, the first Christmas was also surrounded by a tremendous amount of violence. In Rev. 12, we’re told that when Jesus was born, Satan himself tried to destroy Him. The text describes Satan as a murderous fiery dragon, a monster, who, on that first Christmas, tried to devour the Christ child. We’re told in the Gospel of Matthew that one of the ways Satan tried to do this was through the mass murder of children. Right after the wise men visit Jesus, King Herod issues an executive order that all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem be killed. And a massacre occurs, but Jesus survives.
When we celebrate Christmas, we tend to ignore the mass murder associated with Christ’s birth and the cruel, demonic creature intent on destroying all things precious and good in the world. I’ve seen many Nativity scenes. I’ve seen Mary and Joseph and the baby and the star. I’ve seen shepherds and sheep and wise men. But I’ve never seen in the background a massive dragon seething with filth and wickedness murdering children. That is, until Friday. We saw him at Sandy Hook and we’ve all been traumatized.
However, I want to tell you something else we will see in the days ahead. Just like at the first Christmas and at the first Easter, there may have been a monster, but there was also a King. And, like at the first Christmas and the first Easter, the King will win. I agree with one commentator who said, “Jesus didn’t go to that school with guns, but He will go to those families and all who have suffered loss.” And I guarantee you He did go to those children and this season, they are celebrating Christmas not by a manger, but in a Mansion in Heaven. Jesus wins and will win again. And that’s why Christmas, maybe more than any other time in my life, is so crucial. Christmas tells us that no matter how evil or horrendouos our world becomes, Christ wins and will win again. If He came the first time, He will keep His promise and come the second time and all this mess will be cleaned up. And, just as He defeated evil through love, we too must defeat evil today through love. This Christmas, spread more love than usual. Touch the world with the reality of a God that conquers death and takes children into His home. Remind a hurting, wounded world that God is real.

In-Womb Fighting

Currently, I'm preaching a series out of the Book of Genesis entitled "Start." One of the stories I'll hit is of Jacob and Esau, twins who had a terrible sibling rivalry and whose descendants, to this day, continue to have conflict (i.e. the Israeli/Arab conflict). What's interesting is that the rivalry starts in the womb of their mother, Rebekah. Gen. 25:22 states that her twin boys, "struggled together within her." Later on we're told that when Esau, the older, is born, he emerges from the womb with Jacob's "hand holding on to Esau's heel." I point this out because people have undoubtedly accused the Bible of manufacturing this story. Surely two babies in the womb aren't developed enough to fight one another. This is simply mythology. Yet, once again, the Bible is proven to be plausible through scientific discovery. Notice the recent video of twins fighting in their mother's womb captured by a modern sonogram in the following link.

 http://wtvr.com/2012/11/30/sibling-rivalry-video-shows-twins-fighting-in-the-womb/

How Old is the Earth?

Recently, I preached a message on Genesis 1 and explained the idea that Satan seems to have rebelled against God between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. But I did not say that I held to the so-called "Gap Theory." I have come to the conclusion that the earth of v. 2 is much different than the earth of v. 1. Verse 1 seems to me to be a proclamation about how everything was made: God made it! He creates the universe, "the heavens and the earth," and it is good. God doesn't tell us when the universe was created in the verse, however. But the earth of v. 2 is different. It has ominous qualities. It's chaotic, empty, a waste, and has darkness over it (and God imediately begins to renovate the earth to make it good again, just like He is doing with all who call upon Him as Lord--we're all going to be renovated and be "very good" one day!). All of this chaotic imagery of v. 2 is used elsewhere in Scripture to suggest the results of judgment (ex. Jer. 4:23-28). I'm not sure if there is a huge gap between the two verses, however. It's possible that the fall of Satan could have happened instantly. It's also possible it could have happened before the entire chapter and v. 1 is simply a summary statement about creation telling us that God made it all at some point in time and then the text quickly moves into the final phase of that full creation starting with v. 2. Or, as many of my Dallas Seminary professors would assert, v. 1 could be the the beginning of the first day and the phrase "heavens and earth" are describing the earth and its sky. In this view, we are being told in Genesis just about the creation of the current earth and not the entire universe, with the idea that Satan caused the chaos before v. 1. This view can be called the pre-creation chaos view and it asserts that the term "in the beginning" means the beginning of our planet as it is. In other words, Gen. is talking about "in the beginning of God's renovation of the earth as we know it," leaving the possibility that Genesis is not discussing the beginning of all time (although they argue that the Bible elsewhere certainly teaches God created everything out of nothing at the absolute beginning). Are you getting confused? Don't worry about it. Great Bible scholars with great arguments differ on these questions. All of this, it seems to me, is splitting hairs and misses the point. I hold to the position that v. 1 is a big view of everything and then the focus shifts to a broken, chaotic earth damaged by Satan's fall in v. 2. I have a number of reasons for holding to this view, but they can be discussed elsewhere and are not crucially important to the Genesis account. Moses is not focusing on Satan or the time of Earth's creation. His focus is on God as our Creator and His care in preparing a home for us.
My view is pretty fluid on some of this due to so many scholars who are much smarter than me and disagree on these issues. I've landed on a view, but am open to the possibility that I could be mistaken (by the way, I'm like this with my end times picture as well). I think the following article from the brilliant theologian, Norm Geisler, may prove helpful to you as you weigh the arguments.

The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution
by Dr. Norman Geisler

Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianity on whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical and theological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolution and creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two major groups: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. (The former are often called progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationism is championed by Hugh Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania.

Young-Earth Creationism
The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours–six successive 24-hour days–while old-earth (progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:
(1) placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and local Creation);
(2) placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called "gap" views);
(3) making the "days" of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
(4) allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1(called "alternate day-age views); or
(5) making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called "revelatory day" views).
There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.

Old-Earth Creationism
Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old-earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the originally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, prominent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.

Theistic Evolution
Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life. All theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act—the act of creating the physical universe from nothing. However, this may more properly be called deistic evolution, since there are no miracles involved after the first act of Creation.
Most theistic evolutionists hold to at least two acts of Creation: (1) the creation of matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that, allegedly, every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Some theistic evolutionists do insist that God directly created the first soul in the long-evolved primate to make it truly human and in His image….

Areas of Agreement Between Young- and Old-Earth Creationists
Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things.

Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life
Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).

Opposition to Naturalism
Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.

Opposition to Macroevolution
Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life descended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree that all dogs are related to an original canine pair—part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.

The Historicity of the Genesis Account
Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).

Areas of Difference Between Young-and Old-Earth Creationists
Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.

The Age of the Earth
A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Young-earthers connect their view to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11), but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.

At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences….

Conclusion
The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teaching have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:
(1) There is a theistic God.
(2) Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
(3) Every living thing was created by God.
(4) Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
(5) The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.

While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (a theistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God). The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, increasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whether theistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.1

Note:

1 Taken from Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 468-73. Used by permission.

Voter Guidance

The following entry was written some time ago, during the primaries. I think, however, it should be helpful for Tuesday. --Rusty
How are Christians supposed to determine who to vote for in crucial elections? Hopefully, the following ten guidelines will help. They are influenced by Stoyan Zaimov’s article published in the Christian Post Reporter on 12/26/11 (Iowa Pastors' Advice for Christian Voters as Caucuses Approach).

1. Pray. As Christians, we are commanded in 1 Tim. 2:1 to pray for our governmental authorities. Certainly this would apply to praying over the placement of people into these positions of authority. Before you vote, ask God to give you clarity and wisdom. Politicians are notorious for saying what we want to hear, not necessarily what they believe. Not all politicians are like this, but certainly many are. We need discernment to know who the real deal is and who is a fake.
2. Faith. I believe the most important freedom our country has is the freedom to practice our faith without government intrusion. If a candidate does not respect the Bible and the rights of our citizens to worship the God of the Bible, it would be unwise to vote for him or her. Pay attention to how the candidate talks about people of faith.
3. Life. If a candidate has little regard for the life of an infant or of the elderly, I will not vote for him or her. Admittedly, some candidates make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. That is to say, they want to eliminate abortion somehow and in some way, but prefer to look to medical science and/or social reform rather than a repeal of Roe vs. Wade as the means of ending abortion. Nevertheless, if a candidate does not see a fetus as a life or supports unfettered euthanasia, I have a hard time voting for that individual. Pro-life is a big one for me.
4. Poverty. If a candidate is overly focused on capitalism or wealth to the neglect of the poor, I am less inclined to vote for him or her. Our leaders should show concern for the poor. However, by poor, I don’t mean irresponsible. The Bible is clear that we are to expect our citizens to be productive contributors to society (2 Thes. 3:10). The government should provide help to those who have been hit by difficulties and are infirmed. But for able-bodied citizens, we should more frequently offer a hand up than a hand out.
5. Character. It stands to reason that a leader, if he or she is to lead well, must have a strong, moral character. The best indicator of future character is past behavior. If elected, this person is given a public trust. If that leader is not trustworthy, there will be problems keeping the trust! So, it’s fair game to look at a track record when it comes to marriage, family, fiscal responsibility, job performance, etc. Is this person a man or woman of integrity? What does the past tell us?
6. Family. The biblical standard of marriage as between a man and a woman is an important issue for me. This is not simply ideological, but practical as well. Society simply functions better when the family unit consists of one father and one mother in a faithful, healthy, sacred, and monogamous relationship. Redefining marriage in homosexual or polygamous terms (FYI, there is also currently a movement to recognize polygamous marriage) logically leads to redefining the ideals we pass on to future generations. Where a candidate stands on this issue will have an impact on my vote.
7. Economy. It is a biblical principle to pay back debt and to reward those who work hard. It is important to me, therefore, for a candidate to be fiscally responsible with state or national debt and to encourage economic development. If our government penalizes financial success with over-taxation and hikes up debt to pay for too many entitlements, our nation will not be prosperous enough to provide for the poor. The greatest institutions for helping the poor, our churches and other non-profits, will not have the income to provide maximum care because donations will be too low in a struggling economy. We do need governmental oversight to protect the public from corporate corruption (such as predatory lending), but we must be careful to allow a healthy free market to thrive. I want to know that my leaders possess fiscal understanding and have the leadership skills necessary to provide strong economic direction.
8. Military/Law Enforcement. Throughout biblical history, the government had the noble responsibility of protecting its citizens from attack. Strong, moral, and disciplined military and law enforcement agencies are necessary for the sake of freedom. Yet, these forces should be used only for just causes. In candidates, I look for men and women who respect the military and law enforcement and expect these agencies to abide by the highest standards of human decency.
9. Education. When it comes to educating our kids, the most important question is “What’s best for the children?” If a candidate begins the discussion with teachers’ rights or a strict separation of secular and private education, I’m less inclined to vote for him or her. However, I applaud those who want to encourage educational systems that reward educators who truly love kids and are gifted in training them.
10. Global. We are to be good neighbors to other countries in the world. I expect my governmental leaders to be ambassadors of good will, champions of freedom, well-informed, diplomatically savvy, and tangibly formidable when it comes to other nations. Israel, in particular, is an ally that must be given special attention due to biblical wisdom (Gen. 12:1-2) and strategic objectives (its alliance is crucial in the struggle against militant Islamic terrorism). If a candidate seems shallow, ignorant, naive, or feeble with regard to foreign policy, I’m less likely to vote for him or her.
These are some of the guidelines that help me filter candidates in an election. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. It also requires us to research where each of the candidates stand. But, perhaps, it will aid you as you ask for the Spirit’s discernment in the ballot box.

Which Candidate: A Mormon or A Liberal?

The following is an excellent blog entry written by Dr. Randy Alcorn, an outstanding theological thinker. I completely concur with his evaluation of the candidates and the subsequent difficulties of this election. Sorry about the format (no paragraph sections), but I had a hard time importing the text to my blog.
Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?) By Randy Alcorn My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients). I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties. Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.) Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16). I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes. Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :). Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.” On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others. I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.) Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading: Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829. There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: •God was once a man like us. •God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. •God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob. •God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her. •Jesus was married. •There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds. •We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes. •Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father •Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife. •Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life. •The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere. •If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood. •A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple. I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus. Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God: “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself. Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers. Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines. Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace. But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity. In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family. I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible. (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.) So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office. Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says, Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible…. …Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful. Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting. I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too. All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.” I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense. Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :) To see this blog entry, along with the links Dr. Alcorn mentions, visit: http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/18/election-2012-part-3