The Cutting Edge

Prop 8 Update

2012-02-10T07:33:00.000-08:00

The debate over marriage can be simplified by one question? Who decides the definition of marriage—the electorate, or a few people in black robes?

In the case of marriage, no state court in the United States had ever found a “right” to same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Court found it in 2003. Then California’s State Supreme Court found the right in 2008, and the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009. Currently seven states allow same-sex marriage, and in all seven it has been imposed by either judges or the legislature. When put to a vote of the people, 31 states have voted on the definition of marriage, and the score is 31-0 in favor of marriage being one man and one woman.

Shouldn’t states be allowed to set their own social policy? Of course. But when voters in California did so in 2000, approving Proposition 22 (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”) with over 61% of the votes. But Prop 22 was challenged in court, and in a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court’s majority decided it knew better than the electorate, and imposed same-sex marriage despite the clear will of the people to the contrary. The Court’s reasoning was that that certain lofty concepts in the State Constitution, such as equal protection, demanded re-defining marriage to include homosexual couples.

How can the will of the people ever trump a four-judge majority of the State Supreme Court? By amending the state Constitution. Those favoring natural marriage, even before the 4-3 ruling in May 2008 imposing same-sex marriage on California, signed petitions to get the issue on the ballot, again. Only this time the wording “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” would be enshrined in the California Constitution if approved by the voters. The initiative, known as “Proposition 8,” passed, with over seven million Californians voting for Prop 8, and in an election year where Sen. Barack Obama swept California on his way to being elected President of the United States.

After it was passed, Proposition 8 was challenged in the courts. Those who favored same-sex marriage couldn’t challenge the vote count that affirmed Californians want marriage to be one man and one woman, so they made technical arguments about Prop 8 not being a proper initiative, and should therefore be stricken. The California Supreme Court upheld the propriety of Prop 8 in a 6-1 ruling, but allowed the 18,000 or so same-sex “marriages” that took place from June to November 2008 to be recognized.

That’s then end of the line, right? The people of California spoke as to how marriage should be defined, and the state Supreme Court finally upheld the will of the people as expressed in Prop 8. But never underestimate gay marriage supporters. The day the California Supreme Court declared Prop constitutional, two homosexual couples filed a lawsuit in federal court in California arguing that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the federal (United States) Constitution.

The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, who failed to disclose that he was a homosexual and was in a ten-year relationship with another man. The fact that Judge Walker could have benefited from his own ruling was evidence to many that he should have either recused himself from hearing the case, or at least disclosed his same-sex relationship. He did neither, and after a trial Judge Walker ruled that there is a right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution, and therefore he overturned, again, Prop 8.

Judge Walker’s ruling was appealed to the oft-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case, Perry v. Brown, was assigned to a three-judge panel. One of the judges on the panel, Stephen Reinhardt, is the most reversed judge in the history of the United States, and his wife was the head of the ALCU of Southern California for nearly 40 years.

One of the issues for the Ninth Circuit was whether anyone had standing to represent the people of California who voted for Prop 8. Why was this an issue? Because when the federal challenge was filed against Prop 8 then-governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend the law (which was part of the Constitution of California, which they were both sworn to defend). The advocates of same-sex marriage tried to argue that no one had the right to step in and defend Prop 8 after the governor and attorney general refused, effectively denying the seven million who voted for Prop 8 from having a voice in opposing Judge Walker’s ruling, effectively giving a victory to supporters of same-sex marriage. The Ninth Circuit panel sent the issue of standing back to the California Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the proponents of Prop 8 could represent the law in the federal appeal.

On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, affirmed the ruling of Judge Walker that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. Only the majority did not decide the case like Judge Walker did. Judge Walker found a right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution (the first federal judge to ever do so, and a departure from the United States Supreme Court’s 1972 decision of Baker v. Nelson that held there is no right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution). The Ninth Circuit panel, however, clearly stated that they were not resolving the issue of whether the right to gay marriage is in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the panel decided the issue by finding that same-sex couples had a right to marry in California, and Prop 8 took that right away without any rational basis, which made the law unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit opinion skims over the fact that the “right” to same-sex marriage was imposed by a 4-3 vote of the California Supreme Court, and the court-imposed “right” was only in effect for 143 days, until

Prop 8 was passed in November 2008. Further, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Prop 8 would be constitutional if any rational basis existed for the law promoting any legitimate government interest. The court found no rational basis for Prop 8, essentially saying that the law was rooted solely in hatred toward homosexuals. In short, the more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 were merely bigoted, since the court found that keeping marriage between a man and woman has no benefit to society whatsoever. The panel disregarded several rational reasons for natural marriage that promote legitimate government interests, such as optimal parenting and responsible procreation, reasons other courts have found to be rational bases for laws (e.g., Citizens for Equal Protection v. Brunig, 8^th Circuit, 2006).

The proponents of Prop 8, who fought for Prop 22 and lost, who fought for Prop 8 before the California Supreme Court and won, who fought in federal district court and lost, who fought for standing before the Ninth Circuit and won, and who fought Judge Walker’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and lost, now has a choice: either ask for an en banc hearing, in which a broader panel of the Ninth Circuit would review the 2-1 ruling of the panel affirming the district court’s overturning of Prop 8, or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is currently a federal court challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), a law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, allows no recognition of same-sex marriages under federal law. Either or both the DOMA challenge and the Prop 8 (Perry) case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether there is a right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Most court-watchers speculate that the U.S. Supreme court is divided 4-4 on the marriage issue, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote. Whether true or not, soon the High Court will accept a case that will address the question of a “right” to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution, and its decision will likely affect not only those seven states that currently allow gay marriage, but also the 43 states that do not allow same-sex marriage. But just like the Prop 8 issue in California, the question remains: Who decides the definition of marriage—the electorate, or a few people in black robes?

Men in Black Strike Again

2012-02-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

Californians have become accustomed to a few people in black robes deciding they know better than the electorate. First, in 2008, by a bare 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court struck Prop 22, a voter-approved initiative that limited marriage to one man and one woman. Then California voters passed Prop 8, which had the same language as Prop 22, only this time as an amendment to the State Constitution. When the state Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, the opponents went to federal court, and found a sympathetic homosexual judge that ruled Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. Now, in a 2-1 ruling, the oft-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, essentially saying there was no rational basis for Prop 8 to take away the “right” for same-sex couples to marry. The 89-page opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the most reversed federal judge in the history of American, fails to give proper weight to the fact that the “right” to same-sex marriage was a right imposed by a 4-3 court opinion that only existed for 143 days until the electorate approved Prop 8. It was the effect of Prop 8 eliminating this “right” that was the basis for the Ninth Circuit ruling, not some yet-to-be found “right” to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. The issue of whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution is for another day, when the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weight in. Until then, the message is clear—all men are created equal, but if you wear a black robe, you are more equal than others, including over seven million Californians who approved Prop 8.

I Am

2011-10-31T08:54:00.000-07:00

Try not to let your eyes glaze over when I warn you that I am going to discuss some basis aspects of grammar in order to shed light on the topic I want to discuss. I confess that studying English grammar in high school was, to me, the educational equivalent to a root canal. However, when I studied Greek grammar in college and seminary, all of a sudden English grammar made sense, and it became a useful tool to explain the precise nature of the teachings of Scripture. Let’s see if a little grammar lesson opens our eyes of understanding.

“I am.” The two simple words “I am” can make up an entire sentence, and can make perfectly good sense, provided the context is clear. For example, if someone asked, “Who is writing this blog?” It would make sense if I said as my entire response, “I am.” However, without such a question being asked, if I opened up a conversation with “I am,” you’d wonder, “you are what?” My two words need something more to make sense. That “something more” is a “predicate,” the part of a sentence that expresses what the subject is or does. If I said, “I am happy,” or “I am six feet tall,” you would understand, because those sentences have a predicate.

Seven times in the Gospel of John Jesus uses the words “I am” followed by a predicate in order to express who He is. The predicates that follow Jesus’ use of “I am” are “metaphors,” figures of speech that use a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing, but is used to designate something else. The comparison of the two is what expands the ordinary meaning of the word. For example, after Jesus fed the 5,000 people along the shore of the Sea of Galilee (see Gospel of John chapter six), He said, “I am the bread of life.” The hearers knew that bread provided sustenance. Thus, Jesus uses a common element of his audience’s everyday lives to teach spiritual truth, equating Himself to that which sustains a person’s existence. “Bread” is used as both a predicate to express what Jesus is, and also as a metaphor to expand the spiritual application of who He is.

Seven times Jesus uses metaphors as the predicate following “I am.” He is not only the “bread of life,” but also the “light of the world,” the “door,” the “good shepherd,” the “resurrection and the life,” the “way, the truth and the life,” and “the true vine.” Each of these great metaphors is logically connected to a context that allowed the hearers to understand the spiritual truth Jesus was teaching. After multiplying the five loaves and two fishes in order to feed the 5,000, Jesus uses the food the multitude had received as a basis to provide a transcendent teaching about feeding our souls. After healing a man born blind (John chapter nine) He says, “I am the light of the world.” He then uses sheep to illustrate His nature (John chapter ten), stating “I am the door” (to the sheepfold). Sheepfolds of Jesus’ day were enclosures that kept the flock together and protected from predators. Often the shepherd would lay across the entrance to keep the sheep in and danger out. Jesus presents Himself as the door, also adding, “I am the good shepherd.”

After Jesus’ friend Lazarus died, Jesus told his daughter, Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He then proceeded to raise Lazarus from the dead (John chapter eleven). When Jesus told His disciples He was going “to prepare a place” for them, (John chapter fourteen) He added that they knew the way that He was going. When Thomas asked, “How do we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Finally, Jesus speaks about the fruit that His followers are to bear, and uses the metaphor of a vine to teach that without Him His followers “can do nothing,” stating “I am the true vine.”

The seven “I am” statements in John’s Gospel greatly expand our understanding of the nature and work of Jesus. Those who heard His teachings could understand the spiritual truths He was revealing because He used metaphors that involved aspects of their everyday lives, including food, light, sheep, life and death, pathways and vines. These predicates provide rich meaning to the scope of Who Jesus was, and what He had come to do. But there are two additional uses of “I am” in John’s Gospel that are not followed by predicates—John 8:24 (“unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins”) and John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”).

Where is the predicate? There seems to be something amiss grammatically. It is natural to ask, “You are what?” Since Jesus, in both cases, does not use a predicate like He did with the seven “I am” statements mentioned above, what are we to make of these two “I am" statements? Judging from the reaction of the hearers (John 8:59, “they picked up stones to stone Him”) Jesus’ use of “I am” without a predicate meant something to the Jews who were present. What was it that caused those Jews to want to kill Him? The answer lies in the Book of Exodus, when Moses was confronted by God who appeared through a burning bush. God commissioned Moses to speak to the Jews, and Moses knew the Jews would ask the name of the God who had sent him. Thus, Moses asks, “What shall I say to them?" God says to Moses, “I am who I am. Tell them 'the I am has sent you.'” When Jesus tells the Jews in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was I am,” they understood this to be Jesus’ claim to deity—that He was the same as the God who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. In addition to the seven “I am” metaphors, Jesus also uses “I am” to confirm that He was God in the flesh (see John 1:1, 14 “…the Word was God… and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”). From the humble beginning as a babe born in Bethlehem, Jesus emerges as the crucified, risen and exalted King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the great I Am seated at the right hand of the Father, at whose name every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that He is Lord.

The Brave New Secular World

2011-10-07T09:39:00.000-07:00

In Shakespeare's The Tempest, upon seeing outsiders for the first time, Miranda says:

          O wonder!
          How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is!
          O brave new world! That has such people in it! (Act V, Scene I).

Miranda's "brave new world" is actually her optimistic observation of drunken sailors staggering off their ship that had run aground. The notion of a "brave new world" is further used by Rudyard Kipling in his 1919 poem The Gods of Copybook Headings:

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins...

Science fiction writer Aldous Huxley, in 1932, following the lead of the Bard, used the concept of "brave new world" as the ironic title of his futuristic novel Brave New World. Huxley's work was published one year prior to the Humanist Manifesto I that optimistically anticipated a utopia free from the restraints of traditional beliefs, offering a new "religion" of Humanism that would replace existing religions that were based on a supernatural being and supernatural revelation. Huxley, however, was not so optimistic. His Brave New World was a "negative utopia" ("dystopia"), akin to George Orwell's 1984, devoid of God and goodness. Huxley's novel parodied the 1923 utopian novel Men Like Gods by H.G. Wells.

Fast forward to 2011. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can see the foolish optimism of the Humanistic Manifesto I, written at a time when Germany's Weimar Republic was being replaced by the Third Reich, in which an Austrian immigrant named Adolph Hitler would seduce Germans into thinking they were the incarnation of Nietzsche's ubermensch ("supermen"). With the stench of the Holocaust embedded in the nostrils of post-Word War II humanity, secular humanists had no choice but to admit that their 1933 "Manifesto" was too optimistic. In 1973 Humanistic Manifesto II was published as an updated utopian projection of secular thinkers, ironically in the same year that the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, essentially providing for abortion on demand, legalizing the killing of more than 50 million unborn babies as of 2011.

The question is, whose view of the future is turning out to be more accurate--Huxley or the humanists? In a bit of further irony, elements of Huxley's Brave New World appear to have emerged, but the humanists do not see this as a dystopia--instead, the shift toward "secular values" is embraced as a sign of the humanist's utopia.

A recent case is illustrative of the point. In England, a Christian couple, Owen and Eunice Johns, had previously raised four biological children and fifteen foster children. They were denied the opportunity to continue as foster parents because they did not believe in telling children in their care that homosexuality was a good thing. Their case went to court, essentially pitting "anti-discrimination" laws against the couple's religious freedom. The issue before the court was whether sincerely held religious beliefs must give way to the new, secular notion of "equality" that essentially views all forms of sexual preference as equal. The highest court in England earlier this year decided that the couple's unwillingness to tell children that homosexuality is "good" renders them unfit as foster parents. Traditional values, rooted in divine revelation, must give way to "equality" as defined by the new secular "morality" that will not, and cannot, use the historic labels of "right" and "wrong," much less "sin," when describing human behavior. The only apparent "sin" in the religion of secularism may be the belief that there is a divinely-revealed objective standard of right and wrong.

The Council that denied the Johns the opportunity to continue as foster parents lauded the court's decision in a display of post-modern thinking, stating the Council "valued diversity and promoted equality" and "encouraged and supported children in a non-judgmental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference." Being "non-judgmental" is the prime directive that has come down from the secular Sinai, and it must be followed in all cases except where someone has the temerity to take a moral stand. In such cases, the new secular values permit judging those who would judge good and evil, right and wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of such contradictory requirements should be evident to anyone with an open mind. It is as if we have reached the confluence of Through the Looking Glass and 1984.

When a court holds that laws "protecting people from sexual discrimination" mean that a couple is unfit to be foster parents because they could not tell a child that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle, we have entered into Huxley's Brave New World. However, the reason why Huxley's negative utopia has emerged is because it as a brave new secular world. Religious values, as the humanists have wanted, are being replaced by "secular values." In an age where "tolerance" has become the equivalent of a secular sacrament, the application of "tolerance" to real-life situations, such as the Johns' case, shows how insidious secularism is, and how exceedingly harmful its application is to areas such as child-rearing, education, and the interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. The court's ruling sends a clear message that mainstream Christian beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with traditional Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents. The court's ruling also confirms that Huxley's Brave New World has arrived.

Morning in Galilee

2011-09-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

Sunrise over the Sea of Galilee

Sorting through a cascade of thoughts as I sit here watching the sunrise over the Sea of Galilee, it seems surreal that somewhere out my window Jesus walked on water. One thought has stuck, namely what an important area this was in the ministry of Jesus. Laurie listened yesterday as I relayed all the references to the region of Galilee found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Reference after reference to the “Sea of TIberias,” “Capernaum,” “Bethsaida,” and other sites line the pages of His Galilean ministry. Later this morning we will turn off at Migdol where Mary “Magdalene” was from, pass near Nazareth, and proceed to Caesarea (Maritima), the coastal town build by Herod the Great in honor of Caesar Augustus. We look forward to experiencing Caesarea, where Paul was imprisoned for two years prior to his journey to Rome to have his case heard before the Emperor Nero.

With my teaching finished in the Old City of Jerusalem and having completed our brief time of ministry in the Golan Heights (north of the Sea of Galilee), now we have our first chance to sightsee, and soak up the significance of this part of the Holy Land. I realize that God could have chosen any time and any place to enter history as a baby in order to bear the sins of world so that we might be united with our Creator. He chose this place, and did so “in the fullness of time “ (Galatians 4:4). The fact is, He did come, and Jesus made it clear that besides giving His life as a ransom, He also was showing us the Father, and revealing God’s plan. Nearly 20 centuries have passed since His ministry, death and resurrection, and Jesus remains the hope of the world. Whether America, Israel, or any place else, the carpenter from Nazareth offers His love and forgiveness to all who call upon Him, and, as some have said so simply, “wise men still seek Him.”

John

TIberias, Israel

September 27, 2011

Is Jesus Really Coming Again?

2011-05-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

As I write this we are within hours of the time set by radio preacher Harold Camping for the end of the world. If you are reading this blog, it means Camping was wrong. Again. Mr. Camping, now 89 years old and the founder of Family Radio, headquartered in Oakland, California, previously predicted that Jesus was coming back in 1994. That glaring “oops!” has not deterred his faithful. Whether his current followers have short memories or have not bothered to check Mr. Camping’s bona fides is unclear. Those who bought into his 1994 false prophecy but now are certain that this time Camping got it right should remember the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Camping and his followers have, indeed, been shamefully fooled.

To be fair to Camping and his followers, he is by no means the only date-setter who has lead people astray. Since the early-19^th century we have seen the likes of Joseph Smith, William Miller and Charles Taze Russell (and later his organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses”).

Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the end times would begin promptly.

Miller was a New England farmer who, like Harold Camping, had no formal training in biblical studies. His study of Bible prophecy resulted in his discovery that the Scriptures tell us exactly when Jesus will return (notwithstanding Jesus stating in Matthew 24:36 that “No man knows the day or the hour, not even the angels”). According to Miller’s calculations Jesus was coming back some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844, eventually fixing the date at April 23, 1843. Many of his followers sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed. When April 23 came and went, Miller re-calculated and concluded Jesus would return on April 23, 1844. After that date came and went most of his followers scattered, but some of them banded together to form what became the Seventh Day Adventist denomination.

Charles Taze Russell set the following dates for the return of Jesus: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914. His Watchtower organization set 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, and 1984 as the dates that Jesus would return. One has to wonder how many false prophecies an organization must make for it to be considered a “non-prophet” organization.

There are many, many others who share the dubious distinction of thinking they figured out when Jesus was returning and presumptuously publicized the date. Televangelist Pat Robertson, in May 1980, informed his "700 Club" television show audience that he knew when the world would end, saying "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world." Perhaps we missed that one, Pat.

Edgar Whisenant sold thousands of copies of his book, “88 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Back in 1988.” Whisenant was so confident his calculations were correct that it is reported he said, "If there were a king in this country and I could gamble with my life, I would stake my life on Rosh Hashana 88." His confidence apparently affected others as well because Paul and Jan Crouch of the Trinity Broadcast Network swallowed it whole. Instead of airing their nightly Praise the Lord television talk show, the Crouches ran videotapes of prerecorded shows dealing with the rapture. For non-Christians who might be watching, the revised programming included specific instructions on what to do in case Christian family members or friends disappeared and the world was thrust into the tribulation. When nothing happened by the end of September 13, Whisenant revised his prediction, suggesting the rapture would come at 10:55 a.m on September 15. When that failed, he revised it to October 3. After that he admitted he made a "miscalculation" of one year and insisted the rapture would occur in 1989. He even wrote another book to "prove" it.

Self-proclaimed “prophet” Ronald Weinland wrote a book in 2006 entitled "2008: God's Final Witness." In his book Weinland states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God." Did Weinland, a former follower of cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong, gracefully fade away when his prophecies did not come true? As the late John Wayne often said, “Not hardly.” Weinland currently has a website where he backpedals, re-writes his own prophetic history, and otherwise dishonestly deals with his previous false prophecies, now claiming that 2012 is the year Jesus is coming back (Weinland, perhaps more delusional than Harold Camping, claims that he and his wife are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation chapter 11 who will be slain then will rise from the dead).

Is it Reasonable to Believe Jesus is Coming Again?

With all the utter-nonsense that has resulted from people trying to figure out what Jesus Himself said “no one knows,” (i.e., the date of His return), can a thinking person still reasonably believe that Jesus of Nazareth is coming again to Earth? Yes. How can an intelligent person believe in such an event? Because we have reliable documents, written by eyewitnesses, where Jesus Himself tells his followers, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again, and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:2-3). And since the evidence is compelling based upon His miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and especially His resurrection from the dead, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (and God the Son), then it would be foolish not to believe Him when He said He would come again to Earth.

Unfortunately, too many have misinterpreted Scripture, stretched the Bible to say something it does not say, and made unsupported assertions about prophetic passages that resulted in the lame-brained date setting previously discussed. From David Koresh (born Vernon Howell, who lead most of his Branch Davidian followers, including more than a dozen children, to a fiery death at their compound in Waco, Texas in 1993) to Ronald Weinland, people who typically lack formal biblical training have a tendency to “discover,” for example, what the seven seals of Revelation really mean (in Koresh’s case, he claimed to be the Lamb of God who could open the seals), asserting they have some special insight that no one else has. Biblically naïve and gullible people too often accept, without question, the interpretations and pronouncements of these self-proclaimed “prophets.” In most cases it leads to disillusioned followers, as in the case of William Miller or Ronald Weinland. In some cases it leads to a violent death, as in the case of Jim Jones or David Koresh.

Biblical Test of a Prophet

According to the Bible, in order to qualify as a prophet of God, the prophet must be 100% accurate. Deuteronomy 18:20, 22 says, “But the prophet who speaks presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die…When a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD had not spoken…” Mr. Camping, et al., should be grateful that today we do not employ this sanction against false prophets.

Is the Church Contributing to Those Who Mock the Belief in the Return of Jesus?

A common reaction to the doomsday false prophets is scoffing. Even professing Christians who sat through prophecy seminar after prophecy seminar, or heard sermon after sermon about the return of Jesus, are susceptible to getting “burned out” on prophecy to the point where they don’t want to hear about it any more. Is it possible that the “mockers” Peter speaks of in I Peter 3:3ff include people who came out of evangelical churches that spent an inordinate amount of time speculating about the return of Jesus? When a pastor or teacher sets a date or otherwise makes a prediction that does not materialize, a question of credibility emerges. Falso uno, falso omnibus.

A Scriptural Basis for a Literal Return of Jesus to Earth

What, then, is my Scriptural basis for believing Jesus is coming back? First, as previously mentioned, Jesus said He would come again (John 14:3). Even though Jesus often spoke in parables and mashals (short parables with a moral lesson), His reference to His coming again was not an allegory. It was a clear promise. The Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ return as the “blessed hope” of Christians (Titus 2:13, “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”). Paul ends his first letter to the church at Corinth with an Aramaic word (“Maranatha”) that means, “The Lord is Coming” (a prayer for His soon return) (I Corinthians 16:22).

Evangelical Bible scholars overwhelmingly see Christ’s return to Earth as a prophecy that will be literally fulfilled at some point. These scholars generally point out that those Bible prophecies that have already been fulfilled were fulfilled literally (e.g., Micah 5:2 is understood as a Messianic prophecy that predicts Bethlehem will be the birthplace of the Messiah, an understanding King Herod’s chief priests and scribes shared according to Matthew 2:4-5). Thus, to be consistent, there is no reason to believe the words of Jesus in John 14:3 and elsewhere mean anything other than He will return to Earth bodily.

The Times and Seasons

Even though no one knows the day or hour of Jesus’ return (Matthew 24:36) the Scripture provides certain signs to enable us to understand the times and seasons in which we live (e.g., Ezekiel chapters 37-39 reference the return of the Jews to the Promised Land; I Thessalonians 5:1 says the Corinthians should be aware of the times and epochs in which they live; I Thessalonians 5:4 indicates that the return of Jesus should not overtake Christians like a thief because we are not in darkness.

Is Christ’s Return One Event or Two?

The historic view of the church is that Jesus will come back to Earth and will establish a kingdom on Earth for 1,000 years (historic premillenialism). Others do not believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth (amillennialism), while some interpret the Scriptures to say Jesus will come back at the end of the 1,000 years (post millennialism).

The most common view among evangelicals today is premillenialism (i.e., there will be a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus on Earth). There is a split among Bible-believing Christians as to whether Jesus’ return to Earth is one event or two. Perhaps the most common view among premillenialists is that Jesus will first come back for His church, and will meet them in the sky, after which there will be a seven-year period of tribulation, including the final 3 ½ years of Great Tribulation in which the judgments mentioned in Revelation chapters 6-18 will take place. Then at the end of the seven-year tribulation period Jesus returns bodily to Earth to reign for 1,000 years.

What is the evidence for the view that Jesus will return for His church seven years before He returns bodily to Earth to set up His kingdom? The following chart helps to contrast His pre-tribulation return for His church (commonly referred to as the “rapture,” which means the sudden removal or “translation” of believers from Earth to heaven) with his visible second coming.

Rapture Second Coming

Meet Lord in air He returns to Mount of Olives

Living saints translated No translation of church

He returns to heaven He remains on earth

Earth not judged Earth/sin judged

Imminent event Follows signs

Verses that are commonly used to support the pre-tribulation rapture include I Thessalonians 5:9, “God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation;” I Thessalonians 1:10 “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath;” and Revelation 3:10 “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world…”

Conclusion

Regardless of the date-setters and false prophets that bring contempt to the legitimate study of Bible prophecy, there are compelling reasons to believe that Jesus is coming again. Given the rebirth of Israel in 1948, there are reasons to conclude that His return could be soon. Whether one believes in a pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation rapture, or a post-tribulation return of Jesus to Earth, the important fact is the Jesus is coming again. To quote the lyrics of the song “Outlaw” by the late singer/songwriter Larry Norman,

Some say He was the Son of God, a man above all men.

That He came to be a servant, and set us free from sin.

And that’s who I believe He was, cause that’s who I believe

And I think we should get ready, cause its time for us to leave.

Why do I believe that Jesus is coming back? Because He said so, and that’s who I believe. Even so “Come Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

Des Moines Register Article, appearing August 7, 2010

2010-09-01T22:27:00.000-07:00

WILL THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE DECISION AFFECT IOWA?

The marriage debate is not going away any time soon. In light of Wednesday’s ruling striking down California’s marriage amendment, the debate will likely intensify. The California decision has implications for Iowa, including efforts to put the issue of the definition of marriage to a vote. My wife and I divide our time between California and Iowa, and have experienced the ups and downs of voting on the definition of marriage, only to have our vote negated by judges, or, in the most recent case, one judge. Here in Iowa there is a slightly different dilemma, but the ultimate question for Iowa, California and the rest of the country is the same: Who decides the definition of marriage—the people, or judges?

Before discussing the effect the California ruling on Iowa, a little background. In the year 2000 California, which has “direct democracy,” bypassed its legislature and passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This was two years after Iowa’s legislature passed a similar law. In May 2008 the statute was overturned by the California Supreme Court In a 4-3 vote. In order to put the issue above the reach of the State Supreme Court, the voters of California put on the November 2008 ballot a proposed amendment to California’s Constitution defining marriage as between one man and woman. That initiative, Proposition 8, was passed by voters. It was challenged in state court, but was upheld 6-1 (ironically, the lone dissent cited the Iowa case of Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 Iowa case that struck down Iowa’s marriage law).

The opponents of Proposition 8 then challenged it in federal court, claiming under the U.S. Constitution same-sex marriage was a fundamental right, which would trump California’s Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, a 66-year-old single man living in San Francisco, who the San Francisco Chronicle reported was gay. After a 13-day trial in the spring, Judge Walker handed down his 138 page opinion on Wednesday, striking down Proposition 8, finding a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to gay marriage. One man’s opinion trumped the votes of seven million who voted for Proposition 8.

The California decision will be appealed, and will likely be the one that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a ruling there will ultimately determine whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Affirming California’s right to define marriage would also affirm the rights of the 29 other states that have thus far amended their constitutions to define marriage traditionally. What about Iowa? In Iowa there is no “direct democracy,” so Iowans must rely on the legislature to get the ball rolling by passing a resolution, twice, before the people can vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. The majority in Iowa’s legislature continue to hold the voters hostage by refusing to pass the required resolution before Iowans can vote. In California a federal judge negated the will of the people on the marriage issue. In Iowa, the legislature has disenfranchised the people. Iowans who believe in democracy should continue to press their legislators to allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage, or vote new people into office who truly represent the will of the people.

While the marriage debate continues, we can and should all live together peacefully as Americans and Iowans, regardless of our views on marriage. But the courts have forced a massive disruption of our social order by elevating behavior that the most Americans consider immoral to the level of procreative marriage. If the moral basis for laws is eliminated, which is an implication from Wednesday’s California ruling, all legitimate arguments against polygamy, incest and prostitution are removed. President Obama’s appointee to the U.S. Human Rights Commission, Chai Feldblum, argues that our government has a duty to promote gay sex as “morally good.” If Iowans want the law to reflect that homosexually is morally good, and have their children taught this in public schools, then do nothing. If Iowans want a say in how marriage and should be defined, then demand that state representatives give Iowans the right to vote.

Why is Building a New Mosque so Controversial?

2010-08-19T08:26:00.000-07:00

"Ground Zero" is a term for the place in lower Manhattan, New York City, where some 3,000 people died during the events on September 11, 2001. When the twin towers of the World Trade Center were struck by hijacked jets, leading to the eventual collapse of the buildings, America watched in horror. It took some just a few minutes to realize what others still have trouble comprehending--The United States of America was attacked, and we were at war. Only the war was not a conventional war, with uniformed combatants, rules of engagement, and Geneva Convention protocol. Non-combatants were no longer safe, because the enemy, radical Islam, saw all Americans as the enemy of the religion of Muhammed.

America's costliest war, in terms of casualties, was not World War I or World War II. It was the in-fighting called the Civil War that resulted in greatest number of dead soldiers. The Civil War was about keeping a nation united as much as it was about ending slavery. After one of the more horrific battles, near the farming community of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, President Lincoln was invited to make a few brief comments about the battle of Gettysburg, and the sacrifice of those who died on the field of battle. President Lincoln said, in part:

"... we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground....It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

President Lincoln saw the Civil War as the opportunity for a new beginning for America, where the people are free, and the people rule. He made it clear that the sacrifices of many, especially those who gave their lives on battlefields like Gettysburg, should not be forgotten. Keeping America free and united meant the soldiers did not die in vain.

The nearly 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11, including people working their jobs in the World Trade Center, New York City firemen, NYPD officers, and passengers in airplanes, did not know they were considered enemies, targeted for death. They did not see themselves as soldiers, or combatants of any type. Yet they were put in the cross-hairs of the most concerted effort to bring war to American soil since the War of 1812.

The "War on Terror" started before 9/11, but the attack on the twin towers brought home to 300 million Americans that the War was no longer "over there," but everywhere, including "here." The focal point of this new awareness was lower Manhattan, Ground Zero.

Similar to what President Lincoln said about the battlefield at Gettysburg, we cannot consecrate or hallow the ground where the World Trade Center once stood, but we can, and should, make sure that those who died did not die in vain. They died enjoying the very freedom that has set America apart as the "city on the hill." Their deaths provided an opportunity for America to count the costs, and recall that there were certain things worth living for and dying for, including freedom.

Of course individuals or religious groups have the right to build a building on their own property, subject to reasonable zoning restrictions. There are federal laws that prevent local governments from zoning out churches, synagogues, yes, and even mosques. The issue with the proposed $100 million Gound Zero mosque is not whether it is Constitutionally permissible for Muslims to build a mosque so close to the site of the attack on the World Trade Center. The issue is whether Muslims should build the mosque. The answer is clealy, "No!"

Why should Muslims not build a mosque on their own property in lower Manhattan? Because it would be a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11, and their families, to have what some perceive as a Muslim "trophy of conquest" just two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people died as a result of Islamic jihad. It would be a symbol of Muslims gloating (similar to the televised outbursts of glee from Muslims around world when the twin towers fell) to place a Muslim monument so close to the scene of the worst carnage on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It would be a visual claim to the greatness of Islam in an area where Muslims should hide their heads in shame due to the actions of fellow-Muslim terrorists.

In 1988 I lead a protest rally in which 25,000 people took to the streets to protest a film, The Last Temptation of Christ, that portrayed Jesus in an unfavorable, if not blasphemous, light. When we marched down Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood on that Thursday afternoon, August 11, 1988, we were not telling the producers of the film that they could not make and show the film. We appealed to their presumed decency and desire to be good neighbors to the millions of Christians who were offended by a film that denigrated Jesus. We asked MCA/Universal to show sensitivity to the sincerely-held religious beliefs of those who embrace Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Despite the appeals, MCA/Universal went ahead with the release of the film, and wrapped themselves in the flag and the First Amendment to insulate themselves from criticism. The old adage, "He who frames the question controls the debate" rang true. MCA/Universal tried to frame the issue as whether they had the right to make and show the film. Just like the Ground Zero mosque, the issue of whether they had the right to do something offensive was a red herring. The issue was should the film be shown. With the mosque, the issue is should it be built.

If the mosque is built, it would show not only how tone deaf the Muslims are who are in charge of the intended project, but it would provide justification for those that claim the mosque is intended to be a symbol of conquest, that lower Manhattan has become dar al Islam ("house of Islam"). In Islamic thought, there are only two kinds of territory--dar al Islam or dar al-Harb ("house of war"). Those countries that have not become part of Islam's conquests are considered to be at war until Islam subjugates the land. There is no third option. Jihad continues until all land is under Muslim sovereignty.

If there is such a thing as "moderate Muslims," (which many people who study Islam say, without trying to be flippant, is an oxymoron), they could show their good will and sensitivity by foregoing building the controversial mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. They could demonstrate that Muslims can and do assimilate into American culture, and that they intend to be good neighbors. But they won't. Why? Because it is not the nature of Allah or his followers to be benevolent or merciful. It is not consistent with the Qur'an to acquiesce to dhimmis ("non-Muslims living under intended Muslim rule"). With respect to non-Muslims, the Qur'an only gives three options on how Muslims are to deal with infidels: convert, subjugate, or execute. There is no fourth option.

Those who favor building the mosque, including New York Mayor Bloomberg, and those who fail to speak out againt the utter insensitivity of building it so close to Ground Zero, including President Obama, have, at best, a skewed idea of what it means to "do the right thing." MCA/Universal, when given the chance to do the right thing, cared more about what the Hollywood elite would think if they were perceived to have caved in to the demands of Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon to not release The Last Temptation of Christ. Millions of religiously-sensitive Americans be damned. The Ground Zero mosque builders, who are obviously aware of the controversy that has erupted, care more about not being perceived as weak in the face of demands from infidels. The opinion of their fellow Muslims, jihadists and terrorists included, will trump the heartfelt requests from the families and friends of 9/11 victims, themselves victims whose healing memories may be affected again by this latest Islamic insult. No, we cannot force people to be nice. We can only appeal to decency and good will. I will be pleasantly surprised if the Muslims in charge decide to forego building the mosque at the intended Ground Zero location. If they try to build it despite the outcry (and opposition from 70% of Americans, according to one poll), they will confirm our worst suspicions. It may be Islam's last and best chance to earn acceptance in America, the land of the free.

Does Science Lead Us to God?

2010-08-18T11:18:00.000-07:00

March 26, 2010

The Bible starts out, “In the beginning, God….” (Genesis 1:1) The Bible assumes there is a God, and states in a few places that “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” (e.g., Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1). The Apostle Paul states that God’s “invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature can be seen, being understood through what has been made….” (Romans 1:20) The Psalmist echoed this truth in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens are telling the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

Today we have experienced an increase in popular writers who not only disbelieve in God, but either admittedly or by inference hate God. These writers generally employ arguments against the existence of God that are not philosophically sophisticated, and have been soundly addressed (and, dare I say, refuted) by theists over the past 200 years. Nonetheless, with the resurgence of atheism, and attempts by American atheists to rid the public square of any recognition of God (e.g., taking God out of the “Pledge of Allegiance,” removing “In God We Trust” from our coins, removing postings of the Ten Commandments from public buildings), it is time for a review of why atheism fails, and why Darwinian evolution fails as an explanation for the existence of life.

The threshold question is, “where did the universe come from?” Either it is uncaused (i.e., it created itself) or it was caused. Atheists have a difficult time trying to explain how energy, time and space came from nothing. Further, there is nothing within the natural universe that tells us why it is here (and why we are here). A believer in God (“theist”) holds that the universe came into existence (i.e., was caused) by a God who transcends the universe (i.e., He is not a part of it). Does the evidence support atheism or theism? Let’s look at the facts from science.

First, the complexity of the universe. The universe has at least 50 constants (e.g., the force of gravity, the charge of an electron, mass of a proton) that if they were different by one-billionth of a percent there would be no life in the universe. Calling the universe “fine-tuned” is quite an understatement. Evidence of the grand design of the universe is acknowledged by leading scientists, some of whom have made the logical step of concluding there must be a Designer:

1. Cambridge scientist Steven Hawking estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion had been smaller by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 it would have re-collapsed into a fireball.(1) A stroke of luck, or an intelligent design by a Designer?

2. Physicist Brandon Carter determined that the odds against the original condition of the universe being suitable for later star formation (without which planets, such as Earth, could not exist) is 1 followed by a thousand billion billion zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros).(2) Coincidence perhaps?

3. Physicist and Astrobiologist P.C.W. Davies concluded that a change in the strength of gravity (or the weak force) by one part in 10 followed by 100 zeroes would have prevented a life-permitting universe.(3) The existence of life is either quite fortuitous or it was planned by a super-intelligence.

4. Sir Frederick Hoyle, late professor of Astronomy at University of Cambridge, said a common sense interpretation of the known facts about the universe suggest “a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics.”(4) Clearly, the evidence points to someone or something outside the universe creating what we now see.

5. Robert Jastrow (head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) called the fine-tuning of the universe “the most powerful evidence for the existence of God every to come out of science.”(5)

Second, the origin of life. Darwin tried to explain life without any need to invoke a Creator. Darwin could never tell us how the first life got here which eventually evolved into trees, fish and Aunt Erma. Has evolution eliminated the need for a God that created our fine-tuned universe in order to support the creation of life? Here is what leading scientists (and not all of them admitted theists) have said about the positive evidence for a Creator of life, and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution:

1. Sir Frederick Hoyle compared the absurdity of believing that life could result from time, chance, and properties in matter with believing that “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”(6)

2. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference….”(7) (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

3. “One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order.”(8) (evolutionist Roger Lewin)

4. “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.”(9) (Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA)

5. “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much…. ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded…”(10) (David Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois)

6. “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observation to fit with it… To my mind, the theory [of evolution] does not stand up at all.”(11) (H.S. Lipson, British physicist)

As scientist Paul Davies said regarding science, “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws…”

This fact is humorously illustrated in the film “Expelled,” when the film’s producer, Ben Stein, interviewed popular atheist author Richard Dawkins. Stein, asked, “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or evolution?” Dawkins replied, “It could have come about in the following way—it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved (by probably some kind of Darwinian means), to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology that you might find a signature of some sort of a designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”(12) In other words, Dawkins is open to the possibility of an intelligent design accounting for life on earth, as long as the intelligent designer is not God. What nonsense to suggest that life came from an advanced alien civilization, but not from God. Even if we entertain Dawkins’ theory, it does not solve the question of where life came from, because we then have to ask Dawkins, “where did the advanced aliens come from?” He has no answer for that question.

The good news is that more and more scientists are discovering that the universe had a beginning, and the best explanation for how it began is to posit an eternal, all-powerful intelligence that set the universe in motion. Who could that be? Back to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God….”
__________
(1) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(2) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(3) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(4) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(5) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(6) Sir Frederick Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature (November 12, 1981); 105.
(7) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History (April 1977); 14.
(8) Roger Lewin, “A downward slope to greater diversity,” Science (September, 1974); 1239.
(9) Francis Crick, “In the beginning…” Scientific American (February 1991); 125.
(10) Dr. David Raup, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (January, 1979); 25.
(11) H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin (May 1980); 138.
(12) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. 2008 “Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview.” Online video clip from the movie Expelled. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.

Inspiration

2010-08-18T11:14:00.000-07:00

February 13, 2010

Ready for a little etymology (the study of the origin of words)? The Latin word spiro means “to breathe.” In the English language spiro is transliterated (brought in letter for letter) as “spire.” Adding a prefix to “spire” gives us several meanings: The prefix “con” means “together.” Thus, “conspire” means “to breathe together.” The English prefix “per” means “through.” So “perspire” means “to breathe through” (for men this means “to sweat” but for women it’s “to glisten”). The prefix “ex” means “out.” “Expire” therefore means “breathe out,” meaning “to die” (as in “giving up the spirit”).

With this background, “inspire” means “to breathe in.” When we speak of the “inspiration” of the Scriptures, it is the process of God breathing into the writers of Scripture. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (II Timothy 3:16). The words translated “inspired by God” is one word in the original Greek text, theopneustos. This word literally means “God-breathed” from the word theos that means “God,” and pneo that means “to breathe.” The verb pneo is the root behind the Greek word pneuma that is translanted “spirit,” including biblical references to the Holy Spirit.

But how exactly did God “breathe” into the writers of Scripture? Often in Scripture we are told what God did (e.g., created the heavens and the earth) but not told how He did it. The apostle Peter tells us “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (I Peter 1:21, NASB). We gather that God not only wanted to communicate His message to humans, but He also wanted those communications recorded so that His followers through the centuries would have His truth available. Thus, Scripture is a depository of God’s truth.

The doctrine of “inspiration” deals with God’s influence upon the writers of Scripture. Within Christendom there are differing views of the extent of God’s influence. A low view of inspiration holds that biblical writers were inspired merely like Shakespeare was inspired, resulting in “inspiring” writings that have survived as cultural classics. This view does not seem to square with the teachings of the Bible. When many of Jesus’ disciples fell away, He asked the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:67-68, NASB). Scripture presents itself as more than an inspiring religious text. It presents itself as being God’s truth, containing the words of everlasting life (“Thy word is truth,” John 17:17).

A higher view of the inspiration of the Bible, consistent with what is found within the pages of Scripture, is that the Bible is fully inspired. In short, all of Scripture, as opposed to mere parts, originated with God. The Latin word for “full” is plenos. Hence, a higher view of Scripture is referred to as “plenary inspiration,” i.e., the entirety of Scripture has its source in God.

A final question regarding God breathing into the writers of Scripture is whether His influence upon the writers extended to the thoughts they communicated through their writings, or even to the very words they chose. This is especially important when considering the words and teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are two schools of thought within those who hold to a high view of Scripture: (1) The Gospels accurately capture the thoughts that Jesus expressed (the “authentic voice”) but not the exact words. (2) The Gospels contain the exact words of Jesus.

What is the support for the view that the Gospels are the “authentic voice” (Latin, ipsissima vox) of Jesus, capturing His thoughts but not necessarily His very words? First, Jesus probably spoke mostly Aramaic, yet the Gospels were written (as far as we know) in Greek. Therefore much of what is recorded in the gospels is already a translation, calling into question whether the exact words of Jesus are important, since precision can be “lost in the translation.” Next, Jesus spent hours teaching, yet most of the teaching passages in the gospels are very short, indicating the Gospel accounts are summaries. Third, where parallel accounts exist (i.e., especially when Matthew, Mark and Luke contain the same account), the Gospel writers often do not agree word-for-word, but rather thought-for-thought. (e.g., Matthew 16:13 compared to Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18). Finally, New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are not word-for-word. These reasons are the primary arguments that the Gospels contain the gist of Jesus’ teachings, but not the very words themselves.

Critics of the “thought-for-thought” view find weaknesses in the notion that inspiration involves only the accurate portrayal of Jesus’ thoughts, not His very words. It is argued that ipsissima vox opens the door to questioning the place of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Gospel writers to record Jesus’ very words (“He will…bring to your remembrance all that I said to you,” John 14:26). Further, Luke states that he is writing “so that you might know the exact truth” (Luke 1:4, NASB).

Can we know the exact truth without having the exact words of Jesus? In other areas of life it may be alright to deal with things that are “approximately true” (like the old adage, “close enough for government standards”). But when dealing with words spoken by incarnate deity, “approximation” has troublesome implications (e.g., who would want a neurosurgeon to operate in an “approximate” area of our brain, with an instrument that was “approximately” what is used for the operation, with post-operative drugs prescribed that are “approximately” what is essential for our condition? I am reminded of the man who was said to have made $25,000 in the potato business in Maine. On closer inspection, that was “approximately true,” only it wasn’t Maine, it was Texas. And it wasn’t potatoes, it was oil. And he didn’t make it, he lost it. And it wasn’t $25,000, it was $250,000. And it wasn’t him, it was his brother. So much for “approximate” truth).

The more extended view of inspiration holds that the Gospels contain the “authentic words” of Jesus (Latin, ipsissima verba), a view commonly called “verbal inspiration” (“word for word”). Hence, divine involvement in the inspiration process extends beyond the thoughts of the Gospels to the very words chosen by the Gospel writers.

Evidence for verbal inspiration (ipsissima verba) includes Jesus basing His argument on the very tense of a verb in Matthew 22:29-33. After the Sadducees posed a hypothetical question to Jesus, thinking they had stumped Him on the issue of the afterlife, Jesus made reference to God in telling Moses that He is (not “was”) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). His point was that at the time God spoke to Moses the patriarchs were long dead physically, yet God told Moses, “I am the God” of the patriarchs, indicating they were still alive, living in the afterlife. Jesus concludes, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” If Jesus did not have confidence that Exodus 3:6 was an accurate record of what God told Moses, right down to the tense of the verb (“I am” versus “I was”), He could not have made the argument. Therefore, a fortiori, Jesus’ words to the Sadducees had to be recorded precisely as spoken (ipsissima verba) for His argument to make sense, and to make sense as to why the multitude “were astonished at His teaching” (Matthew 22:33, NASB).

I would encourage those who have followed this journey into the subject of inspiration to not lose sight of the clear biblical teaching that God Himself is involved in breathing the words into the writers of Scripture (II Timothy 3:15, I Peter 1:21). Further, the Holy Spirit of God superintended the writers (John 14:26) so that the final product we called the “Bible” is, indeed, precisely what God desired to be available as the sole basis of faith and practice for His followers. As Paul the apostle wrote, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words” (I Corinthians 2:13, NASB). Remember what Peter wrote: “The grass withers, the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord abides forever. And this is the word which was preached to you” (I Peter 1:24, NASB).

Passing the Mantle

2010-08-18T11:12:00.000-07:00

September 8, 2009

This summer I was privileged to teach the Sunday morning Bible class at Faith Bible Church in Panora, Iowa. I taught on the Gospel of John.

As I considered John’s gospel, there is both amazement and envy in reading the words of a man whom Jesus chose to be one of His 12 disciples, and even one of His inner three. It is amazing to consider what it would be like for a 1st Century fisherman to be summoned by the Messiah. However, I am envious that John was able to sit at Jesus’ feet for some three years, hearing things we will never know this side of eternity. (John admits that Jesus said and did many things that he did not write down in his gospel, because there was not room for recording everything–see John 20:30, 21: 25; plus, the purpose of John writing was so the reader would believe in Jesus–see John 20:31.)

John was in a unique position, being present with Jesus. He wrote his gospel so that we might read for ourselves about the words and deeds of Jesus. But John did not merely write his gospel account in isolation. Many of John’s activities are recorded in the book of Acts, where he is seen evangelizing his fellow-countrymen. He is recognized by St. Paul as one of the pillars of the early church. See Galatians 2:9. Beyond what is recorded in Scripture, we know from early church history that John himself discipled certain men, among whom were Polycarp and Papius.

Polycarp, born around A.D. 69, became a bishop in Smyrna, which is modern Izmir, Turkey. One of his pupils was Irenaeus, who reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus, including the Apostle John. Polycarp is among the earliest believers whose writings have survived (he wrote an Epistle to the Philippians).

Irenaeus, writing toward the middle of the 2nd Century (about A.D. 150) names Papius as a “hearer of John” and a “companion of Polycarp.” Presuming that this “John” is John the Evangelist, the disciple who wrote the 4th Gospel, then Papius also was discipled by a direct disciple of Jesus. Papius wrote a five-volume work on “Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.” These volumes are lost, and are only known through fragments cited by later writers.

Jesus passed the mantle on to His disciples, mentoring and teaching them in order to prepare them for their commission (Matthew 28:19, “disciple all nations”). His disciples, like John, discipled the next generation of Christian leaders, including Polycarp and Papius. Polycarp, in turn, mentored Irenaeus, and so on down the line.

We, today, are called upon not only to believe, but also to serve. Part of that service is mentoring others, especially the next generation of Christian leaders. There is a wealth of precedent, based on the command of Jesus (Matthew 28:19), that our primary purpose on earth is to teach (“disciple”) people from every nation, passing to the next generation the mantle of leadership. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, all the way to us, today. Someone (perhaps many) discipled you, and continue to disciple you. We thank God for those who have influenced our faith. Are there believers who thank God because we discipled them? There is a question that helps us soberly pause to consider whether we are, indeed, fulfilling our calling and purpose on this earth. Now is the time to consider if there is someone, or perhaps many, whom we are called to mentor and disciple. We are the ones not only entrusted with leadership, but also entrusted with finding faithful believers who need to be groomed as tomorrow’s leaders.

Are you working on passing the mantle?

Sotomayor and Identity Politics

2010-08-18T11:10:00.000-07:00

July 17, 2009

In early July 2009 I responded to an editorial perspective in the Des Moines Register newspaper in which the deputy editorial page editor argued for having more women in the federal judiciary. The editorial was written in anticipation of the Senate confirmation proceedings for Judge Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme court (due to the retirement of liberal Justice David Souter).

I wrote a lengthy essay in response to the editorial, which I expected would be edited down. To my delight the Des Moines Register editorial page editor contacted me and wanted to print my entire essay, which they did on Sunday, July 12. It is the longest of my opinion pieces to be published. Read the entire article below.

Here in Iowa the most listened-to talk radio station is WHO, AM 1140 in Des Moines. Their morning host, Jan Michaelson, is so popular that Rush Limbaugh’s show, which is on live at the same time as Michaelson’s, is taped and replayed an hour later so that Michaelson’s show can be heard live. On July 15 Jan Michaelson had me in studio for an hour and a half talking about Sotomayor, the confirmation proceedings, and a host of other issues. We have had wonderful feedback from the radio interview and from my opinion piece in the Des Moines Register. Since one of our goals at Rolling Stone Ministries is to get people to think biblically, the opportunities these past few days in Iowa have truly helped us meet that goal.

Des Moines Register July 12, 2009 Article:

Sotomayor and Identity Politics

Can’t blame Deputy Editorial Page Editor Linda Lantor Fandel for wanting more women in the judiciary. After all, she’s a woman, women make up more than half of the U.S. population, and the federal judiciary is only comprised of around 27% women. Further, Iowa has but one woman on the state Supreme Court. Given these statistical facts, Ms. Fandel is outraged, and argues that “this should change.”

But has Ms. Fandel’s statistical observation made a case for more women in the judicial branch? Using her apparent reasoning (i.e., that the percentage of women in the judiciary should reflect the percentage of women in the general population) either she or Editorial Page Editor Carol Hunter should step aside, since women are obviously over-represented as editors of the editorial page of the Register (two out of two).

Let us further scrutinize gender and racial disparities. Iowa’s United States Senators are both men. Over-representation. Both of California’s U.S. Senators are women. Over-representation. Two of the nine United States Supreme Court Justices are Jewish. Over-representation compared to the general population, which is less than 2% Jewish. In California it is estimated that one out of every eleven people is an illegal immigrant. Thus, for statistical symmetry, California’s judiciary should be comprised of 9% illegal immigrants.

Everyone is part of a gender group and a racial group. Should we demand racial and gender parity only in appointed offices? What about elected office? How about private enterprise? The possibilities for quotas and “affirmative action” are endless.

In reality, alternating “boy, girl” may work on the playground, but when it comes to judicial appointments (or elected offices, or editorial page editors) we need the best and brightest. Unfortunately, identity politics, where one vigorously supports a person based on ethnicity or gender, has clouded our collective thinking. Bill Clinton’s “I want a cabinet that looks like America” was a feel-good attempt to appear inclusive. However, the results were abysmal (think “Janet Reno”).

Identity politics usually is a subterfuge for advancing ideology. For example, after the death of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the U.S. Supreme Court, there were cries for him to be replaced by another black. When Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H.W. Bush to replace Justice Marshall, opposition was strong, because Clarence Thomas wasn’t the “right kind” of black. Similarly, an articulate African-American female (a “twofer”), Janice Rogers Brown, was an associate Justice on the California Supreme Court prior to her nomination by George W. Bush to the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia. Her confirmation was stalled, though she was eventually confirmed on a 56-43 vote of the Senate. Why the delay and the close vote? As it turns out, she is a conservative—just not the “right kind” of black female. As a “white European male” I have much more in common with the views and values of Justice Janice Rogers Brown than of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whom Sonia Sotomayor is set to replace. This helps illustrate how skewed identity politics is, and how it serves as a backdoor way to promote ideology, not parity or symmetry.

As to Sonia Sotomayor, a threshold question that may seem impolitic is whether she would be a U.S. Supreme Court nominee if she were not Hispanic and female. Probably not. Her membership in a sexist (“exclusively female”) organization, her racially-tinged comment about a “wise Latina,” and her track record for reversals (the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed more than 60% of the opinions she wrote or joined) shows that she is a politically correct choice for this administration—not the best and brightest. However, the fact that she’s the “right kind of female” and the “right kind of Hispanic” will undoubtedly lead to an easy confirmation from a Senate where Democrats enjoy a super majority.

The facts militate to the conclusion that Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment has more to do with political correctness and jockeying to please special interest groups that it does nominating the most qualified person for the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps we are stuck with identity politics that solely focuses on shouting, like the Buffalo Springfield in the song For What It’s Worth, “hooray for our side.” In a perfect world “our side” would not be women, men, black, white, Asian or Hispanic, but American. Until we reach the color-blind (and gender-blind) society, America will continue to be Balkanized into the tribalism we’ve allowed but never admitted. It’s past time that we truly reached across the aisle of race, gender and politics and put America first, regardless of the consequences. If doing so we might restore our collective confidence in a government that was designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Is it well with your soul?

2010-08-18T11:06:00.000-07:00

June 11, 2009

Back in September 2008 things in the United States seemed just fine. Although the country would be electing a new president on November 4, no one seemed to have a clue about the coming financial upheaval. Then, suddenly, we were told that Wall Street was in dire straights, and unless immediate action was taken, the world could plunge into an economic abyss.

America soon became familiar with the term “sub-prime lending.” Congress, reacting to cries of “The sky is falling,” hurriedly cobbled together a “bailout” of over $700 million for the good folks on Wall Street. Despite the greed and revelations of unconscionably-high salaries and benefits, all of a sudden we, the people, were told that our tax dollars were needed to prop up Wall Street.

The “sub-prime” meltdown of Wall Street carried over to banks, automakers, the insurance giant AIG and other industries. We were again told that our tax dollars were needed to prop up banks and automakers, or else the sky would resume falling. As a result, the United States government (that is supposed to be “us,” but does not feel like “us”—it feels more like “them”) now owns the majority interest in Chrysler. When a government takes over and runs a private industry, isn’t that an example of socialism?

Now, over a trillion dollars later, millions of Americans are struggling with loss of jobs, inability to make house payments and rising gas prices. All this while government laments that it can’t pay its bills. The complacency of September 2008, when most of us were feeling pretty confident about our financial security, demonstrates how fragile we are individually, and how fragile even the United State is when it comes to economics. No military on earth can bring America to her knees, yet unregulated greed run amok caused our country to have wobbly knees.

What lessons can be learned in the wake of our unexpected financial crisis? First, we need a national humility, not a national arrogance. The Scripture warns, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (I Corinthians 10:12). Our government (both federal, and, for Laurie and me, in our home state of California) set the trend by living beyond its means. Resorting to deficit spending (i.e., spending money we don’t have by borrowing to pay our obligations) became a habit. The people of America have followed suit, with a minuscule amount of money being saved, and credit card and other debt increasing. The current financial crisis helps illustrate that trusting in mammon (money) is building a house on the sand, and instant gratification (i.e., buy now, pay later) can lull you to sleep until you are rudely awakened when the bill arrives.

Second, we are not promised tomorrow. It is always possible that by tomorrow what we’ve labored for will be gone, and it’s possible that by tomorrow we will be gone. Are we prepared today for the uncertainties of tomorrow? When Dwight Moody was on a boat caught in a violent storm on Lake Michigan far from shore, others on the boat were below deck praying earnestly for survival. One man noticed Moody was not present, and, thinking he might have been washed overboard, hurried above deck to find Moody sitting on the bow, riding the swells as the boat rocked back and forth. The man shouted out to Moody, “why aren’t you below praying with us?” Moody, with a contented grin, replied, “I’m prayed up.”

There is a time for prayer, a time for preparation, and a time to say, “it’s in God’s hands—I’m prepared and prayed up.” Are you prayed up and prepared for whatever tomorrow brings? It has been said that we don’t know what the future holds, but we know who holds the future. David summarized how we can be ready for whatever comes our way: “Commit your way to the LORD. Trust also in Him and He will do it” (Psalm 37:5). If you’ve committed everything to the Lord, then you have nothing to lose, and your heart is ready to sing those words penned by Hortio Spafford, “Whatever my lot Thou hast taught me to say, ‘It is well, it is well with my soul.’”

Same-Sex Marriage

2010-08-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

March 17, 2009

Irony or ironies, last year (2008), the day after Laurie and I left California for a writing sabbatical in Iowa, “same-sex marriages” began to take place in California. Then, the day after we left Iowa to return to California, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Iowa law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I am not suggesting that had we stayed longer in California or Iowa the result would have been different. Instead, it is a graphic illustration as to how our civilization is changing before our very eyes, even in places like the heartland of America.

Some who read this blog may not be fully aware of what has been happening here in California. As in all other states and all other countries (since the dawn of civilization) marriage was between a man and a woman (yes, at some point in history there have been societies that did allow more than one spouse—(polygamy)–but these were still heterosexual relationships). Thirty years ago no one thought much about same-sex couples being married. In the 1970s some Californians noticed that state law never formally defined marriage as between one man and one woman, even though that is what everyone understood marriage to be. But just in case, marriage in California was officially defined as between a man and a woman via a statute passed by the California State Legislature in 1977.

By the mid-1980s there were still some states in the United States that criminalized same-sex behavior. In 1986, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, a Georgia statute that criminalized homosexual activity was challenged before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held, 5-4, that it was constitutional for states to criminalize such activity.

Despite millennia of laws and practices recognizing marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, and despite the United States Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1990s saw a growing chorus of homosexual activists agitating for recognition of same-sex relationships. Given the decline in societal values, and the replacement of Judeo-Christian, traditional morality with a secular moral relativity, it was only a matter of time before the marriage debate took center stage. In 1991 I wrote, “It is not difficult to anticipate a time in the near future when cohabitation by persons of the same sex will be afforded the same legal status as traditional, heterosexual marriage. In fact, the practice of homosexuals participating in formal ‘marriage’ ceremonies has been going on for years. It’s only a matter of time before jurisdictions ratify such activity as constituting lawful marriage.” (God in the Chaos, p. 36, Harvest House, 1991).

In spite of warnings from myself and others who saw the handwriting on the wall, few people took the “marriage debate” seriously until court decisions in the State of Hawaii got the nation’s attention. In 1993 the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that denying state recognition of same-sex couples might constitute “sex discrimination.” The Hawaii Supreme Court sent the matter back to the trial court, which, in 1996, found that Hawaii’s state marriage laws violated the state’s “Equal Rights Amendment.”

These events in Hawaii served as a shot across the bow, alerting America that traditional marriage was under attack. The court decisions in Hawaii were the catalyst for the United States Congress stepping in and passing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in 1996. The federal DOMA defines marriage in federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman, and provides that no state of the United States is required to recognize same-sex relationships, even if recognized in other states.

Back to California, in the late 1990s there was concern that some of the more “liberal” states in the United States would allow same-sex marriage (perhaps, at that time, California did not see itself as being “progressive” as many do today). In order to make sure California would not have to recognize same-sex marriages, petitions were signed, and a proposed law was put on the March 2000 ballot that read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Known as “Proposition 22,” this proposal to define marriage in the traditional way was overwhelmingly passed by the voters of California, receiving 61.4% of the vote.

Even though the people of California had spoken, rather than accepting the “will of the people” as binding, same-sex marriage advocates did an “end-run.” They filed legal challenges to Proposition 22, with hopes of finding a sympathetic judge who would strike down Proposition 22. Even though over four million Californians voted for Proposition 22, one judge, Richard Kramer from the San Francisco Bay area, decided he knew better, and struck down the voter-approved law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In early 2007, a California appeals court reversed Judge Kramer, and a showdown loomed in the California Supreme Court, which in the fall of 2007 had agreed to hear the challenge to Proposition 22. I wrote one of the amici curiae (“friends of the court”) briefs arguing that Proposition 22 should be upheld.

Those who wanted to protect traditional marriage were concerned that the California Supreme Court might strike down Proposition 22. Therefore, petitions were once again circulated, this time to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The difference between Proposition 22, which became a statute when passed, and the proposed constitutional amendment, is that the State Supreme Court can strike down statutes that it finds violate the state constitution. However, since the Constitution of California is the supreme law of the state, reflecting the sovereign right of the people to determine how they shall be governed, the Constitution is therefore presumptively above the reach of the Supreme Court.

In March 2008 the State Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Proposition 22. On May 15, 2008 the Court, in a 4-3 vote, struck down Proposition 22. The Court found that there was a fundamental right to marriage in the State Constitution, and that “right” extended to same-sex couples. The Court ruled that homosexuals were a “suspect class” requiring the Court to strictly scrutinize any law that infringed on their right to marry the person of their choice. The Court found there was no compelling state interest in keeping marriage between opposite sex couples that was sufficient to deny same-sex couples their “fundamental right” to marry a person of the same sex. Thus, the Court ruled that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in California.

Just a couple of weeks after the California Supreme Court’s decision regarding Proposition 22, the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman qualified for the November 4, 2008 ballot. As a result, the Court was asked to stay the commencement of same-sex marriages until the November election. Part of the argument for staying the May 15 decision was that if the Court allowed same-sex marriages to take place, and if the new constitutional amendment passed, it would create chaos and uncertainty as to the validity of the same-sex marriages that would take place up to the election on November 4. The Court denied the request for a stay and ordered that same-sex couples could be legally married commencing June 17, 2008.

From June 17 until November 4, 2008, some 18,000 same-sex “marriages” took place in California. Unlike Massachusetts, which in 2005 allowed same-sex marriages for residents of Massachusetts, the California ruling did not require any residency for same-sex couples wishing to marry. As a result, same-sex couples came from all over the United States and many foreign countries to get married.

The proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (using the exact same 14 words as Proposition 22) became “Proposition 8.” Each side of the issue raised and spent millions of dollars trying to convince Californians to vote their way. Laurie and I participated in a town hall meeting, a debate at Whittier Law School, a panel discussion at Chapman University School of Law, and a marriage documentary, advocating the passage of Proposition 8. Emotions ran high, and there were hundreds of reports of “Yes on 8” signs being stolen or vandalized (compared to only a couple of reports of “No on 8” signs being stolen or defaced). Finally, by late in the evening on November 8, it was clear that Proposition 8 had passed, and the words “only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in California” became part of the State Constitution.

Remember the end-run around Proposition 22 (in other words, a run to court to find a sympathetic judge to overturn the will of the people)? The day after the November 4 election three challenges were filed against Proposition 8. Not only lay people, but even attorneys asked, “How can anyone challenge a Constitutional amendment, since by definition the Constitution is the final word on an issue?” Never underestimate the cleverness of lawyers with an agenda. The primary argument that Proposition 8 should be stricken claimed that the 14 words constituting Proposition 8 were actually not an “amendment” to the Constitution, but a “revision.” A “revision” is a wholesale change in the structure of the government, and “revisions” must be first passed by the legislature before being voted on by the people. And, of course, the California legislature in 2008 never did (and never would) support keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, the argument went, since Proposition 8 is actually a “revision” (because it allegedly denies equal protection to same-sex couples, and equal protection permeates the State Constitution, and that constitutes a wholesale change in the structure of government), Proposition 8 should be stricken.

On March 5, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the challenge to Proposition 8 (now Section 7.5, Article I of the California Constitution). The questions from the bench have caused most observers to conclude the Court will uphold Proposition 8. (Laurie and I have a side bet—she thinks Proposition 8 will be upheld 5-2, I think it will be 6-1 or better.)

If the Court upholds Proposition 8, then it must further decide what to do with 18,000 same-sex marriages that the California State Constitution now says are not “valid or recognized.” Most observers of the March 5 Supreme Court hearing (again, based on their questions and comments) think the Court will allow those marriages to remain valid. It is difficult to see how that could be, given the clear language of the amendment (not “valid or recognized”).

When asked about whether Proposition 8 should be applied retroactively (i.e., to marriages that took place between June 6 and November 4), the advocate supporting Proposition 8, Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine Law School and former Solicitor General of the United States, said it was not “retroactive.” However, Dean Starr argued that based on the language of the amendment, from November 4, 2008 same-sex marriages are no longer valid or recognized. This position seems to be the only reasonable one, given the clear language of the constitutional amendment. Those sympathetic to the 18,000 same-sex couples believe (and hope) that the Court will not “invalidate” their marriages. It is possible that the Court will, despite the clear language of the Constitution, allow those 18,000 marriages to still be called “marriages,” which presents a whole new set of problems (e.g., how is that “fair” to same-sex couples that missed the May to November window of opportunity to get “married?”).

Despite the prediction that the Court will allow those 18,000 same-sex marriages to continue, I am holding out hope that the Court will rule that those same-sex “marriages” were valid until November 4, 2008, and are now no longer valid as “marriages,” but are valid as “domestic partnerships.” The Court has 90 days from March 5, 2009 to rule on the challenge to Proposition 8.

Most same-sex couples believe the threshold issue is “personal autonomy” and “recognition” of the validity of their relationship. No one denies that people of the same sex can be attracted to one another (most studies suggest that about 2-3% of the population is homosexual), and can be committed to one another. The State of California provides that such couples can be legally recognized “domestic partners,” which provides the exact same rights and privileges to same-sex couples that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. California Family Code §297.5(a). The only difference is that domestic partners cannot call themselves “married.” Thus, the entire brouhaha over “marriage” is over the nomenclature. To me, and to every civilization in recorded history, marriage is a relationship with procreative potential that serves as a protection to the children that may spring from the marriage. This creative potential, by itself, sets apart opposite sex relationships of one man and one woman from any other type of relationship.

If the California Supreme Court does uphold Proposition 8 (Article 7.5, Section I of the California State Constitution), is the war over? Far from it. On January 26, 2009 a proposed constitutional amendment initiative was submitted to the California Attorney General’s office that would repeal Proposition 8. On March 9, 2009, a Title and Summary was issued by the Attorney General’s office for a proposed constitutional amendment which would have the term “marriage” removed from all government legislation. In short, this amendment would eliminate all state-recognized marriages in California and would relegate the State of California to only provide “domestic partnerships.” If enough signatures are gathered, these two proposed amendments will appear on the 2010 California ballot.

This latter proposal is similar to what has happened recently when a Christian club wanted to meet on a secular high school campus which allows other non-curriculum-related clubs, such as chess clubs, ski clubs, and, yes, even “gay and lesbian” clubs. After the Christian club was denied the request to be a recognized club, the issue was taken to court, and the court upheld the right of the Christian club, ruling that to do otherwise would be “viewpoint discrimination” (i.e., because of their beliefs or views, they are singled out and denied access). In the recent case, rather than implementing the court’s decision to allow the Christian club to meet, the school eliminated all clubs. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Now the same-sex marriage proponents are essentially saying, “If we can’t be married, then you heterosexuals can’t be married, either.” So much for tolerance.

Finally, lest you wonder whether I am imbibing the secular kool-aid of moral relativity and the post-modern kool-aid of subjectivity (having thus far not raised any biblical arguments in support of traditional marriage), I also believe that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. Genesis 2:24 provides the divine principle: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” And just in case someone thinks that Genesis is mere mythological tradition, the correctness of the marriage principle found in Genesis 2:24 is repeated—by Jesus Christ—in Matthew 19:4-5: “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” I cast my vote (figuratively and literally) with tradition, with reason, with the Creator, and with Jesus.

Back to Kenya

2010-08-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

March 15, 2009

Kenya. Home away from home. This April (2009) will be our third annual trip to Kenya. It will be like returning home. Meeting our dear Kenyan Brothers and Sisters for the first time two years ago made us feel more than welcome. They made us feel at home.

There is something to be said about being on an entirely different continent, on the other side of the world, in a foreign culture, among people who speak another language, where poverty and disease are rampant. However, the very first Sunday we walked into a Bible believing church in one of the slums of Nairobi, which happened to be Easter Sunday, was like coming home. And I’m not talking about home as in where we live most of the year in Southern California. I’m talking about our heavenly home.

Faith, hope and love radiate from our Kenyan brethren. Their style of joyful worship ushers believers into God’s powerful presence. God does inhabit the praises of His people (Ps. 22:3). Although we come to minister, their praise and worship minister to us. We wonder how we became blessed to share in their joy. We want to bring them back to the U.S. with us to teach the American church a thing or two.

Anticipating our next venture to Kenya, which begins April 1, we know to expect the unexpected. The many hours on a plane will be tiring. The roads and traffic in Nairobi will be challenging. The availability of electricity will be unpredictable. The dust from the roads, long hours, and food may bring illness. However, our joy in serving will be remarkable. The rekindling of friendships will be touching. The fellowship with Manna Bible Institute students will be precious. The new relationships we form will have lasting impact. After teaching classes at Manna, preaching in three churches, speaking at women’s conferences and on Nairobi radio, we will leave feeling like we’ve made a difference for Jesus. Humbly we will feel like we received way more than we were able to give. Living out our faith, we are transformed.

Returning to Southern California, we will linger over the hundreds of photos we will have taken, holding on to the vivid memories and lessons. With great excitement, we will hardly be able to contain ourselves as we look for opportunities to tell anyone and everyone about our experiences with anyone who will listen as we ramble on and on. It is an amazing thing to go on a mission trip. Amazing. It has the power to change us, forever, if we let it.

These are not some high hopes. It is the reality of life spent wanting to live out The Great Commission and follow Jesus. To think, even these earthly rewards, joys and experiences, pale in comparison to what waits us in eternity for those spending it as joint heirs with Christ.

Do you know Jesus? He says, “Behold, I am coming soon. My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” Rev. 22:12. People get ready. Jesus is coming.

St. Paul’s Case for the Resurrection

2010-08-18T11:00:00.000-07:00

March 3, 2009

Spring is nearly in the air. It is a time of renewal. It is a time of rejoicing that the winter is over (this means much more in parts of the world, like Iowa, where the winters are severe, and less in places like Kenya where the weather barely changes). It is a time when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus—the proof that Jesus was, indeed, who He claimed to be, the Messiah, the Savior of the world. It is a time that Christians worship their risen Lord.

What do we know about the resurrection of Jesus? First, there are several accounts in the gospels in which Jesus predicted he would rise (e.g., Matthew 16:21). According to Matthew’s gospel, even the enemies of Jesus were well aware of His prediction that he would rise from the dead on the third day. Because of His predictions, the enemies of Jesus took special precautions to secure His tomb in order to prevent anyone from claiming that He rose (Matthew 27:62-66). Along with Jesus’ predictions that He would rise, all four gospels contain accounts of Jesus appearing alive after he had died.

MODERN SCHOLARSHIP QUESTIONS THE GOSPELS

But are the gospel accounts the most compelling evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? For many modern scholars, the answer is “Perhaps not,” because many of these modern scholars are skeptical of the gospel accounts. Is there any hope that those who question the gospels can still find compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Absolutely, “Yes.” If not in the gospels, where is the evidence of Jesus dying then appearing alive? The evidence is found in the letters of St. Paul. Before presenting Paul’s case for the resurrection, we need a little background.

First, if we conclude that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and those who interviewed the eyewitnesses, then the gospel accounts of the resurrection are sufficiently reliable to support the conclusion that Jesus rose again. This position, namely that the gospels are historically reliable, firsthand accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, is the view held by most professing Christians. Such a view is a far cry from the purely subjective reason for believing Jesus rose that is found in the final stanza of the song He Lives: “You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.” The first position espouses a faith founded on historical testimony from eyewitnesses, while the second promotes a faith based on personal experience. It is difficult for those embracing the subjective position to explain why their experience is to be preferred over the experiences of other religions. History and evidence matter if we are going to convince thinking people that Jesus rose from the dead. But are the gospel accounts of the resurrection the best evidence for the resurrection? In some circles, no. Why is that? And what evidence outside of the gospels supports the resurrection of Jesus? First, let us look at why some critics are skeptical of the gospels.

There are many scholars of the liberal, critical stripe that challenge the authorship, date and reliability of the gospels. They find the resurrection accounts in the gospels contradictory. They question whether the gospels were written by the traditional authors Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They generally assign dates for Matthew, Luke and John long after the time of Jesus, and even after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They assume that the gospels are a compilation of stories told and retold (“oral tradition”), resulting in distortions (like in the game “operator” where in a room full of people you take a phrase, whisper it to a person, who whispers it to another, and so on; by the time the last person hears the phrase it is totally different from the original). In short, critical scholars view the gospel accounts of the resurrection with a jaundiced eye based upon their conclusions that the earliest gospel was written some 35 years after the death of Jesus, that the gospels are a compilation of oral tradition rather than eyewitness accounts, and that the resurrection accounts contained in the gospels are too problematic to be reliable.

IS A RESURRECTION RULED OUT BY YOUR WORLD VIEW?

Of course, if a person’s world view, whether a scholar or not, does not allow for anyone to be dead for three days then come back to life, then no amount of evidence will convince that person that Jesus rose. This rejection is not based on evidence, but on the person’s assumptions (“presuppositions”) that limit what will be found before the investigation is even begun. It’s like the farmer who grew up on a farm, never read a book, never watched television, and had never been to the big city. When the farmer was taken to the zoo, he stood in front of the giraffe cage, and while gawking at the 17-foot tall creature, mumbled, “there ain’t no such thing.” Why did the farmer doubt what he was seeing? Not because of the evidence before him, but because a 17-foot tall animal did not fit into his experience. A giraffe did not fit into what the farmer believed to be true, therefore it could not exist.

BUILDING A CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION FROM WHAT IS KNOWN TO BE TRUE

Back to the evidence. For those who have trouble accepting the resurrection accounts in the gospels, how can Paul’s letters provide better evidence? The answer lies in what scholars, whether liberal, moderate or conservative, do accept as true. If 90% or more of scholars agree on something, that consensus can serve as a beginning point in presenting evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Here is a brief summation:

Virtually all scholars (99% by some counts, whether liberal or conservative, atheist or Christian) accept that Paul wrote Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians and Philippians. These same scholars agree that Paul was converted around 18 months to three years after the death of Jesus (using A.D. 30 as the date for Christ’s death, Paul’s conversion was AD 31-33). These same scholars accept that Paul wrote I Corinthians between A.D. 53-55 from Ephesus, at least 10 years earlier than the AD. 65 date given to Mark’s Gospel, which is assumed by many to be the earliest gospel written.

Since Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is deemed authentic by nearly all scholars, is it then reasonable to conclude that what Paul wrote is “reliable” history? People who want “reliable” history naturally prefer writers who were in the right place, at the right time. Sometimes that preference is not available, such as with the history of Alexander the Great. The best-known history of Alexander was written 400 years after he lived, yet few dispute the general reliability of that history. When we consider the resurrection of Jesus, who, besides the 12 disciples, was in the right place at the right time? One person certainly fits that bill–Saul of Tarsus, the Apostle Paul.

PAUL’S CREDENTIALS AS A WITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

In Acts chapter one, after the death of Judas, the apostles decided to choose someone to replace Judas. In the process they listed certain requirements before someone could be considered as an apostle. This list included the person having been eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians (9:1) he asks, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” He later tells the Corinthians (15:8) “and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He (Jesus) appeared to me.” Paul was in the right place, at the right time, to provide a reliable account of the resurrection of Jesus. And what specifically does Paul tell us?

Paul tells two important things in I Corinthians 15. First, Jesus rose from the dead (vs 20). Second, Paul saw the risen Christ (vs 8). Paul centered his message on the resurrection of Jesus as he ventured out on three missionary journeys recorded in the Book of Acts. In I Corinthians 15:3-4 he summarizes the gospel message: “Christ died for our sins…was buried…and was raised on the third day….”

Paul was quite obsessive about whether his gospel message was accurate. According to Galatians 1:18ff, after his conversion he spent 15 days with Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and John in Jerusalem in order to have them check out his gospel. Paul’s meeting with them likely occurred in approximately A.D. 37, just five years or so after his conversion, and seven years after Jesus’ resurrection. Around 14 years later Paul revisited Peter, James and John, and had them scrutinize his message again. Paul summarizes their conclusion in Galatians 2:6: “They added nothing to me.”

PAUL’S TESTIMONY IS SUPPORTED BY PETER, JAMES & JOHN, AND VICE-VERSA

So we have Paul, Peter, James and John. Paul says he saw the risen Jesus, and he says that Peter, James and John saw the resurrected Jesus, too. Further, Peter, James and John agreed that Paul taught the same message as they did. And Paul states as fact that Peter and John saw the risen Jesus—a fact he must have heard directly from Peter and John when he first visited them following his conversion.

Before the death of Jesus, James, son of Joseph and Mary, thought Jesus had “lost his senses” (Mark 3:21). Paul tells us that after Jesus’ crucifixion He appeared alive to James (I Corinthians 15:7). How did Paul know James saw the resurrected Jesus? Paul met with James after his conversion, so it is reasonable to conclude that James told Paul during their 15 days together (Galatians 1:18ff) about having seen the risen Lord. James went on to become a “pillar” in the early church, presiding over the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, and writing the Epistle of James.

Thus, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians unite Paul, Peter, James and John as fellow observers of the resurrected Jesus. These letters from Paul are considered authentic by even the most skeptical critics. Contained in those letters is the summary of what Paul likely learned directly from Peter, James and John, namely that they all saw the risen Jesus.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians around A.D. 51-53 about an event (meeting with Peter, James and John) that occurred just 15 years earlier, and that event was a mere five years after Paul’s conversion, and only seven years after the time of Jesus. Hence, we have an authentic letter from a person (Paul) who was on the scene at the time of Jesus, who personally claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus, who interviewed Peter, James and John about their encounters with the risen Jesus, and who summarized those accounts in I Corinthians 15.

CONCLUSION—HE IS RISEN!

In conclusion, even in an age of general skepticism toward the gospels, scholarly consensus (including atheists and believers, liberal and conservative) accepts that Paul wrote I Corinthians. And in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he tells us with certitude that “Christ rose from the dead” and “He appeared to me.” Thus, we can build a case from Paul’s writings, from the ground up, that provides a first-hand account of the resurrection of Jesus from documents that are accepted as authentic by even the most liberal and critical of scholars.

The evidence supports the conclusion that the gospels are also reliable historical documents that accurately recount the death and resurrection of Jesus. But even those skeptical of the gospels must account for Paul’s discussion of the resurrection found in I Corinthians 15. There is no question that Paul was there—the right place, at the right time. The reasonable conclusion for those with an open mind is that Paul told the truth—he did see the risen Jesus, and so did Peter, James and John. And if Jesus rose from the dead, what are the consequences for those who follow Him? The best answer is to consider the words of Jesus Himself, as recorded in John 14:19: “Because I live, you shall live also.”

John’s Recap of Our 2009 Visit to India

2010-08-18T10:57:00.000-07:00

February 20, 2009

Rolling Stone Ministries has served on three continents–North America, Africa and now Asia. Bwana asifiwe! (“Praise the Lord” in Swahili)

In January Laurie and I had the privilege of spending two weeks in India, where we taught classes and lead seminars.

The founder of the Institute where we taught received his training at the same time and at the same California college where my father attended. The founder’s son, who currently heads the Institute in India, attended the same graduate school that I did in California (just a few years after me). With all those connections, I never met the founder’s son until we arrived in India!

Wherever we go in the world, the “common salvation” spoken of in the New Testament book of Jude (verse 3) jumps out of the pages of Scripture and comes alive. Even though we were 12,000 miles from home, meeting fellow-believers in places like India confirms that our spiritual heritage is a greater unifying factor than race, ethnicity, language, etc. In short, we felt at home with the saints in India, as we also have felt in Kenya. The Spirit of the Lord transcends political, cultural and linguistic boundaries.

At the Institute in India I taught in their two graduate programs. I enjoy the academic challenge of preparing teachings for graduate students and find it even more challenging when I have no clue ahead of time about the culture of the students in my classes. The students at the Institute were very attentive, and very bright. I always aim to provide practical application no matter what subject I teach. The graduate students appeared to truly appreciate the emphasis on practical application. These are the future leaders in India and we considered it an awesome privilege to help in the shaping of their thinking and training.

The first week at the Institute, Laurie taught a three-day seminar on prayer to a group of female students who came from a northern Indian state. This was the only time that either of us needed an interpreter during our time in India. Most everyone we encountered in the area has some proficiency in English which made our teaching and speaking much easier. During the second week, Laurie taught a three-day seminar to the staff of the Institute.

There is no easy way to summarize two wonderful, rewarding weeks in India.

Suffice to say that we caught the vision of what is being done and what needs to be done. We trust that our efforts played a role, if only a small one, in bringing that vision to fruition. Much work needs to be done, which from the human perspective seems impossible. However, with God nothing is impossible
Please join our continuing prayer for the people of India. Thank you for partnering with Rolling Stone Ministries as we avail ourselves of this opportunity.

See Photo Gallery for photos of trip to India.

The Myopia of Government Bail-Outs

2010-08-18T10:56:00.000-07:00

February 10, 2009

St. Paul told the church at Rome, “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due….” (Romans 13:7a). In 21st century democracies (e.g., the United States, India, Kenya) there supposedly exists what American President Abraham Lincoln called “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Why does it seem that most of the time government is for itself, not for the people?

The economy of the United States has a significant effect on the rest of the world. When the current economic crisis was finally acknowledged in the fall of 2008, government leaders claimed that unless unprecedented amounts of capital were infused into the banking system, there could be total economic collapse. There were warnings that the lack of available credit, primarily due to the “sub-prime” lending practices of the banks that needed to be bailed out, would prevent the economy from rebounding (i.e., no business investment, therefore no new jobs).

The result of the “sky is falling” predictions was a hastily-drafted $700 billion bailout called TARP (“Troubled Assets Relief Program”). Needless to say, TARP was thrust upon America without well-thought-out safeguards. But, hey, it’s only taxpayer money. Even more disconcerting is the fact that TARP effectively puts government in the position of having a say in how private banks and investment firms run their businesses (and we’re not talking about mere regulations, but investment strategies). This encroachment of the government into the private sector is a further step away from free-enterprise, and another step closer to socialism. But, of course, the TARP bailout would stimulate the economy by restoring the flow of credit. Or so we were told.

The encroachment of government into the private business sector is consistent with government intrusion into the charitable sector. Most religious people, and Christians in particular (who make up the bulk of citizens in the U.S.) are inclined to helping the poor and needy through providing food, shelter and medical services to the needy. These services have historically been provided directly by churches and para-church ministries. The 20th century saw government begin to usurp what had been a mission of the church, starting its own “War on Poverty” and other social programs that involved large giveaways of taxpayer money. The noble goal was to eliminate ghettos and provide equal opportunity for all. But, as evangelist Billy Graham once said, “You can’t get man out of the ghetto until you get the ghetto out of man.” In short, what the government myopically saw as an economic problem (ala Marx), turned out to be something else. Those who take the Bible seriously see it as a spiritual problem, requiring a change of the heart before there can be any significant change in the way we live.

When government began to socialize ministry to the needy, not only did it bungle the job (as the debacle of Hurricane Katrina so graphically illustrated) but it created a disincentive for Christians to continue providing services to the needy. Since our tax dollars were being used for disaster relief, many wondered why should we also give money to the church to do what the government has now begun doing? Of course, a close look at the Katrina saga shows that other than the first responders such as the Coast Guard, who rescued many who otherwise would have perished, the best short and long-term assistances came from Christian organizations who saw helping their neighbors as a ministry as opposed to a job. Many of those organizations are still a presence in the Katrina-ravaged areas, long after the photo-ops disappeared. But the bulk of the money allocated by the government to rebuild sits unused as government agencies fight over who gets to spend the money.

Fast forward to February 2009. Since we haven’t learned our lesson that government involvement typically makes things worse, at least the $700 billion TARP bailout fixed the economy, right? Of course not. Today the U.S. Senate approved an $838 billion “stimulus package” to fix the economy. This latest tax-dollar giveaway was sold to the American people as essential to avoid a greater catastrophe, i.e., the further down-spiraling of the economy. But wait—isn’t that what we heard back in October 2008—that unless the government acted immediate, the sky would fall? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now that we’re up to $1.5 trillion in bailouts from taxpayers, can we seriously expect that our government leaders’ latest hastily-cobbled plan will work? We hope so, but we have no objective reason to believe so. Given its track record, when the government tells us to “Trust” it, we are being asked to exercise a blind faith at best, credulity at worst.

Regarding the $838 billion plan, President Obama says it will help “create or save” four million jobs.” A worthy goal, even if it’s not the government’s role to do so. But, first, how will we ever know whether the plan works? How does one determine whether someone’s job was “saved” because of the stimulus package? If 100 million people are working jobs in the U.S. at this moment, and if in one year there are still 100 million people working, did the stimulus package save those 100 million jobs? Only if the government can prove that without the stimulus package there would be no jobs.

Finally, using $838 billion to “create or save” four million jobs comes to $209,500 per job. Must be nice jobs. Maybe the government should, instead, just give all unemployed people $100,000 to spend as they see fit. That should “stimulate” the economy for awhile, until the next crisis that demands immediate attention and several hundred billion dollars in government spending and bailout.

The dye of socialism has been cast. People of faith are having their role usurped by a growing leviathan called “government.” It is difficult to consider the government as being “we, the people.” Instead, it looks more like “you, the elite.” And those elite who spend our money continue to miss the spiritual roots of most of the problems facing America and other countries. As the world continues its decline toward secularism, the reality of “good” and “evil” is diminished, and what has traditionally been labeled “wrong” for millennia is now just “different.” The ultimate solution is not an economic bailout, but an inward transformation of the individual, a spiritual re-birth. As the Apostle Paul said to the Church at Corinth, “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away and new things have come.” We don’t need a change of environment, a change of economic policy, a change of climate, or even a change of government leadership. We need a change of heart. That, my friend, comes through trusting Jesus Christ, and allowing His Spirit to lead you. If we follow Him, we can indeed say we are on the right path.

How do we defend our faith?

2010-08-18T10:54:00.000-07:00

January 7, 2009

St. Paul wrote to the church at Philippi that “in the defense and confirmation of the gospel you are all partakers of grace with me.” The word translated “defense” is from the Greek word “apologia” that means “to give reasons why we believe.” What Paul is telling the Christians at Philippi is that as he went all over defending and proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, the Philippians shared in his ministry through their prayers. What Paul is not telling them is that defending the faith is solely his task, and not the task of the church. The New Testament clearly teachings that defending and confirming the gospel is the task of all believers. St. Peter wrote, “always be ready to make a defense (“apologia”) to anyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Thus, we all need to be ready to defend the faith. But how do we defend our faith?

First, know the facts. The Old Testament Scriptures predict that God would send a Messiah to rescue us from the sin that separates us from God. There are at least 60 major prophecies that tell us the identity of the Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled every one.

The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses, or by those who had contact with the eyewitnesses, and all 27 New Testament books (with the possible exception of John and Revelation) were written by A.D. 70. These firsthand accounts were copied and recopied, but we possess so many old and reliable copies of New Testament books that it is easier to reconstruct what the New Testament originally said than it is to reconstruct any 10 works of antiquity combined. In short, the New Testament, especially the Gospels, are reliable historical accounts from eyewitnesses and primary sources.

In the Gospels Jesus claims to be God in the flesh, Who’s mission is to die for the sins of the world. Jesus also said He would rise from the dead after three days as proof of His claims. The validity of everything Jesus said and did hinged on the historical event of His resurrection. And just as He predicted, He rose from the dead and showed Himself alive to hundreds of people.

Defending the faith means knowing how to tell people that God is faithful, and the He did as He promised by sending Jesus to die in our place. Defending the faith means proclaiming the life-transforming words of Jesus, as recorded by the eyewitnesses, which tell us of God’s love that made a way for us to be forgiven of our failures and be given the gift of eternal life. Defending the faith means letting others know that they, too. can receive God’s precious gift of salvation by His grace, through faith in Jesus.

Defending and confirming the gospel (Philippians 1:7) is not a mere option for those who believe in Jesus–it is a command that should be practiced as a natural outflow of our inward faith

Our Upcoming Mission – India

2010-08-18T10:52:00.000-07:00

January 6, 2009

India is a country that up til now we mostly knew about from the movie “Gandhi” and from the recent terrorist attacks on the city of Mumbai (Bombay). In January 2009 Laurie and I have the privilege of teaching in India, as Rolling Stone Ministries expands into Asia for the first time.

India is home to more than a billion people, and the predominant religion is Hinduism, a pantheistic (“God is everything”) and polytheistic (“belief in many gods”) cluster of religious traditions. Currently there is severe persecution of Christians by Hindus in the Indian state of Orissa. Laurie and I will be teaching much further south, in the state of Tamil Nadu, in the city of Chennai (Madras), home to some eight million people.

We will be teaching and conducting leadership seminars for graduate-level students and others attending Hindustan College and Hindustan Bible Institute in Chennai. It is our prayer that we encourage and inspire our brothers and sisters in India as they seek to reach their own country with the Good News of Jesus.