Silent Night: A meditation

“Silent night, holy night; all is calm, all is bright.”

The tranquil setting of the First Christmas was heavenly in its peacefulness, but it was destined to be short-lived. That first night was free from the noise of sinful society and undisturbed by the chaos of sin that would before long surround Jesus. That silent night was a little microcosm of heaven, having only the presence of God and of those who love Him. It would be quite understandable that everyone would have longed to keep things just like that peaceful scene.

But Jesus came into a world of conflict, to a battle between light and darkness. And He did so, not to immediately claim victory over a dark world, but that by dying in seeming defeat He might share heavenly peace with those who believe. But, there can be no peace on earth, nor good will among men unless the Prince of Peace grants it to us through receiving it from His good will. So, Jesus willingly came into this world; not to an idyllic slice of heaven, but to a war zone and an enemy desperate to prevent his own defeat by the rightful King.

“Shepherds quake at the sight.”

The intrusion of Heaven's chorus was both strange and triumphant. Unfamiliar with that ultimate reality which lies just beyond our mortal eyes, the shepherds were full of fear at the angels' entrance into man's world. We don’t naturally grasp an appreciation of the difference between the earthly and the heavenly, so an encounter with even a little bit of the eternal is unnerving to ordinary folk.

But God is not out to scare anyone, not even those who could use a good wake-up call from Heaven. His purpose is to get our attention, and by that means to get an appropriate response to His holiness. Salvation is not possible without the heavenly breaking into the earthly, for it could not be the reverse. Salvation must always be at heaven's initiative, for none could even "meet God halfway." And if not for the repeated announcement of the gospel message, the world would let His coming go unnoticed.

“Son of God, love’s pure light.”

The birth of Christ was not the beginning of salvation's work, for God had already been busy on the ultimate restoration of the world for millennia. The birth of the Light of the world was, however, the dawn of true redemption, not just the symbolic atonement of the Old Testament Law. And this birth was assurance that the final day of God's righteousness would surely follow. That “silent night” is the greatest testimony to God's mercy and grace, that the coming of His Son was not first an act of the righteous Judge, but was instead the advent of a humble Savior. The long night of expectation by the prophets was now realized through this quiet entrance.

“Radiant beams from Thy holy face, with the dawn of redeeming grace.”

The light of the manger scene was symbolic of the beginning of God's complete work of salvation, entering a dark world and growing to a conclusion, like the child would grow into the Lamb of God. The baby of the manger would not immediately take His place as the Lamb, but His presence meant that the Light had come.

The coming of the Savior was not an instant effusion of light upon a dark world, but a portent of the light that would dawn upon all who believe. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the unbelieving mind considers as "enlightenment" a secular perspective which disregards the true light of God's truth. But for the believer, the dawn unto fullness of day will not be complete until the day when we know as we are "fully known."

And redemption is assured by the fact of Christ's Lordship. Christ's work of salvation was not accomplished like some earthly warrior, coming to engage an enemy in an uncertain conflict. He came into the world already the Victor, having only to work out the inevitable defeat of evil. For Christ, Lordship was already an eternal fact, and the triumph over death, the devil, and sin had only to be played out on the field, with a certain outcome. Grace has dawned, and the day of our redemption draws nigh.

From whence shall my help come?

"I shall lift my eyes to the mountains, from whence shall my help come?" Thus begins the 121st Psalm, posing the question that probably comes to every person's mind when help is most urgently needed. The answer is stated in the following verse, "My help comes from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth." And if I should wonder at a persistent "downturn" in my fortunes, as if this suggested my help is late in coming, the psalm's author urges me to consider in the next verse, "He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber."

If Americans are wondering about the source of their help in dire times, they should resist the urge to lift their eyes to the Capitol, hoping for a bailout. Nor should they lift their eyes to a new president, so full of hope and promises for all the right changes. And looking to God to somehow open an economic path through the sea of red ink might not be the best use of faith in the Bible, given that God has often permitted His people to suffer misfortune along with the rest of humanity in this fallen world.

Sincere believers in many nations today would like to have our "recession" level of prosperity, as it would still be way ahead of their subsistence standard of living. And for that matter, the wealth of the Saudis and other oil-rich nations isn't an indication that God is helping them, especially as they have rejected His Son in favor of their "prophet."

Ah, but is my help delayed or absent? Far from it, for as the 121st draws to its conclusion, it promises that my God will "protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul." In a world still burdened by the corruption of sin in all its forms, including materialism, greed and excessive use of credit economics, God gives no promises of a safe and secure bubble in which His people may happily pass the years awaiting Christ's return.

God has committed Himself to protecting the most valuable asset a man has: his soul. And from the day I committed my soul to Jesus Christ, I've been ready for whatever this world may bring me. I know my Helper, and He's not asleep at the switch.

The Future of Marriage

Like Amos in the Bible, I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But I don't think special predictive gifts are needed to see where the institution of marriage, at least as traditionally defined, is going. Conservatives are losing one state after another on the issue of gay marriage, and even the seeming triumphs like the California Proposition 8 are, I think, just a temporary hold on the inevitable.

Why inevitable? Because our governing bodies have left behind the concept that our historic Judeo/Christian principles should have a preference in matters of the law. It's nothing new, being written into the wording of the U.S. Consitution, and legal advocates for liberalization of social standards have been busy for many years, chipping away at the old order of things like prayers in schools, protection of the unborn and Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn.

Under our current definitions of legal rights and privileges, it seems evident to me that the gay community has as much reason to demand access to the rights of marriage as blacks have gained in the rights of citizenship, and women have gained in the rights of employment.

Without an argument from biblical values, principles and prohibitions, the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage rights in every state is the willingness of the majority to change their traditions to accomodate a new view. To the modern mind, it seems one kind of civil rights is the same as another, without regard to any religious standards. Indeed, the imposition of religious standards on legal decisions has become so offensive to the courts that decisions have been thrown out because a judge admitted "praying" about his ruling.

As with other revisions of the social code, like dress codes in public, sexual relations before marriage or vulgar language in movies, the majority has shifted in their attitudes toward gays from the time when our nation was ruled by heterosexual, Protestant, white men.

And it's not that those men were not always truly biblical in their outlook, or they would have sought civil rights for blacks sooner, like William Wilberforce did in England. Instead, the powers-that-used-to-be followed their own interpretations of morality, biblical or otherwise. And with only a traditional sense of biblical morality, as opposed to an identification of law with biblical morality, as in the days of the "established church", the concept of legal "rights" will continue to trump traditional values.

The gays are as patient as other groups have been before them, and they know that many heterosexual people, whose parents would have recoiled at the thought of gay marriage, have already decided that "love is love, no matter who you are." It's just a matter of time before the crumbling wall of resistance comes down entirely.

In that day, those committed to the authority of the Bible will look as hopelessly outdated as the Amish and their buggies. Churches are now being attacked by opponents of the California vote to turn back gay marriage rights. What will happen when the whole country finally "drinks the Kool-Aid" on this issue? I don't know, but I'm not thinking the gay community will just "agree to disagree."

Do bullies have more fun?

"Bullies may get a kick out of seeing others in pain." So says a story in today's news, about a new study by researchers at the University of Chicago, who are basing their finding on brain scans of teens with a history of abusive behavior, recorded as these "bullies" watched videos of people being mistreated.

As a one-time target of bullies in my neighborhood, I could have saved the U. of Chicago some research dollars if they had asked me about such things. I didn't need a brain scan of my tormentors to know they were enjoying their pranks and assaults, as there was evidence enough on their faces and in their voices. And it's nothing new, as Solomon attested to such wicked pleasures when he referred to people, "Who delight in doing evil, and rejoice in the perversity of evil." (Proverbs 2:14)

The researchers said they were "surprised" by these findings, as they had assumed that bullying was a cold, unemotional pathology, not one likely to light up the brain on a scan. But that's what they get for confusing enjoyment with outward displays of emotion. I also could have helped them on that point as well, as I remember my own days of spiritual darkness (too well at times) when I practiced my personal sins with a delight that didn't always find expression in outward displays of feeling.

But there's still the chicken-and-egg question: Does bad behavior follow the tendencies of the brain or does the brain change to reflect bad behavior and the attitude behind it? Again, the Bible could help the researchers find that answer, by such statements on human actions as, "As a man thinks within himself, so he is." Proverbs 23:7

As unsettling as the truth may be to human pride and self-esteem, the Bible indicates in many ways that mankind, apart from the renewing influences of God's truth, has a capacity for evil that can't be blamed on the physical structures of the brain, nor on the environmental structures of human society. The sinful nature, so universal that Paul could rightly say, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23), is all the explanation we need to shed light on the behavior of bullies and every other kind of bad behavior.

What's to be done? The only change for a bully, and for every sinner, is a change of heart, a new man of the spirit made possible by a rebirth in the Spirit of Jesus. Again Paul puts it so well, when he said, "Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (Romans 6:17)

A real change, or a different kind of same?

The new president, Barack Obama, was swept into power, some say, on little more than a promise to make changes in the status quo of government and society. Whether he can actually govern in a way to bring such change is now the challenge he must face and demonstrate to both his followers and his critics. Either way, his supporters will likely feel it's better than where we've been. His critics, meanwhile, will watch to see if his promises were more than political passion and eloquence.

But just how much real change can there be in a governmental system like ours? Some have been tossing out the "S" word (Socialism) to describe how they see the proposed changes in the tax code, as if to say that would be too much change for their tastes. And a new movement of civil benefits legislation wouldn't exactly be a change from previous administrations dating back to Roosevelt and several others. President Obama would have a hard time keeping up with the flurry of welfare bills sped through Congress by LBJ, at least until Vietnam consumed his attention.

Whether Democrat or Republican, the stated purposes of elected officials has been to bring benefit to the American people, to improve their daily lives and spread the rights of our Constitution to as many as possible. As to how that may best be done, there's the difference between them. And it always seems that each side accuses the other of being wrong-headed in their respective methods. But is either method a real change, or just a different kind of same?

A real change would be to alter the landscape of human endeavor altogether, to one centered on God's plan for humanity, instead of one focused on material and social goals entirely of this world's making. As long as mankind's objectives are aimed at a more satisfying life for men, there will be endless arguments about just what that means and how to get there. But if we were to take our cue from our Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ, we would realize there's a lot more to life than living.

There will be a new man in the White House come next January 20th, but, I'm grateful to remember, there will be still be the same God on the throne of the universe. And someday, when God has decided to bring that "new heaven and new earth" He's promised to those who trust and obey Him, now that will be a change we can believe in!

How would Jesus spend?

I've seen a lot of home remodeling and add-on projects over the years, especially in established neighborhoods. I guess the thinking there is: better to add a room than start over again with even more expense in a whole new house. But our economy would be in even worse shape today if everybody did it that way. Most of our current crisis seems to be connected, at least in the beginning, to the housing market. People aren't buying new homes fast enough; people wanted more of a new house than they could afford, and have now defaulted on the loan. People's home values have slumped to the point that they owe more than they could sell it for and buy a new one.

But our economy is more than housing, and yet the same principle applies: if enough people keep what they have and don't keep buying new things, there's going to be a slowdown in businesses that survive on new products, not fixing old ones. Sure, there's a portion of the economy that survives on the fix-it projects, but in a slowing economy there's a lot less money to spend on fixing and enlarging and remodeling.

And all this is part of a larger principle of our economy: growth doesn't happen by keeping what we have. If we aren't spending, we're ultimately losing. The holiday season will be upon us again, and, as usual, many people's livlihood will depend on consumers doing what they do best: consuming! There just aren't enough companies that depend on people saving their money or living the "simple life" to keep the ship afloat. And if John Q. Public isn't borrowing money to keep up his lifestyle, many financial businesses that survive on a credit economy will close their doors.

If the question might be posed, "What is an ideal economic principle for living?", you'd have to include the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy. His general principle was, "If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. (1 Timothy 6:8) He knew that some were better off than others, but he warned in the next verse about the hazards of an uncontrolled profit motive, with his famous words, "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." (1 Timothy 6:9) Riches aren't the problem, but rather the "want to" motive that makes us discontent with staying the same.

A nation's economy must continually grow, if only because there must be new jobs to those new to the job market. New homes must be built to accomodate those new to adulthood and home ownership. But we didn't get into this current crisis by companies and people content to grow "a little at at time." Whole industries have come into existence that urge us to continually upgrade and expand and thrust the profit line quickly and continually upward. Contentment, whether with houses or general lifestyles, seems to be, in economic terms, "bad business." Maybe that's why we're seeing a lot of "ruin and destruction" that spreads even to those more content.

But HOW did it happen?

Atheistic evolutionists seem to me like someone who finds an old Model T buried in the ground, and then proclaims, "Aha, now we know that modern Fords have evolved from this ancient fossil!" Of course, that's not only ridiculous, it's something no evolutionist would say, because we have enough historical documentation, not to mention understanding of the science of automaking, to know that someone made that Model T and every other car since then.

Yet evolutionists point to all kinds of other fossils buried in rocks and other previously hidden places, and say "See, there's a primitive form of a whatchamacallit that proves life has evolved from simple life forms to the present world. And it just happened by chance and time!"

OK, so they found a buried fossil; but HOW did a fossil bacteria become a fossil dinosaur or a fossil fern? And how did the amino acids, famously touted by evolutionists as a building block of life, turn slowly but surely into complex cells, full of DNA and lots of other very complicated things that all must work perfectly for life to function?

So they found a fossil skull that looks sort of human and sort of not. But HOW did that ancient man-like creature become a rational, analytical and skeptical scientist, who thinks himself able to challenge centuries of faith in the revelation of our Creator God; while some other distant "cousin" became an exhibit in the zoo? Since they don't really know HOW it happened, no one should rule out the possibility that, like the Ford, Someone made it that way.

God will never make a good science experiment, because He won't submit to the scientists' words and methods. He won't prove Himself to the skeptic or leave detailed notes on His creative process. He did, however, leave sufficient notes by His revelation to certain men and women who were ready to submit to His Word and ways. And someday all men, even the skeptics, will stand and be questioned. And He even left the Textbook to study for the big test.

Some thoughts about changing for good

Change can mean a lot of different things to different people. For some, it’s resisted as an unwelcome threat to the status quo. To others, it’s a breath of fresh air in a boring, outdated world. For still others, it’s a new start, a break from the past and a promise of a better tomorrow.

The difference in perspective on change is largely a matter of attitude toward our present situation. If I’m comfortable, or at least content with my life as is, change is less desirable than if I’m miserable. If I agree that a certain change (like physical fitness) would be ideal, but requires more effort and revamping of my life than I really want to take on, then my motivation to change is diminished.

For people with troublesome habits, whether behavioral, mental or relational, change is something that first must be seen as not only necessary but urgent, because any habit has a built-in inertia factor that makes it much easier to stay the same than to become something new. And that’s all them more true if that habit is still believed to be personally advantageous or useful.

In fact, any behavior that becomes habitual, customary, traditional, standard operating procedure, modus operandi or whatever is something that once upon a time was new, and was practiced with regularity because it was an action that was believed to be in some way beneficial. People may stumble over a shoe in the dark, but they don’t normally arrange their shoes in such a way as to create a hazard zone in a dark room.

As bizarre as it may seem to the objective viewer (and we can all be more objective about other people’s behavior than about our own), even self-destructive habits like chemical addictions, rage-aholism, pornographic obsessions or chronic irresponsibility are actions that began as a choice to do something that seemed necessary, useful, positive or just plain “makes-me-feel-good”.

A person who finds himself time and again in the grip of a troublesome habit may feel frustrated, unable to explain why he can’t seem to break free and make the needed changes. He may beat himself up and try to “repent” of his foolishness, only to fail again. But he should assume one fact about himself: There is a motivation within to do this thing (and perhaps very deeply and unconsciously within), not because it’s truly useful (as good health practices or being kind to others) but because there is still a place in his beliefs, attitudes or feelings where this action is believed to be emotionally necessary; a refuge of sorts from a world that is unsafe, unwelcoming, unkind or unpleasant.

Finding that hidden place, stripping away its defenses and denial, and dealing with it by God’s Word of truth, grace, love and power, is the only way I know to “change for good.” We may be able to “rearrange” the Titanic’s deck chairs, as many addicts switch from one “behavior of choice” to another to satisfy the same inner longings, but troublesome habits are still going to take us down or keep us down. Change of anything troublesome is never easy, but, with God’s power and wisdom, it’s at least possible.

Faith in faith?

Imagine riding with a friend in his fully-loaded eighteen-wheeler truck as he approaches a bridge with a clearly marked sign bearing the warning, "Bridge weight limit: 3000 pounds". Seeing this, he says to you, "No problem, I have faith in this bridge." It would be sensible for you at that point to say, quickly and emphatically, "Fine for you, but stop right now and let me out!

Or, to put it another way, imagine another friend (the other one is still recovering from his injuries in the truck crash) who arrives safely at your house after driving his four-wheel drive SUV through a snowstorm, and states with obvious relief, "My faith got me through that one."

These may be silly examples, but the attitude that many people have expressed toward the concept of faith is not a light-hearted matter; at least it shouldn't be to anyone who understands what the Bible is saying about faith. To sum up the problem: Treating faith as a substitute for the object of that faith is to confuse the subjective experience of confidence with the objective evidence for putting confidence in an object of faith.

What does it matter if I have complete and unquestioning faith in an object (a person, a thing, and idea, etc.), if this object is insufficient to "hold me up", i.e., actually deliver on the promised outcome (especially if the "promise" is little more than an expression of my own wishes)? I can have a fanatic's faith in Santa Clause, but I'll still be losing a lot of sleep watching over my empty chimney.

Likewise, how much good will it do me to "trust" a real person for an outcome he never promised or committed his word to? My faith will simply set me up for disappointment and resentment when the hoped-for result doesn't happen. Many people have faith in God to do things the Bible doesn't promise, such as healing a loved one each and every time they pray, or getting just the job they felt they were perfect for.

And when I get through a crisis "by my faith", am I attributing my emotional survival to the feeling of peace I got by "just believing", or am I giving praise to God who delivered me? It should be obvious in today's world that many people other than devout Christians have great faith in the teachings and promises of their respective religions. And many seem to believe that God will one day respect all these various "faiths", granting admission to the afterlife on the basis of their sincerity.

Faith is simply my way of reaching out an empty hand to receive what God has, in His grace, promised to give those who come to Him in simple and surrendered faith. My faith is nothing more than an act of obedient acceptance of the promises of God, as prompted by the evidence of His trustworthiness and love for those to whom He has made such great promises.

When my children were very young, I would let them stand on something like a bed, a dresser or maybe the edge of a pool, and then say to them, "Jump to me". Their faith was active the instant their feet left the place they were standing; but it wasn't their faith that caught them and held them up, it was the one they had put their faith in. The evidence for their faith was what they knew about their father, his strength and ability to catch them, and, most of all, his love for them that would guarantee a safe landing.

Faith that is not confidence in the objective, Christ-centerd promises of a powerful and good Savior-God isn't really faith at all. It's just whistling in the dark. My faith is only as valid as the reason I have for trusting in the Object of my faith. And considering all the promises I read in the Bible, and all the evidence I have for trusting that Bible's promises, faith is truly, "The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

The question of "evil"

During the Saddleback Presidential Candidates' Forum, host Rick Warren put a question to the two contenders on the subject of evil. He asked them to affirm there is such a thing as evil, and to declare what an appropriate response would be. In both cases, the candidates described evil in terms of an undesireable effect on people's well-being.

Barack Obama steered the question of evil toward the social ills of our nation, in particular the injustices suffered by the many people for whom he seems to be aiming most of his speeches. And truly, the mistreatment of our citizens, especially the poor and disadvantaged, is a mirror of God's rebukes of ancient Israel's sins against the poor of the land, including widows, orphans and other dis-empowered individuals.

John McCain took the discussion, also true to his campaign strategy, toward the international front of the war against terror. And, also truly, there is much to be abhorred in the acts of cruelty and violence wrought by self-identified terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and his cronies.

As for a definition of the idea of evil, however, both candidates isolated the concept of evil to a specific example of evil behavior, rather than giving a comprehensive description of the nature of evil that would answer the question, "Is there evil in the world?" Granted, both men are politically motivated in perhaps everything they do and say. They may consult the polls before deciding where to stop for lunch for all I know. (Just kidding fellas.)

If there really is such a thing as evil, I think it would have to be seen from one of two views. For the evolutionist, evil would be something destructive, contrary to progression and stability and, since it is being defined by human beings, not cats and dogs, something contrary to human welfare and happiness (except maybe for PETA, who would include the animals in the discussion).

But if the Bible is true, then evil takes on a different meaning than the man-centered one espoused by politicians and judges. And that's not only my belief but the more reasonable idea, in view of the absurdity of creatures evolving by some mindless system of "natural selection" into, not only thinking, dreaming, artistic, philosophizing anthropoids, but into rational beings who universally judge the merits of each other's behavior by an idea that there is such a thing as "evil" behavior and motives.

Indeed, the real nature of evil is seen in the Bible as that which is contrary to the character, will, heart and nature of Almighty God, the One true and perfect Good, by whose standard all reality is judged. And, not only is evil opposite to His character, it is an offense to His perfect justice. So, evil includes far more than what individual humans call "evil." Sin is evil, regardless of how the majority may feel about it. There is great evil in people chasing madly after things to their destruction, like a horde of lemmings over the crest of a hill called "self-indulgence".

And the "evil-est" of all is simply trying to run our own lives, ignoring or resisting the authority of God, and rejecting the price of eternal life offered by the death of His only Son, Jesus. Sadly, in this world you won't be likely to get elected campaigning against sin. The average voter may think that evil is "what feels evil to me." The good news is that God is still willing to forgive attitudes like that, like He did for me. I'm sure glad He doesn't need to run for re-election.

Does God read the polls?

Though the concept of "heaven" isn't one that comes in only one flavor, divided as it is among believers of world religions to include a warrior's reward, a melding into the Ground of all being, a playground with happy virgins and a reunion with all our friends and loved ones, it does seem that some kind of blessed afterlife is a nearly universal idea; with the not-blessed "bad place" getting somewhat less agreement.

But if we can just limit the conversation to "heaven" as the word is used in Christian doctrine, there is still a variety of opinions about the rules for admission. In a recent poll taken by Baylor University, it was found that "...54% of respondents said at least half of average Americans will make it through the Pearly Gates." And that "half" includes people of religions other than Christianity, to say nothing of different divisions of theology within the Christian religion. Percentage of agreement was highest on the more fortunate half of Christians (72%), but many others were also said to be eligible for heaven's blessings, including Jews (46 percent), Buddhists (37 percent) and Muslims (34 percent).

Does God read these polls? And is He, like our politicians, influenced by them? Or, to infer meaning from these optimistic poll numbers, is heaven a place for "good people", of whatever religious belief they happen to be? You couldn't get such responses based solely on doctrine, unless you're only talking to Universalists. Or maybe Mormons, who see different levels of heaven; the best for the "Saints" and coach accomodations for the rest.

It really comes again to our human ideas of "good enough" to be rewarded in eternity. And humans, as we know by talking to the average person, have their own standards for "good enough." The idea that God would define "good" on His own terms, aside from human effort or self-esteem, has never been popular among the masses who answer poll questions. But if there is truly a heaven, we would only know it through the revealed Word of God, who alone rules heaven, and He alone declares the price of admission, i.e., the blood of Christ.

It all comes again to the Bible: Is it, or is it not the revealed Word of God? It can't be both, and still be taken for what it says of itself. The evidence is steeped in real history for its veracity, unlike other holy books that have only tradition or the word of one prophet or such. Doctrinal wars and disagreements aside, the Bible presents a clear and unequivocal statement of eternal blessedness. "No man comes to the Father but through Me," remains the definitive terms of admission to heaven, regardless of the polls and those who answer them.

Wilt thou A take B?

I suppose it was inevitable, given the progress of our society's redefining of all things traditional, especially those with any kind of gender or identity issue. According to worldnetdaily.com, the rules have changed in marriage licenses in California. The story reads as follows:

"In California, "brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry -- they have been replaced by "Party As" and "Party Bs." A marriage license for a man and woman was denied last week after they wrote "groom" and "bride" next to "Party A" and "Party B" -- the couple simply wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. The State Office of Vital Records said the handwritten words were an "unacceptable alteration."

Even if we grant an elected government the right to phrase their documents as they choose, the decision to redefine the concept of "marriage" is, as Barack Obama put it, "above their pay grade." And yet many of our elected or appointed officials have been so influenced by the arguments of the proponents of a "new" sexual identity; to the point that a married couple is now "A & B."

Traditions come and go as a natural part of social development, and not many of us would want to live entirely under the sway of our grandparents' traditions. But once a society removes the authority of a particular moral and social standard, as has been done with biblical teachings on marriage, sexuality, public morality and many other subjects, the only parameters for establishing and evaluating traditions are legal logic and the will of the majority.

How long it will take for this moral "new-speak" to reach every state and city is hard to tell, but there's nothing to stop it in the legal realm except the people who stubbornly cling to the religion, if not their guns. I just hope I don't have to be part of such a wedding, where I have to introduce the couple as "A and B".

What "pay grade" for life?

In last week's Saddleback Church forum between the two presidential candidates, each man was asked to state his opinion about that point in life at which an unborn child becomes a person with legal rights. John McCain answered immediately, "At conception." In sharp contrast, Barack Obama fumbled around for his words, and finally declared that such a determination was above his "pay grade."

For argument's sake, let's allow him to use such an expression to mean he's unwilling to give an opinion on a question about which scientists and religious experts are undecided. That may sound humble to some, but it's a misplaced humility in someone who's trying to become the chief policy-maker of the land. Meanwhile, thousands of women, not to mention Planned Parenthood and a great many physicians, have decided they have enough "pay grade" to answer that question; enough to justify aborting their unborn child.

If Mr. Obama is really uncertain about the beginning point of a truly human life, as opposed to a mere lump of tissue, then he could at least state such uncertainty with some sense of conviction. It could then be assumed that such a position is in line with other characteristics of a liberal Christian background in the United Church of Christ, a denomination well-known for its left-leaning theology. But Mr. Obama has been making an aggressive outreach to the conservative Christian base that has heretofore supported the Republican candidates, and it is reasonable to suppose he would prefer to avoid offending such an important voting bloc.

But Mr. Obama's response, or rather dodging the question, seems more clumsy than artful, and adds to the reputation he has earned with many conservatives as one who will say anything to please the greatest number of people. And millions, including many with no particular commitment to biblical truth, are so hungry for something different than the present government that they are swept away by his eloquence.

If Mr. Obama doesn't think a politician should be making a ruling on the beginning point for human life, how does he think a group of judges could do any better? And if this question is too high up the pay scale for any but the most educated and scholarly among us, how did it happen that ordinary citizens have been granted the freedom to make that decision for themselves?

And who decided that the scholars are far up enough to make the call? God, who made all living things, has already declared the answer once-and-for-all. As He said to one of the prophets, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) Mr. Obama may think he's too far down the pay ladder to decide, but that's why we have a revealed, authoritative, trustworthy Word from the Creator of life. And you can put real money on that one.

All things to all men?

The debate about making the Gospel relevant or just givin' 'em the "old-time religion" seems destined to go on until Jesus comes. It seems one can always find extremes in any issue of importance, and it also seems to me that it's always easier to move toward one extreme or the other than to follow a balanced course that keeps a proper tension between extremes.

In terms of relevance vs. traditions, there are some who will try so hard to bring the Good News down to the understanding and tastes of any particular generation that they run the risk, at least in the opinion of some, of making the Bible a consumer philosophy. A recent, and unusual, example is a group of Italian priests who are taking inflatable "sanctuaries" to the beach to bring religion to the sun bathers. So much for the awe and wonder of the ancient cathedrals.

But to resist the suspected catering of the Gospel to modern "itching ears", others insist that the Bible be taught in exactly the same way as was used in the early to mid-20th century. An obvious problem with such thinking is that such traditions as our grandparents observed were all innovative at one time. If a church really wants to be "traditional" they should forget formal church buildings all together and and meet in homes, catacombs, or whatever location works; which is just what some in the "emerging church" movement are recommending.

So, does it really matter how the Gospel of Christ is brought to men, so long as it's brought? You might get that from Paul's words to the Philippian church, where he found reason to rejoice even in the preaching of some men who did so with less-than-pure motives, because he was glad that at least "Christ is preached." But the cause for his joy was that "Christ" was being proclaimed. And that, I think, is the "crux" of the matter (crux as in cross, the heart of the Gospel).

If the message of the cross, which will always be foolishness to the unbelieving mind, is clearly presented, with the equally clear insistence that salvation is a result of placing obedient faith in Christ's death on that cross, then that message may be, and should be, put into whatever terms and methods that will convey the truth of Christ to the heart of the hearer.

But if the message is other than the fully biblical truth of Christ (as in "God loves everyone too much to punish sin," or "Jesus is one of many ways to salvation"), then it doesn't matter what style or language or method is employed. Lies are lies, no matter how they're said. And the best lie is the one that makes the most sense to the person willing to believe it.

Water, water everywhere.

Many scientists are rejoicing today, after hearing news that the Phoenix spacecraft has succesfully located water on Mars. According to the report, "...the robot confirmed the presence of frozen water lurking below the Martian permafrost." The existence of H2O on another planet has for a long time been thought of as a key ingredient in locating the "organic-based compounds essential for simple life forms to emerge."

Aside from the question of significance regarding water being present outside our own planet, the key assertion here is that enough the presence of the right "compounds" could cause life to "emerge". The background for this is, of course, the evolutionist's assumption that living things, with all their incredible complexity from the cellular level to all the functions of vitality and reproduction, have simply "emerged" from the presence of "compounds".

I wonder if I might one day go out to my kitchen and find that various "compounds" like flour, sugar, milk, baking powder, sugar and eggs have somehow caused a cake to "emerge". Maybe after several billion years? Whew! I wouldn't want to taste it, since I've seen what happens to milk after just a few weeks. I know such an analogy is ridiculous, and confuses one process (evolutionary theory) with another (food preparation), but the absurdity of emerging cake batter is a small matter compared to the absurdity of imagining the processes of life as the end result of "emergence".

I know scientists take their method of hypothesizing answers to a given question very seriously. But what trial and experimentation has successfully demonstrated that throwing enough "compounds" into a bowl could cause life to "emerge" from the mix? Chemical reactions are not life. And theorizing it might happen if left alone for a billion years or so doesn't establish anything credible, since this can't be observed by either past or present analysis.

The real question, I believe, is: Why are evolutionary scientists so eager to prove the "emergence" of life, even with so many difficulties in proving such a theory, but so reluctant to accept the "creation" of life, for which there is not only a well-supported body of divine revelation on the subject but also an abundance of supporting evidence in the complexity of life?

Could it be that they don't really want to believe in a Creator? If they are willing to believe in God (and indeed, some scientists do believe God is responsible for the machinery of evolution), then why the talk of "emerging" life? But to refuse to attribute a world like ours, one that shows so much evidence of order and design, to a Great Designer, is certainly, as Paul put it, to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)

The meaning of "hate"

There are many ways in which negative words are used as a put-down by substituting them for a more neutral word, like when a person with firm convictions is described negatively as "stubborn", or a passionate advocate for a cause is termed "obsessed."

In this way, the word "hate" has come to be used to describe the attitudes and speech of people who have strong moral convictions about certain lifestyles and behaviors. It began with the designation of abusive language spoken toward racial minorities as "hate speech", which was spoken by people like the neo-nazis. It moved from there to describing any kind of negative speech aimed at a class or group as "hate speech". And soon any criminal act against a member of a minority, in particular a racial or sexual minority, was called a "hate crime", regardless of whether that was the actual motive of the act.

I remember the first time I noticed the attempt to link this concept of hate to Christian conservatives. A bumper sticker, which played on the idea of "family values" as debated in the political realm, proclaimed "Hate is not a family value". There was a well-known connection between "family values", as promoted primarily by conservative religious groups, and a moral/spiritual opinion toward certain sexual or personal lifestyles and choices. In the view of more liberal-minded folks, this amounted to a hateful attitude, regardless of whether the disapproval was aimed at a racial group like Blacks or Hispanics or a sexual group like gays and lesbians.

Now the connection seems firmly in place, to the point that people outside the usual left-wing, anti-Christian groups are using it. Recently the McDonald's corporation made a deal with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy a seat on the group's board of directors in return for a large cash donation. Because of that, a conservative Christian group called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants. In response to this reaction, a McDonald's spokesman issued a statement, saying, "...hatred has no place in our culture. That includes McDonalds, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

I don't believe for a minute that the Bible condones hateful speech, as in abusive, mean-spirited or threatening. Yet it must be acknowledged that some zealous advocates of biblical values have at times expressed their views in a very abusive manner, most notably the people of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. But hateful speech is not by any means confined to the conservative religious community. I've read plenty of abusive and insulting words aimed at conservative Christians by some atheists or liberals.

But now, even the calm and dispassionate expression of disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle, or the resistance of the advancement of the political agenda of some homosexual groups, is being lumped into a general category of hateful activity. In the Canadian courts, public criticism of homosexuals can be prosecuted as a legal offense, just as one might be charged with actually doing bodily injury.

What's next? Will the advocates of this all-inclusive "love" decide that our culture has no room for criticism of any kind of lifestyle, or even unbelief? Will evangelism someday be regarded as hate speech because it implies that some people just aren't "good enough" for heaven? Hard to say yet, but churches may want to check for "bugs" in their buildings, and take care around visitors they don't recognize, in case the "hate-watchers" are among them.

Is the Bible unconstitutional?

Last Fall, famed legislative firebrand Ernie Chambers launched a lawsuit against God, for causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like." Ernie claimed that he undertook to haul the Lord into court to make a point about frivolous lawsuits, though his sympathies for the Christian religion are known to be less than enthusiastic.

A similar toned lawsuit was filed this week, except this time the litigant is, I assume, completely serious. A Michigan man, according to press reports "is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." The man is representing himself in this suit, since he has been refused public counsel. "The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

This lawsuit may seem to most like some delusional daydream, the product of a mind so hostile to the Bible that he could imagine outlawing the Scriptures for offending his lifestyle. And, we may be thankful, better legal minds recognize, at least for now, there is no basis in existing law and interpretations of the consitituion to support such a suit. But could that change in the future?

Our constitution allowed for the enslavement of black Americans for nearly eighty years before the 13th Amendment officially put an end to that practice. Women had to wait until 1920 to have the constitutional right to vote. How long will it be until gays and lesbians, transexual and transgender individuals and other variations are constitutionally protected against "emotional pain" caused by a widely published and oft-quoted religious book?

The right of homosexual couples to marry seems destined to become a national right, not just in a few states. The hate crime of speaking publicly against them, as it is already so in Canada, seems likely to be written into American law some day. And if the gay-rights people get their way with the Bible, how long will it be until the denunciation of moral "sin" is not simply "old-fashioned", as it seems to be in many places, but "unconstitutional"?

The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is already limited by words regarded as "dangerous" (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), or "slanderous" (like publicly telling lies about a person). Is it really that far from where we are now to deciding that anti-gay speech, even if it's in the Bible, is just too slanderous to be legal?

How do you spell "heaven"?

America, with her heritage of individual freedoms and, for the most part, tolerance of differing viewpoints, is by-and-large a nation where "live and let live" is a value accepted by the great majority of people. It is no surprise, then, that a recent poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals that 70% of those surveyed agree with the statement, "Many religions can lead to eternal life."

Now, there are some among those polled, Protestants mostly I suppose, who may use the term religion" to mean "denominations" as well as totally unique faith groups like Islam and Hinduism. But even so, that's a high degree of tolerance, especially when the actual doctrines taught by most of those "religions" teach a more exclusive view. There are some world religions, like Buddhism, that don't teach a doctrine as much as a way of life, and so make room for many different kinds of people in whatever they call "heaven." But many others, Islam, Judaism and Christians, have in their doctrinal traditions more of an "our way or the wrong way" outlook on the afterlife.

Perhaps most surprising, at least for those in the Christian sector of world religions, is that 79% of those identifying themselves as Catholic agreed with the statement. This from people who are taught that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic church, which is more restrictive than most Protestants believe about their own denominations. And amazing for Christians of all varieties to be so inclusive when they claim to believe in a Savior who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

So was Jesus being overly strict in His teaching, just to keep the folks in line, but intending one day to throw the pearly gates wide open to those who wish to come with a different belief? Or, and this should be the more likely explanation to anyone who takes the Lord Jesus seriously, does this survey show that the American people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in tolerance and a "who am I to judge?" mentality that they are loathe to rule any "sincere" person out of bounds for heavenly reward?

Muslims and Hindus and Zoroastrians and many others can believe whatever they want to believe. They are free to do that. But surely there's a difference between what one is free to do and what is right to do. I am free as an American citizen to have an affair with my neighbor's wife. I am pretty much free to lie about my neighbor, though I may get sued if I do in print. And I can covet all day long my neighbor's property. But God regards those behaviors as wrong, and hence there will be consequences, regardless of what I say to the contrary. For that matter, I am free to leap from tall buildings in a single bound, but I'm still not Superman.

One thing is sure, if the Bible is truly God's Word (and most of those surveyed say it is): God isn't going to take polls into account when He gathers His own into the heavenly realms. He has already declared the parameters of acceptable belief, regardless of whether or not Americans include them in political correctness. The good news is: there's room for everyone in heaven - everyone who comes in Jesus' name. By God's grace, no one will be excluded except one who refuses to acknowledge God's absolute right to set the standard for eternal life - believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved!

If God is really there...

The debate between the proponents of a purely natural approach to science and the advocates of a super-natural approach to faith continues in our day, and is taking on a new form of aggressiveness by secular atheists, who insist that religion of all kinds is an ancient delusion of superstitious minds, now rendered obsolete by the increasing scope of scientific knowledge.

Many in the scientific community have concluded that mankind's advancements in knowledge of the intricacies of the universe, from the galactic level down to the sub-atomic level, have made a religious explanation of reality unnecessary and antiquated. Religious answers, they contend, were for unenlightened days when men needed a way to explain the mysteries of their world; why the wind blows, the sun rises and falls, the seasons come and go. As if some caveman once uttered around a prehistoric campfire, "Maybe there's a great Power making this fire happen!" And it just went from there.

This whole view of the origins of religious belief appears to rest on the assumption that "God" is a product of the human mind's desire to understand our world; fine for a time, but now we know better. But what if God is really there, and not just a figment of our collective imaginations? What if the reason our universe is so orderly and predictable that we can study it is that God made it that way, rather than because it evolved by mere chance and time? And how would such a thought of God happen in the mind of a creature that by the dumbest of luck evolved from the ooze? We have no evidence that such "delusions" are taking place in any other life forms on our planet, do we?

If God is there, would we expect to know about Him without His first making Himself known to His creatures? And, if He was to do that, there would have to be at least one type of creature capable of receiving His communication; creatures with a real mind, not just instinct and the capacity to remember stimuli. And as for interpreting the evidence of non-verbal clues to His existence, the Bible tells us that we have the ability to deduce God's existence from the universe He made. And, with such ability to interpret the creation, men are said to be "without excuse" for their failure to interpret the evidence rightly.

So, if ancient men realized a creation must have a Creator, it's what would be expected. After all, physicists have never seen subatomic particles, and yet they deduce their presence from experimental observations of that invisible world. It is therefore not wrong to think that we are able to deduce God's "invisible attributes" from His creation. Certainly we cannot take God into a laboratory, nor should we expect to be able to observe Him by natural senses, but if God is really there, why would anyone expect His presence to be susceptible to discovery by merely natural methods? Would He not have to take the first step toward us?

A man skeptical of the claims of religion vs. scientific discovery ended an article in which he attempted to defend his proposition that science has made God obsolete. Yet he did so in a way that, contrary to his intentions, actually supports the point I am making, i.e., that we should not expect to think up the idea of God unless He actually is there and has first communicated to us. Says Michael Shermer, "Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could know Him." No science, that is, except the divinely enabled knowledge that comes by faith in what God, who is indeed there, has revealed.

The Victorious Life

Paul made a bold statement to the Roman church, to describe the triumphant quality of the everyday Christian life. He said, in connection to the suffering we all go through in this world - a world that is deeply opposed to the true Word of God, "But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37) The nature of "all these things" he likened in the previous verse to being "considered as sheep to be slaughtered." And all that "for God's sake".

The idea of suffering as normative for the Christian life has a very old and very Biblical history, yet it remains one that the average believer is troubled by. And all the more so, in a culture like ours that becomes accustomed to "the good life." Believers, for the most part, have been more likely to respond to their suffering with a cry of "Why, Lord?", as opposed to "Praise the Lord!"

In other words, the concept of a "victorious life" for the Christian is something that happens in their suffering, rather than instead of their suffering. Where would the victory be if there was no enemy, and a very clever, determined and powerful one at that? Victory is the power of the Holy Spirit giving us the peace "that passes understanding" in the midst of troublesome and confusing times. Victory is the power of God to "Take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13) To be victorious in the Christian life is to not be defeated; downcast, discouraged, disheartened to the point of giving up and caving in to the desires of the flesh.

How different this is from some preaching that suggests that the victorious life is riding the crest of our personal happiness wave. And worse, one very popular preacher teaches that the secret is to tap into the inner resources of our souls, drawing out the innate power of our confidence and personal strength. Says Joel Osteen, "Remember, God has put in you everything you need to live a victorious life. Now, it's up to you to draw it out." (As quoted on whitehorseinn.org) Where does "when I am weak, then I am strong" fit into that scheme?

It might be more appealing to the masses to proclaim a Christian version of the "American Dream," but it doesn't stack up to the Biblical evidence. Our victory takes place "in the presence of my enemies," not in their absence. Our victory is being "...afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed." (2 Corinthians 4:9)

Our unchurched neighbors don't really need another testimony of how to succeed in prosperous America. Many of them are managing just fine to do that without ever setting foot inside a church. What they need is to see someone going through the kind of experience that can leave some people bitter and angry with God and life itself, and still be, not only holding their faith intact, but also displaying the fruit of the Spirit, instead of the gut reactions of the human mind. Now that's victory!

Is there really a "God particle"?

For those, like me, who are confused by the language of scientists who spend their time figuring out the invisible world of the atom, their occasional news reports of quarks and neutrinos, weak forces and other phenomena may seem like more science fiction than science. But it's all very real and it gives the rest of us a rough idea of how complicated are the most basic elements of the world that God made.

Now, that phrase, "God made", is as much a source of controversy as the nature of sub-atomic particles and their interaction with each other. The idea that we should assume a Creator from the complexities of the creation is thought by many to be "unscientific", belonging instead in the realm of faith. Presumably faith, for many critics of Intelligent Design, is thought to be something we "just believe" without much in the way of objective evidence.

So scientists of the atom, and of the physical forces that make our universe work, continue to explore answers to what holds all this together and what makes the cosmos what it is. A recent study was hoping to uncover what some called the "God particle", so-called because this particular bit of matter is thought to hold the secret of how everything else "holds together" and makes the universe work as it does.

I realize that the scientists could explain that last part a lot better than I just did, but that seems to be the gist of it, from what I read in the news reports. Well, good luck to them, but it might be a lot simpler for the rest of us to take the Bible at its word that God did indeed make this world as He says He did. As for the "glue" that keeps things together, Paul gave us a wonderfully profound statement when he said that Christ, the incarnate Word of God, is the full expression of God's wisdom and power, in Whom "all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

I wish he had said just a little more about that, but for now such knowledge belongs in the realim of the unrevealed information that God has not chosen to make known. ("The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29)

God has revealed all we need to believe and obey Him. Other things we try to figure out by the "scientific method". But even then, we've learned about things like "photosynthesis" and "DNA". But who really knows exactly how such things work and why they do? And yet so many have come to accept that mankind understands enough about the universe that we don't really need belief in God to explain it all. Good thing for them that God is, at least for now, holding them together along with everything else.

Are we there yet?

For many years, even centuries, some sincere students of the Bible have been eager for the return of Christ, and willing to lay down odds on the timing of that event. In some cases, denominations have been started by the followers of those who attempted to predict Christ's coming. Though the predictions have fallen flat time and again, there are still some who are willing to take up the challenge to "do the math" on biblical timing; balancing out the dates of Daniel with the images of Revelation and so forth.

I came to know Jesus Christ in the early '70's, a time of great prophetic enthusiasm, filled with words of Hal Lindsey and images of "Thief in the Night". The eighties seemed to many a time ripe with end-time implications. Indeed, one student of the subject published a book entitled, "88 reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988." Full of dates, numbers and other evidence, it was, if nothing else, an interesting study in date-setting. And it turned out to be, indeed, nothing else. The author attempted to tweak his numbers the next year with a sequel that promised "89 Reasons" for the same prediction. When that failed, he faded back into obscurity.

The whole subject then quieted down for the most part, aside from a few folks waiting to be taken up in a spaceship or that sort of thing. Even the "Left Behind" series, while selling a lot of books, didn't attempt to sell a date for its predictions. But now, with the whole Middle East scene and the militant Islamic threats and the European Union, etc., not to mention our nation's apparent descent into moral relativism and post-modern rejection of absolute truth, there's more than a little temptation to speculate about emerging Anti-Christs and approaching tribulation for the world.

Many, many efforts to "read the signs" and add up the numbers have failed, enough to discourage all but the hardiest of date-setters. I'm not denying that are some very "interesting" things happening, events and trends and movements that could well be the run-up to a scenario of the end. But "times and epochs" are still not in our job description while awaiting Christ's return. We have a commission which is far from completed. We have a calling, with still more than enough to keep us busy as we wait.

It's understandable that those who love the Lord Jesus would be glad to be rid of this sin-sick world and settle into the heavenly mansions as promised. And I fully appreciate the longing of Paul "to depart and be with Christ", for that is very much better. But, to paraphrase a comment I once read from an African church, "We'll have eternity to rest; now it's time to work!"

Who's really "calling"?

One of the most controversial subjects among those who in any way regard the Bible as the revealed Word of God is the very personal matter of discerning the valid voice of God. So many people have, in some way or another, said, "God told me...", in connection with some decision or action they felt "moved" to do.

Some of those who claimed to have heard that divine Voice went on to do good deeds, such as acts of charity or social improvements. Others proceeded to commit acts of violence against some perceived "enemy", or even against their own children, supposing they were "saving" such little ones from an even worse fate.

And then there's some who feel "called" of God to choices and lifestyles that are clearly prohibited in Scripture. Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson spoke last week with a TV host, and very confidently declared, "If something were to happen to me, I would know that I am doing what I discern God is calling me to do.”

Now, the Bishop was not speaking of taking the Gospel to hostile nations, or taking a vocal stand against an immoral and vicious government. He was talking about a proposed civil union ceremony he is planning with his same-sex partner. And Robinson feels postitively apostolic in his campaign to open the church's doors even wider than they already are to those who claim to be both Christian and homosexual. He stated, “I’ve come to understand that this is a particular historic role that God is calling me to play at this moment."

Such statements, made with all the confidence and certainty of an old-time evangelist, sound strange to those who believe very opposed to Robinson's convictions on the subject of homosexuality. Some would wonder, "Is he reading the same Bible as I am?" The problem of discerning the Voice of God from reading the Bible is, however, not as simple as reading from the same translation.

It is clear enough what the Bible is actually saying. Any careful reader can understand most of what this Book says by the use of its language. But, from there it gets very fuzzy, at least in terms of arriving at a consensus on the meaning and application of what is said. Many people, unacquainted with the Bible's teachings, may despair of ever truly understanding the Holy Book, because there are, in many cases, so many different interpretations offered for the same text. And some who are outright opposed to the Bible point to this fact as if to say, "See, we knew it was just a human book!"

At the very least, in view of how common it is for people to read the same Bible and come away with so many different meanings, we should, all of us, be more humble than to confidently declare, "God called me to do this or that," until we have first arrived at a reliable method of interpretation and application. "This is how it seems to me," is not good science, whether interpreting the Bible or the laws of nature. And, if we are claiming to have "heard the voice of God" while reading the Bible, we'd better be sure that voice is at least consistent in tone and spirit with the one heard by the majority of others who have also studied that same text with equal diligence and objectivity.

Bishop Robinson is quite sure he is hearing the "call" of God in regard to his lifestyle and personal philosophy. So sure, in fact, that he gladly rejects the opinions of sincere and godly students of the Bible who have gone before him, even in his own denomination. It seems more likely that Robinson is hearing, not the voice of Almighty God, Who never changes, but the echo of his own voice on a "dead" line.

Legislating change?

Barack Obama has made a living talking about "Change we can believe in." And, he's probably right in thinking that some things need to be changed about the way we do business in our government, our health care, our business ethics and all kinds of other things. But, aside from the greater difficulty in doing such change than in talking about it, there's another implication of his convictions that disturbs me.

Mr. Obama stated in a recent speech that the way to change America was to change Washington. In other words, if I understand him rightly, we will be able to make the needed changes in Amercian society and life if we can just change the way our government functions to administer the public business of just laws and programs.

The Democratic party has a long history of supporting governmental programs designed to balance out the distribution of blessings of our nation's prosperity and freedoms. And, it has sometimes in history required the strong hand of a president like Franklin Roosevelt to bring needed corrections to the tendency of our capitalistic economy to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to just get whatever they get. And even a Republican president like Franklin's cousin Teddy Roosevelt could swing a "big stick" against the monopolization of wealth by a few.

But has all this legislation, including that of later presidents like Kennedy or Johnson or Reagan, brought a truly "great society" to a nation that still tends to spread the blessings quite unevenly across the whole? And that's just the economic picture, not to mention the unhappiness that many citizens endure of a moral or physical or social nature. Now, if we make sufficient "changes" in the way Washington politicians do their work, will we at last usher in that American utopia our candidates have long promised? I wouldn't bet on it.

No doubt, just laws and just administration of those laws will make a more just society than one rampant with corruption and favoritism toward the wealthy and powerful. No question, politicians devoted to the welfare of every citizen will make a better life on the whole for all of us. But, is the "good life" really something that can be required by law, or regulated by an act of Congress? And, for that matter, what's a "good life", if not a life lived in the will of our good and gracious God?

As long as men are in charge of government, they will have laws and programs subject to the weaknesses of men as well as the ideals and altruistic values of men. And even fair and just laws, at least as just as men can make them, will be subject to the hearts of the men who are required to follow them. And ultimately, as we have learned with the most perfect laws ever given, those of our God Himself, the Law can advise men of their duty and convict men of their unlawfulness, but it cannot change the heart of men toward true obedience. Only Christ living in our hearts can do that, and only when we surrender daily to His will and the authority of His Word.

So, let's try to improve the way we do government. But let's not get any dreamy ideas about finding the legislative key to a better society until we've solved the real problem: Not better laws, but better hearts.

Verbalizing morality

It's not news to anyone that modern culture has undergone a dramatic shift in the area of sexual morals; not just in behavior but more fundamentally in the philosophy of how we determine what is or is not immoral in the expression of sexual desires. It appears to me that this shift has been most pronounced wherever cultures have been influenced by democratic politics and, ironically, Protestant Christianity. The combination of these philosophies of polity in government and religion has produced a culture of morality where the decisions of individual choice are assumed as a "God-given" right. To suggest otherwise is to sound like a jihadist or fanatical fundamentalist.

When I was in high school, girls who "slept around" might have been preferred by some young men for a secret adventure, but they were still subject to the general disapproval of the public. Such a girl would have been treated to glances and whispers in the school halls. Now, if not yet in the majority everywhere, she would at least be accepted as "typical". Unmarried couples who were living together were excluded from full public acceptance and, in some cases, from their own families. Now, unmarried celebrity couples have their children together and most don't even think twice about it.

And how did this happen so quickly? You could blame Hugh Hefner and his envelope-pushing magazine. Or you put it all on the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60's, which spread its own version of "love" to millions previously under the sway of the older model of morality. But one of the most effective means of re-inventing the terms of sexual behavior was simply to verbalize a new way of looking at sexual relations outside of marriage. The whole subject of sex has been re-cast in language that throws the balance in favor of acceptance of things that were once regarded as immoral.

Those who were formerly "promiscuous" are now merely "sexually active." Couples who were "shacking up" are just "co-habiting". We may still hear of some teens or college kids engaging in "risky behavior", but that's just in terms of the risks of acquiring a disease of some kind, not in regard to any kind of moral risk. Anyone who would stand up and call unmarried sexual relations a "sin" would be immediately branded as a "prude" or "judgmental".

The suggestion that abstinence might be the best ways to prevent teen pregnancies is called "unrealistic" because no one thinks it can actually work. There are some in the Christian community who have more recently taken a stand on abstinence before marriage, but it appears to me that those voices are generally regarded by the larger society like people regard the Amish - quaint and out of step with the times.

Is all this just a cultural shift, like those in the world of clothing or language that make human society in a free nation a very fluid thing? Or is there something deeper going on in the spiritual realm. The Bible warns of times when people won't tolerate the speaking of truth any longer, when people will be "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." There's nothing especially new about such shifts in morality, except perhaps to the degree that we have seen it become not merely permitted by society, but now almost totally approved by those with the power to move our society in new directions.

Faithful or rigid?

It was in a logic class in college that I first learned about an everyday fact of language which I had until then overlooked. There are words that describe a personal quality which are always positive in meaning, like courageous or decisive. There are other words that describe pretty much the same kind of quality, but always from a negative view; words like foolhardy or hasty.

And, indeed, most qualities of the mind or behavior can have more than one dimension. But the interesting thing is that people will tend to use only the positive orientation in regard to themselves, while employing the negative connotation of a very similar attribute in respect to others. A couple of examples: "I have convictions, you're a fanatic!"; "I speak my mind, you're harsh and judgmental!"; "I'm an individual, you're wierd."

In the religious realm, this same contrast is often used by those who want to criticize a person of a different philosophy or position; and it comes from all over the spectrum of beliefs. Conservatives may deride those of a more liberal orientation, calling them things like "heretic", "modernist" or "worldly". Liberals, meanwhile, might put down conservatives as "doctrinaire", "rigid" or "dogmatic". No one ever tries to slam his theological adversary by calling him "faithful" or "thoughtful". Instead, a critic would use terms like "reactionary" or "wishy-washy" to put the intended spin in the desired direction.

All this makes it very difficult to carry on any kind of reasoned discussion of ideas where there is more than one perspective to take, or where different but complementary ideas need to be held in proper balance. The question of traditional vs. contemporary in worship is one such area, and how to relate the unchanging truth of the Gospel to a constantly changing culture is another. Demonizing the opposite viewpoint is not helpful in resolving differences, nor is describing someone who disagrees as an "obstructionist" useful in loving one's neighbor.

But the most common kind of semantic juggling, as it affects evangelical believers these days, is the casting of those who believe in the authority of God's Word in negative terms like "exclusive", "intolerant" (which is almost like calling someone "un-American"), or even "hateful" because they dare call some lifestyles morally unacceptable. Those who still regard the Bible as fully authoritative and inerrant are derided with the kind of language one would use for the Flat-earth Society.

Yes, there are such things as "legalism", "Phariseeism", or "fanaticism". But that kind of thing only happens when human emotion or tradition replace a balanced and careful exposition of the Bible. If we let the Bible speak its own message to our hearts, we see that love is not unrestricted permissiveness, and righteousness is not unfeeling criticism and judgmentalism.

To adhere to "Thus says the Lord" instead of following the latest poll numbers or trendy cultural turn is not just a matter of doctrinal convictions; it's just common sense to stick with something so well attested by time and millions of changed lives. If that's being "stuck in the past", O.K, but at least I'm "prepared for the future".

The problem of an earthly economy

One of the biggest stories to occupy the news media in the past 12 months has been the U.S. economy. Slumping housing markets, foreclosures, rising unemployment and much more continues to make people nervous about the impact of a possible recession in the near future. And now today’s news brings the report that “Growing numbers of middle-class Americans say they are not better off than they were five years ago.”

In other words, an economy that throws people’s lives into chaos, like the mortgage mess is doing, doesn’t have to be one that’s slumping into another “Great Depression”; though a recession could conceivably be around the corner. Rather, a sufficient cause for economic trouble seems to be that our personal financial growth chart isn’t advancing ever upward. Just the failure of enough people to make economic progress is enough to put a wrench into the works of our capitalistic system.

We have a consumer-driven society, one that needs a continually expanding supply of jobs for the ever-growing work force, providing an increasing amount of capital for investment and purchasing power, that keeps a steady demand for products that keep people working and earning more money to spend on more products – Whew! It’s not enough to just “maintain”, and keep a “steady as you go” pace. In this system, failing to grow is the same as shrinking.

And, unfortunately for the moral and spiritual health of our nation, much of the consumer growth rate is dependent on goods and services that are far beyond the ordinary and wholesome things we all need for a healthy life. Much of our economy is built on a segment of the market that deals in extravagant luxury, which, from a biblical viewpoint, looks a lot like greed and avarice. And another large portion is devoted to pleasures and sensual experiences that, sooner or later, bring corruption to the soul and much harm to the innocent people caught up in the effects of destructive and addictive behaviors.

I’ve often wondered what would happen if an instantaneous spiritual revival swept over our country. Suppose every American went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow a devoted, “pure-in-heart” Christian. Immediately, large sections of our consumer economy would be shut down as there would be no market for goods and services of questionable moral value. Millions of people would be out of work, rather than participate in immoral businesses. Thousands of stores would soon close or lay off workers because they couldn’t sell even everyday products to people who couldn’t afford them. It would make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn in holiday shopping.

Everyone would heed the Scriptural instruction to “be content with food and covering.” No one would be buying new products just to “upgrade” if their present model was “good enough.” No one would worry about impressing their neighbors, keeping up with the Joneses, or trying to attract the opposite sex by having just the right “whatever.” We’d have to totally reinvent the economic structure of the nation, building one on goodness, justice and virtue, instead of consumerism and materialism.

In the world as it is, even sincere Christians need discipline and restraint to resist being swept up in the consumer momentum. It’s hard enough being content, with our human nature wired to an attraction toward whatever is new and different. Much more so when the advertisers are constantly telling you you’re falling way behind if you haven’t “updated” your lifestyle in a few years. It’s enough to make you feel guilty and even a bit unpatriotic about putting your tax rebate into savings instead of spending it. (Just kidding)

Economic stagnation may be a problem for the material well-being of the nation as a whole, but spiritual stagnation is a far worse problem for the well-being of the soul. And, according to Jesus, we can't serve God and money at the same time. For those who allow themselves to be drawn into the lure of materialistic pursuit, the warning of Paul is still accurate, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Thank God for the reality that Christians can truly be growing in the ways that count, even if our material and physical reality is not. Heavenly treasure won’t help me in respect to the Joneses, but it pays eternal dividends way better than Berkshire Hathaway!

Is religion dangerous?

The question posed by today's title would have been thought very odd not so long ago, before aggressive atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens decided it wasn't enough to just bash religion to their fellow unbelievers. Now, Hitchens, author of God is not great: How religion poisons everything, along with several other authors, is serious about trying to convince Americans that religion isn't just unnecessary (as atheists have been saying for a long time), but is actually hazardous to society.

And, after more than 30 years of involvement in Christian ministry, I can agree with Hitchens to a certain point. I discovered many years ago that "there's no fight like a church fight." The reason is simple: People tend to disagree with each other in church just like anywhere else. But among religious people, and especially those who take their religion very seriously, there is a tendency to not only disagree, but to think God is on your side of the disagreement. Which means that the other guys are not only wrong (which is what we often call those who disagree with us), but they're out of step with the Lord as well.

Of course, God is not nearly so interested in "who's right" as in "what's right", but that's a lesson that takes most of us awhile to learn. In the meantime, it takes a lot of "loving your neighbor as yourself", which is what is supposed to separate real Christianity from mere religion. The Bible teaches us that real blessing can come to those who are "peacemakers" and "merciful." That doesn't mean Christians can't ever disagree, but we have to remember that real love, the love that wants always to do what is best and good for all, is much more important than settling a disagreement in my favor.

And that's why religion can indeed be a dangerous thing, when it's human religion, pursued with zeal and self-righteousness by those who don't have a clue about balancing their disagreements with godly love and mercy. As anyone familiar with history knows, and as atheists like Hitchens are only too eager to remind us, a great many wars have been fought over primarily religious interests. And yes, there were a lot of wars in the Bible, where God's people were commanded to not only defeat the enemies of God, but to utterly wipe them off the map. And for those who don't know the difference between Biblical religion and any other variety, all religious wars look the same.

But the critics of God's aggression against the Caananites totally miss the purpose of cleansing this one specific area of the earth, where the holy people of Israel were supposed to set up a society designed to be a light of godliness to the world. They were never commanded to take their mission of cleansing to the rest of the heathen world. Their war in Caanan was a specific instrument of God's justice and judgment, which will one day visit the rest of the world of sinful men who rebel against God's word.

And that's why man-made religions can become dangerous. Their wars and aggression are not commanded by God. They go way beyond the example of holiness of a particular people and a particular time. They go beyond the mercy of God to enforce the ambitions and agendas of men. For those who don't understand that "real religion" is about loving the Lord with all our hearts, and caring for others, especially the needy, the motives of religious zeal fit all too well with other ambitions of human pride, power and ego, which can be a very dangerous mixture. If only Hitchens and his cronies could tell the difference, they could make better criticism of the right problem: not God's religion but men's hearts.

Why not me?

There’s a question that so many people have asked, always at a time of great stress, tragedy or some other kind of negative experience, but it’s a question with no certain answer for the earth-bound human mind. It’s the “Why me?” reaction that countless individuals have heard echoing in their thoughts when something happens to them that contradicts and rebukes their assumptions about life; and especially theiimplications of how life is “supposed” to be.

Have you noticed, you never see someone puzzled and troubled for a long period of time over the same question in regard to their blessings, their good fortune, or the incredibly lucky turn of events that brought them prosperity or enormous well-being? Sure, some may briefly ponder the “Why?” question after something really good happens, as if to wonder “What did I possibly do to deserve such good things?” But then they move quickly on to acceptance, by-passing entirely other steps so common to grieving, such as anger or bargaining.

I believe the same question, or rather belief, is behind both negative and positive scenarios. The concept of what a person “deserves” is a simple assumption about how life works, one that has been around since biblical times, and was fully acted out for us in the Book of Job.

After initially reacting to his misfortunes with a statement of faith, “God gives, God takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord,” Job begins to be troubled by the apparent disconnect between his fall from prosperity and his own self-image; fueled in particular by his view of his own personal righteousness and what he “ought” to get from God in return for it.

Meanwhile, as Job protests his rough treatment at the hands of the Almighty, the three men who came initially to give comfort turned soon to giving counsel to Job for his “bad attitude”. They figured Job had gotten exactly what he had coming, as they had always assumed that sinners “reap what they sow.” Job apparently believed that also, but didn’t feel his misfortunes matched his excellent track record, which accounts for his desire to take up the matter with God, who, in his mind at least, had some ‘splainin’ to do.

After a great deal of back-and-forth between Job and his three friends, and finally a defense of God’s viewpoint from a fifth man, Elihu, God speaks for Himself. And without giving any real answer to account for Job’s troubles, the Lord more or less tells Job, “I didn’t need your advice creating the world, and I don’t need your permission to run it.”

Surely that answer won’t satisfy many modern minds, accustomed to debate and democratic processes, nor will it pass unopposed among those who prefer answers that “make sense” to the rational human mind. But, unless we could comprehend things exactly as God does, how could we expect to fully see His purposes in what He chooses to permit or plan in His world. We’re pretty smart, but not like that.

In a recent news story, a wise father responded to his loved one, who asked the “Why me?” question, by asking back to her, “Why not you?” Simply put, the things that trouble us are part of life in this broken world; a world that we broke, not God. Troubles are an “equal opportunity” experience, and they happen to all of us. We don’t need to complicate the question further by injecting the idea of who “deserves” this or that and who doesn’t. That’s the simplest and most sensible explanation we have, short of looking over God’s shoulder as He administers the affairs of a world that only He could create, and only He can run.

WWWJF (What war would Jesus fight?)

The recent five-year anniversary of the beginning of hostilities in Iraq served not only to recall the onset of fighting against an arguably terrorist regime, but also as a reminder that our nation has become enmeshed in a conflict that, soon after the launch of that mission, became much more than anyone had anticipated.

The degree to which this war has divided one American from another is also a reminder of another highly controversial war that formed the social and political background of my coming-of-age years, Vietnam. About the only thing that’s changed since the country was torn apart by often violent emotions concerning that war is that Americans of all opinions are much more supportive of our troops now than before, when soldiers were called “baby-killers” when they were over there, and largely ignored when they returned home.

Not that wars have ever been a widely popular event with Americans. World War 2 was a tough sell to the then-isolationist nation, up until Pearl Harbor was nearly wiped off the map. Even then, only Hitler’s declaration of war against us, following our declaration against the Japanese, assured that we would at last join the British in their struggle against Germany’s power. But many years later, Saddam Hussein is a much less agreed-upon opponent than the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

But apart from the political or social implications of going to war, I find very interesting the way different people try to relate their religious feelings to the general subject of warfare, and especially the kind of war that engenders such wide disagreement about the necessity of fighting against an enemy that may or may not, according to your perspective, be a threat to our national and personal security.

Ever since Vietnam rocked the political conscience of college students across America, there have been many people who don’t profess any particular religious convictions, who are convinced of the need to avoid any and all wars, seeking instead to “give peace a chance.” But whenever Jesus is referenced as an “informed Source” of wisdom on the subject of war, it seems that the “Peaceful Jesus” is the one most often preferred. I’ve never heard anyone try to argue from Jesus, the Cleanser of the temple, to an image of “Rambo Jesus.” Instead, “Peace on earth, good will to men” has been invoked as a general principle, aside from its Christmas context, to imply that Jesus would never approve of hostile actions against anyone, individual or nation. But, as contemporary English versions make clear, the angels’ announcement is better translated as a promise “…on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:14)

In summary, two main points could be made about Jesus and peace.
(1) Jesus never promised “peace on earth” in general. If anything, he said to those who were looking for Him to restore the Kingdom of Israel in their time, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Wherever that Gospel has gone, there has been conflict between light and darkness.
(2) Jesus is the One who will one day launch the greatest “offensive” the world has ever seen, when He returns to conquer His enemies in the “Day of the Lord.” In that day, “While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)! Talk about “Shock and Awe!”

But for now, does Jesus want His individual children to be “peacemakers?” Definitely! Is it appropriate on the individual level to “turn to other cheek?” Likewise! But just as the nation of Israel had a place for armed conflict against the enemies of peace and righteousness, I believe it’s appropriate for our nation to prosecute a war, at the least, for defending itself against imminent threats from nations radically opposed to a biblical peace, or to defeat an aggressor determined to take away our peace by armed aggression.

The tricky part seems to be defining a “threat.” If there is general agreement on that, and that’s something very much absent in relation to Iraq as it was with Vietnam, then such necessary conflicts, while still fitting Sherman’s eloquent description, “War is Hell”, are nonetheless to be preferred to allowing other nations, who don’t share our love of “peace on earth” to have their way with us. The good news is that, even in times of war, there can be peace, “not as the world gives”, but the peace of God that “passes understanding.” And that’s a peace we don’t have to fight for – just surrender to King Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

It's enough to drive a man to drink!

Probably no one knows when alcoholic beverages were first used for euphoric effects, though it might be assumed that the intoxicating properties of certain plants were discovered before that. In any case, mankind has apparently been making use of mood-altering substances for a very long time. For example, Noah was hardly off the ark when he also fell off the wagon, got tipsy on some wine, which turned into a bad time for one of his sons.

The problems associated with excessive use of alcohol are well documented, as is the tendency for those who are given to abusing it to do so, especially if they are presented with some occasion, like a party or a holiday, that invites them to "drink up!" And soon we'll see millions celebrating an annual occasion that seems for many to be little more than a good excuse to consume way more beer than is healthy; to say nothing of the kind of behavior that generally accompanies drunken parties.

Now, of course, my musings on this subject will have no more effect on the revellers than the average Sunday School teacher scolding the naughty boys on the sidewalk outside the church (not that such a thing is likely to happen these days.) Indeed, my own high school Sunday School teacher would not have had much effect on us who were in her class, mainly because none of us, as far as I recollect, had any inkling of what true Christianity was all about.

And that, simply put, is the point of today's reflection. It's one thing for citizens of a free society to decide that they have the right to celebrate a holiday with drunken parties. But, would it be possible, in the interest of common respect, to change the name to, maybe, "Irish Day," or "Green Day?" The Irish are pretty well known for loving a good glass of brew, so it would seem a more appropriate name for such a day, rather than celebrating the memory of a Christian missionary like Patrick by doing things quite contrary to anything Patrick would likely have approved of.

While there is still a lot of difference of opinion about the history of the real Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, it is agreed that he was a Christian, and devoted much of his life to either bringing Christianity to the pagan Celts, or at the very least helping the budding church in Ireland to take hold among the majority Celts. Either way, it's more than a little ironic that a day has gotten set aside to remember him, a day which is now better known by the average American for intoxicating spirits than for works of the Holy Spirit.

In a way, it's not much different from what has become of many "Christmas parties" in businesses across the country. And perhaps it simply shows how eager many of our citizens are for any reason to break from the humdrum of their everyday lives. If only more people could know the truly "intoxicating" joy of Jesus in their hearts; and that's a "high" that works equally well in every season of life and never leaves an unpleasant hangover.

Make your choice

A recent survey has been in all the news services. We are told, according to the headline, that “Americans freely change, or drop, their religions.” In an increasingly “fluid” religious environment, nearly half (44%) of Americans say “they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.” And in a new evidence of the diminished importance of religion in U.S. society, 12.1% of the respondents said their religious identity is "nothing in particular." In some areas, such as Oregon, this unaffiliated status is greater than 25%.

All of this should not surprise anyone familiar with the direction American culture has taken over the past 40 years or so. We live in an age where values like tolerance and choice have taken on a status formerly given to qualities of truth like integrity and moral virtue. Not that people can’t have both integrity and tolerance, or virtue and a respect for the choices of others. But if there is still any consensus on the nature of truth (and that’s questionable in today’s philosophical climate), it should be clear that adherence to principles of truth demand that some ideas can be tolerated in the name of religious freedoms, but that doesn’t make all ideas equally true and equally virtuous.

In purely logical terms (and not all will agree on the philosophy of such logic), if such a thing as truth exists, it is true without regard to how many people believe it, much less what percentage of people in a poll agree with it. And if such a thing as truth exists, it will be just as true now as it was two thousand years ago, without regard to the shifting opinions of societies and cultures. Otherwise, truth is simply another term for whatever I believe, at whatever time I happen to believe it.

I believe the Bible for many good reasons, not simply because it’s the book I was brought up to regard as God’s Word. In fact, I rejected the Bible’s claims to authority and truth for many years as I entertained the ever-popular idea that there are “many ways to find God.” Fortunately for my soul, I found truth in a place I had been trying to avoid, in the words of Jesus, who dared to say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) And while I have given time to investigate other claims to truth, I believe they all lack the authenticity of an empty tomb, a Risen Savior, and millions of lives, like my own, that have been changed by the power of His truth; truth that He promised “will set you free.” (John 8:32)

So, if people changing their “faiths” means changing denominations, I’m fine with that. I was raised by a Methodist family, learned Bible stories at a Presbyterian church, and now pastor a Baptist church. And Jesus is worshipped as Lord and Savior at all of them and many others as well. So choice and tolerance for such choices works fine if it remains within a context of truth. But if one chooses to regard an idea as truth that contradicts the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and Redeemer, then I can tolerate that choice in an open society, but I can’t accept it in the same way as a choice to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

Indeed, God gives human beings the freedom to make their own choices, to worship or not worship, to worship Him through Jesus or to seek Him in an endless variety of ways, including some that utterly contradict each other. But a day will come when the time to make choices or to change one choice for another will be finished. In that day when Jesus becomes, not the Savior, but the Judge, then He will decide whether or not our choices are valid. And He won’t need a poll to help Him.