We Have Bad Words All Wrong

When people become aware I'm a Christian some will curb, lessen, or apologize for their F-word or S-H word usage around me because they think it offends me.  I appreciate their consideration.  However, they'll go right on with their exclamations of "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" to indicate surprise, astonishment, or disgust - obviously not intending to invoke the Lord's help or reference him in any reverential way.  Sometimes they'll even use those words ("Oh my God!, "God!" etc.) and I'll have no idea why they're using them - other than perhaps as filler words.  Believe it or not, the typical "4-letter" swear words don't offend me at all. They're nothing but coarse and profane language - even though It's better not to use them in polite company.  Using God's name in an empty and/or flippant way however makes me wince.  It something's going to offend, it's going to be that.

I'm convinced many believe those empty references to God are totally benign, morally-neutral, and non-offensive - because after all, they don't "mean anything" by it.  That's precisely the point though: If they don't mean anything by their usage, it is a vain (i.e. empty, worthless) usage and thus a direct violation of The Third Commandment's "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."(Ex. 20:7)  Even when we remember the first part of that commandment, we tend to forget the second part, don't we?  The second part ("...for the LORD will not hod him guiltless...") should really drive home the fact that this is serious stuff; the words we use have consequences even if the people around us might not care.  

I have the same attitude and response regarding empty, ceremonial prayers.  I'd rather there be no prayer at all than it be one of these prayers.  Unfortunately this type of prayer is the preferred type of prayer by politicians and at political functions.  It's the PC prayer.  It's the prayer that by it's invocation of no God in particular in fact invokes no God at all. If you take Jesus Christ out, if you ignore the actual character of God and make him a bland old nice Grandpa-type God and ask His blessing on things and actions which Scripture clearly militates against - it can't be anything else than a stench in His nose and a heaping up of wrath.  It's using His name in a vain and worthless way - at the very least. 

Daytime TV and the general population now finds vain usage of the Lord's name perfectly acceptable - but in the final analysis it is a much more serious thing than the crude 4-letter swear words you think are so much worse.  Somehow even the Christian community has seemed to have forgotten this.  As for me, I'd much rather raise up children who occasionally use typical 4-letter swear words than children who think lightly of treading God's name underfoot and who think nothing of it when they hear it done.  American culture and even the church (generally) seem to care more about propriety and fitting in with polite society and current cultural mores than we do about the Law of God.  Christians, we need to reassess our commitments and attitudes.  We can start with ourselves and our families. 

The "Do Babies Go To Heaven?" Question

The "Do babies go to heaven?" question ranks up there with "Is my grandma/grandpa/mom/dad/loved one in hell?" as the most uncomfortable for serious Christians to be asked.  A common answer when the question is asked about unbelieving adults is "I don't know...God will judge."  While this is a true answer - as far as it goes - , it often ignores serious issues and the logical implications (if we trust Scripture) of things we already might know beyond a reasonable doubt, so in this way it's somewhat deceptive.  What's even worse is an assumption that the "good" unbelieving deceased is automatically is in a "better place" by virtue of dying - as if death itself is the only prerequisite for eternal happiness.  Well, the "better place" answer is used for just about everyone except really "bad" (as we deem them) people such as Hitler et. al. - as if the rest of mankind is basically "good" and surely have earned the right to eternal happiness/heaven - or at least "a better place."  We lie to ourselves so badly! Such answers may be comforting to the grieved, but when we are pretty darn sure the deceased had no love of God or trust in Jesus as Mediator/Savior/Lord our answers are non-thinking at best - lies at worst.  Does it really please God to ignore what we supposedly believe to be true about Scripture, death, heaven, and hell - and give ourselves or others false assurance?  For an issues as serious as God, salvation, and eternal destinies, I am convinced it does not.  

This is a indeed a very sensitive and emotionally-laden topic.  When the heaven question concerns babies and the unborn it is even more sensitive. We are faced with the difficulty of  these precious human beings (as far as we know) never having heard or accepted the gospel.  We sidestep this frequently sidestep this difficulty because we perceive them to be "innocent" - so they must go to heaven, right?  The big problem with this is that they're not innocent.  They are innocent on a human scale - but they are not innocent on a cosmic scale; they are not innocent before God.  If they are human beings, they are "in Adam" and as such have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God.  This is the doctrine of Original Sin I'm referring to.  Either Adam somehow represented all mankind in the garden as our federal head and thus we all not only inherit a sin nature but also guilt before God - or we (all humanity) were in some sense actually there in the garden, sinning with Adam and becoming guilty that way.  Many professing Christians today find this doctrine distasteful, but they can't escape the fact that it has been part of historical Christian belief since at least Augustine.  I would argue that it was part of Christian belief since Paul, and before that, Jesus - but the doctrine became more officially recognized with Augustine.  Since that time, those who would deny the doctrine of  Original Sin were seen as outside the faith and not Christian at all.  If, as a Christian you deny original sin and original guilt you must realize you are putting yourself outside the sphere of historical Christian orthodoxy and into a realm of thought both Catholics and Protestants have rejected throughout history.  This should at least give you pause. 

Another big problem with the "all infants and/or all aborted children go to heaven argument" is that it puts us into the position of either (logically) hoping to be barren (so that we are not bringing into the world any who will go to hell - OR (logically) hoping our unborn and born babies will somehow die so that they will have a 100% chance of going to heaven - since heaven is infinitely better than this life. This might not only be mistaken thinking, but also dangerous thinking. Think of Andrea Yates and the bathtub drownings of her infants for instance.  Thankfully, most parents who take this position are not as consistent as Yates! We have children and pray they will LIVE. We teach, train, and pray for them. We rejoice when they show reasoning capability to make important decisions rather than lament because this would mean a greater chance of hell due to greater accountability.  Do we pray that our children will be severely mentally disabled so that they will be "innocent" like a child and therefore go to heaven?  Concerning accountability, many Christians will also posit the idea of an "age of accountability" before which time a person is not accountable to God for their sins because of not having the level of understanding supposedly needed to be accountable for wrongdoing.  They say that those who die before this age (usually said to be thirteen) will go to heaven.  Biblical support of this is weak - and, furthermore the "age of accountability" doctrine should be suspect because it would necessarily compromise the more universally recognized and historic doctrine of Original Sin.  

So, do all children and unborn who die go to hell?  No, I don't think they do.  I can't prove it - but I would say "no."  The case of King David's deceased son "...I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:22-23) might be evidence for babies (at least some) going to heaven.  I think that it is - but I don't think it provides airtight proof that all unborn, babies, or children do.  My wife and I have suffered a miscarriage - so the whole issue of babies going to heaven is not just an abstract and academic topic with us. It is emotional and personal as well. We hope that our miscarried child is like King David's young son that died by God's command and that we will someday meet our child in heaven. Even with this being said, I have to say the "all...go to heaven" argument has significant difficulties - and some caution and prudence is needed because of these difficulties.  We go to heaven because of the work of Christ - not our own work or any perceived innocence we could attribute to ourselves.  A heaven-bound baby who dies in the womb, in infancy, or later as a child will go there (heaven) because of the work of Christ.  The usual mechanism for being joined to His saving work is personal faith in Him and His work.  However, at the core, it is all due to Him - His work.  He saves us.  In the end we must simply trust in God and His Purpose - and that He will do whatever is right.  We do not see the big picture.  We see only part.  He however sees the whole picture - the whole plan.  He not only sees it but he made it.  His ways are higher than our ways. As God and judge of the whole earth and of all creation, He only does those things which are right.  It comforts me to leave it at that.

Jesus the Sith Lord?

I'm a big Star Wars fan - a really big fan.  I have a large Star Wars collection, have seen the movies many times, and even have a big Yoda image decorating the hood of my car.  Make no mistake though.  Star Wars' Light Side and Dark Side are not comparable to Good and Evil in the Christian worldview.  The "Force" is not the Holy Spirit.  When I was a child and young teen, I thought it was kooky and extreme how some Christians would be critical of Star Wars, cautioning Christian parents against it by citing the Eastern mysticism and other non-Christian philosophies it presents cloaked in Jedi goodness.  As an adult, though still an avid Star Wars fan, I now see the reason behind their wariness.  Watch the following clip.  It is from the third prequel movie, one of the coolest lightsaber duels of the whole saga, but the thinking Christian should be able to detect some worldview problems:

[Be advised that this is not a G-rated fighting scene; it contains some scenes of anguish at the beginning and some slightly gruesome images toward the end]

If you know your Scripture well, you will notice that Anakin virtually quotes Jesus (Matt 12:30) soon after Obi-Wan confronts him:

[Movie dialogue is in bold]

ANAKIN: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." 

OBI-WAN: "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." 

Again, here are Jesus' words in Matt. 12:30:

[Jesus' words are in red]

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Do you see how similar Jesus' statement is to dark-side-turning Anakin's statement?  The Jedi are supposed to be good guys - like disciples of Jesus or something.  Hmmm.  In the Star Wars universe however, thinking in black and white terms means you're thinking like a Sith - the bad guys.  Jesus would seem to be a Sith Lord!

As a matter of fact, Jesus issues many absolutistic statements in Scripture.  Here are several:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).

"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

By Obi-Wan's standard, It seems like Jesus has the makings of a Sith Lord.

Later, same duel, Obi-Wan and Anakin do a philosophy reversal - and don't seem to be aware of it:

ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil." 

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 

OBI-WAN: "Well, then you are lost!" 

OK, let me get this straight.  First, Anakin is told by Obi-Wan that only Sith Lords deal in absolutes - then when he reasons in a relativistic fashion and avoids absolutes, Obi-Wan issues an absolutistic statement about Chancellor Palpatine being evil and pronounces condemnation on him for the conclusion he had come to!  I hope you see the problem here.  

In short, the dialogue really shows both Obi Wan and Anakin turning to hypocrites before our very eyes.  I don't think that was Lucas' intention, but the critical Christian reader/watcher should be able to discern this even if others don't.  The original three movies (Episodes IV-VI) are much more philosophically consistent, and for this reason I enjoy them more - even though the lightsaber duels are not as cool.  In the original three I can make sense of the bad guys being the bad guys and the good guys being the good guys - and though the worldview of the old movies was not perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview, it was at least enough so that I could feel good about the Jedi being good and the Sith being bad.  

There is much more that could be critically examined about the Star Wars saga - and others have done that in great degree.  Much of this was done nearly 10 or more years ago when the prequels started coming out.  I wasn't much bothered by Anakin's virgin birth in Episode 1 ("The Phantom Menace") came out, but it still seemed to signal the establishing of parallels to the Biblical account of Christ where there should not be parallels.  After all, we knew Anakin later becomes Darth Vader.  The Jesus of Scripture never has a similar huge fall from goodness; he never falls at all because he was and is sinless!  Episode III ("Revenge of The Sith") is much more troubling in its more overt promotion of relativism and its philosophical confusion.  

 For me and my family, we still watch and enjoy Star Wars - but I am convinced that the saga needs to be enjoyed in the context of knowing what Scripture actually teaches about the universe, God, the Person of Jesus, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Good and Evil.  In this way the movies can be a critical thinking tool as well as awesome entertainment.  When making comparisons and observing parallels we must also be able to make and recognize the contrasts.  Without a well-grounded knowledge of the contrasts, Star Wars could prove a stumbling block for a Christian who is more well-versed in the Star Wars universe and Jedi teachings than in the real (God's) universe and Christian Scripture.  Illegitimate parallels and comparisons could easily be made - leading to a non-Biblical view of goodness and of God.  Sadly, this would be the danger for many in modern watered-down Christian larger community.  As awesome as Yoda and Obi-Wan are, a Christian should not desire to be fully Jedi-like - or for that matter, fully Sith-like.  A Christian should seek to be Christ-like.

Old Catechism For The Young: Not Impossible At All

Since moving away from a somewhat conventional and broadly-evangelical seeker-sensitive church that never went too deep into historic Christian doctrine and into a more historically aware and doctrinally-defined practice and churches, I have come to appreciate the value of catechism.  Until that time, I had only heard the word "catechism" in the context of Roman Catholicism.  What a shame! I had no idea what it was!  Now, for my specific theological expression and practice I use the Westminster Shorter Catechism - a teaching tool composed in the mid-1600's.

A catechism is a series of logically-ordered questions and answers; each building upon the foundation of the preceding question and answer.  The mid 1600's saw the creation of both the "Shorter" and the "Larger" catechisms.  The "Shorter" was composed with the young and the (relatively) spiritually immature in mind.  The "Larger" catechism was composed for adults and the more advanced.  I like memorizing things - and I like to have answers to questions - so about a decade ago I started memorizing the 107 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism.  This took me about two years.  Since that time.  For me and for many unaccustomed to specific, doctrinally-sound answers, the answers to many of these questions were not "short" at all!  However, they are very satisfying.

Here are the first seventeen (in bold):

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, 

descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

I have found this kind of memorization very helpful in answering my own questions as well as answering the questions of others.  I can give the rote, memorized answer - or I can quickly mentally access and silently rehearse the rote memorized answer and then regurgitate it in a more simplified or modern-English version for the questioner.  

Early on, after I was convinced of the usefulness of the catechism, I started teaching the whole family these questions and answers.  All it took was carving out a little time each day for practice.  It doesn't take more than 15-minutes a day.  I also became aware of a more modern catechism versions specifically made for children.  My initial thought toward these versions was "why?"  That is, why create an even shorter catechism than the one already called "Shorter"?  Why create an even shorter and more simplified version for 20th and 21st century children when ordinary non-genius 17th century children were able to memorize the original "Shorter" catechism.  These are still my sentiments now!  

Here is my encouragement for you: You may look at the questions and answers and think they are long.  You may wonder how a young child can do this.  Let me tell you that both you and they can - if only you take the time.  I've successfully done so with my two oldest daughters - both beginning at roughly age eight.  I'm also currently doing so with my son (age seven) and my youngest daughter (age five).  They are both learning and progressing well.  We are currently at question 17, and we have been going at the pace of one question every 1-2 weeks. Two weeks for the longer questions and answers; one week for the shorter and easier ones.  What I am most impressed with is the ability of my five-year-old to memorize these questions and answers.  I did not even intend to formally catechize her until she was at least six - but since I was taking the after-dinner time to catechize her older brother (which also served as review for the older sisters who had gone through the whole thing already) she was being exposed to the information and hearing the recitation.  She eagerly expressed her desire to try answering the questions the rest of the family was getting!  So, I thought "why not?" She was four-years-old at that point.  It's been more than four months since I started including her, and since that time she has demonstrated her ability to memorize these questions and answers.  Needless to say, this has pleased and encouraged me.  To keep it low-pressure, I keep the time investment to about 15-minutes per day and I don't press her as hard as I press the older kids.  This keeps it a fun and do-able challenge for her.  

I encourage and recommend any and all my Christian brothers and sisters to start catechism practice as a family.  Just make it a habit and stick to it.  Before you know it, you will have 10+ questions and answers memorized and so will your kids.  Keep it low-pressure though!

A Short Easter Message

Whether you call today's holiday "Easter" or whether you call it "Resurrection Sunday" - or even if you follow the Puritan example and don't celebrate a specially designated day at all, the message I want to share and celebrate with you is the same - and it is appropriate for every day of the year:  He is risen!  Jesus rose from the grave and lives forevermore! He conquered Death!  

The message of the resurrection was so central to the apostles that Paul vigorously argued in his first letter to the Corinthians that their faith was "vain" (i.e. empty, useless, without worth) if indeed Christ was not raised.  Yes, both they and we who trust in Him are still dead in our sins if he is not in fact raised. Truly, this stuff is important - because if we are still dead in our sins then there is no hope for escaping the just wrath of a Holy God.  Christ is the Last Adam - not a failure like the first.  He is the Perfect Prophet, Priest, and King.  He is the Unblemished and Perfect Lamb.  He is also the Lion.  He is the Bread from Heaven.  He is the Good Shepherd.  He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  He is The Resurrection and the Life. (John 11:25).  Right now, he stands at the right hand of the Father and makes perfect intercession for His sheep. 

I encourage you to read through the gospel accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection.  If you don't read all four, read at least John's Gospel.  I also encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 15 - where Paul labors the point of the importance of the resurrection.  May you find perfect peace and rest in Jesus Christ.

Being In Adam

[Note: I made some minor changes (links to cited Scripture and better explanation of the participation concept) the morning of 4.6.2014]




Several nights a week after dinner I lead my family through catechism practice.  We use the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and have been taking 1-2 weeks for each question.  This evening we started a new catechism question, question 16: 

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

This question is perhaps one of the most significant questions out there - and when explored beyond a surface level, the most enigmatic.  The question is important because if not all mankind fell, then "The Fall" was not as significant an event as Christianity historically posits it to be.  Why?  Because if the The Fall did not involve all mankind (i.e. was not universal) then there is the possibility that there are some people out there who have not sinned - and thus would not need a savior.  I will not explore all the necessary implications of this, but suffice to say it would change our view of mankind, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  

I said in the previous paragraph that I will not explore all the implications of a non-universal fall, but I will touch on one: If there are some people out there who do not share in the sin nature and indeed have not sinned, then the problem of evil and the problem of pain becomes much trickier.  The "thorns" of daily life and toil, the presence of death and disease, and the pain, suffering, and sadness these non-sin nature sinless people experience (like the rest of us do) would be unjust.  We could justly ascribe unjustness to God for causing all these things - since these things would affect the unfallen person as well as the fallen person.  For God to be just, the presence of the little "thorns" in life as well as the great calamities needs to be deserved.

We might resort to postulating that while Adam's posterity might not have automatically fallen at his fall, none of his posterity would be able to live a sinless life in thought and action.  That is, just like Adam, they would have to choice whether to choose Good or Evil but would, like Adam, not be able to withstand the temptation of evil.  This sounds good - until you think about babies, severely mentally-deficient people, and the unborn.  How could any sort of pain, sorrow, death, or calamity be "deserved" for these types of people?  If we say they are not deserving of it, we immediately are confronted with creepy solutions of the Andrea Yates variety (i.e. killing them while they are "pure" to ensure they go to heaven.)  Yes, this is creepy stuff - but how do we escape the seeming rationality of that kind of 'solution' unless we posit that we are all fallen and that there is not one innocent among us?

I love my seven-year-old son, and I love his questions.  He's a very thoughtful boy.  He immediately had questions of his own when I introduced WSC Question #16.  He wondered how we could have sinned "in Adam."  He wondered how we know we would do the same thing as Adam if we had been in The Garden.  He was pretty sure that he (my son) would not disobey as Adam had.  Isn't that the way many of us think? I tried the best I could to explain that he in fact would do the same thing - that in fact we all would.  I mentioned the fact that he does and thinks things everyday that he knows are wrong - and so do his parents! With this obvious fact in front of us, what makes us so sure we would be able to withstand the Serpent's craftiness and be perfectly obedient in that context...continually and forever?

I also explained the concept of representation to him.  This can be found fairly clearly in Romans 5:12-21 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:22, although it is also implicitly found throughout all of Scripture. Adam perfectly represented us.  As our congressmen and sports teams represent us and we necessarily share in both their victories and their failures, Adam perfectly represented us.  However, Adam perfectly represented us - because he was specially appointed by God to be our representative.  Our sports teams and congressmen are chosen by us - fallible human beings who do not possess all the facts and who also have very uncertain and fickle judgment.  I explained the concept of God standing outside of the timeline yet acting freely at all points in the timeline while we ourselves are time-bound and cannot do the same thing.  God, standing outside the timeline, possessing all the facts, knowing the end from the beginning, and working all things according to the counsel of His will, appointed Adam as our representative.  We, those of us who lived at any point in subsequent history, in some mysterious but nonetheless very real way, were so perfectly represented by Adam that in the main current of Christian theological history we have been said to be "in Adam" and to have sinned "in Adam."  This identification is so close to actual participation that the "Realist" view (i.e. that we and all mankind were in fact there and participated in Adam's sin) was formally postulated by St. Augustine and has been a viable and orthodox interpretation throughout Christian history.  Whether federally imputed to mankind by perfect representation or whether by some mysterious kind of actual participation, both views leave us with a fallen nature and thereby make sense of all the trials and tribulations we face - which would in either view be perfectly just and perfectly deserved.  This is deep! This is the stuff that makes theology so exciting for me - but also the stuff that makes things very frustrating for a seven-year-old boy.  

I did not have all the answers though.  No one does except for Him to whom we owe worship and all adoration and thanks.  Things are the most interesting when we don't have all the answers, but do have enough to understand the problem and make sense of some kind of solution.  When we don't understand the problem and have no answers it's boring - especially when we're not even able to identify that there is a problem at all.  When we have (or think we have) all the answers to something it becomes uninteresting and boring as well - because there is nothing left to explore; nothing to investigate.  I love my son.  I love him all the more because he cares about stuff.  He identifies weighty issues and he seeks to investigate - as I am convinced we all should.

Eschatological Wars

A picture is worth one-thousand words - figuratively speaking.

Shortly into the Bible study, Greedo discovers that Han doesn't agree with his eschatology.

The Polygamy Question

Recent court cases in Utah as well as the "slippery-slope" argument many Christians make based on current mostly-secular attempts to re-define marriage (e.g. "same-sex" or "gay" marriage) made me think about polygamy.  No, it didn't cause me to consider polygamy for myself...but it caused me to think about the history of the institution and whether it might be employed or accepted again in the church as well as outside of the church.  For the record, I am NOT an advocate of polygamy nor do I believe the Bible approves in it in the same way it does man+woman marriage.  However, I think there are several issues that we need to be aware of - especially Christians who either will lump polygamy in the same Biblical category as same-sex marriage or who will caution that it (polygamy) is just the next step in the slippery slope down from acceptance of same-sex marriage.  Below you will some thoughts of mine, lifted and edited from (as usual) some Facebook comments I made to a post. 

One would expect that the Scripture would have a stronger condemnation against heterosexual polygamy - akin to the indisputable and obvious condemnation (death sentence for example) it offers against homosexual activity.  Since a marriage implies sexual activity, it stands to reason that a homosexual "marriage" would be equally condemned by God even though the Bible itself is silent concerning the prohibition of same-sex/homosexual marriage - but this is because marriage is already defined in Scripture by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2 as a union between a man and a woman.  Therefore, the Bible simply does not consider same-sex "marriage" to be marriage, so it doesn't talk about it.  However, even though Scripture defines marriage as a union between TWO of the opposite sex, we often find instances of one man + multiple wives which are not condemned outright.  In fact, often these same men are praised by God - albeit for things other than their plural marriage.  To make a thought comparison, one would not expect a homosexual Jacob or other patriarch, or a homosexual King David (No, don't even try and suggest he and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship) to receive like praise and blessing from God as the Biblical polygamous Jacob and David do.  I believe one could even envision a church or churches, otherwise orthodox, and especially those strongly advocating "patriarchy" (father-rule) becoming either tacitly or boldly accepting of polygamous marriages in the near-future provided that the husbands in such marriages do not seek church office - (since there is explicit Biblical instruction regarding that those seeking and keeping church office be husbands of ONE wife.)

If the Church is faced with polygamous families and men seeking church membership, I think families and men should be welcomed.  Divorcing or "putting away" wives who are probably significantly dependent on the husband's financial provision - not to mention the damage caused by severance of children/mother ties that would necessarily ensue, would be cruel and sinful in God's eyes unless it were a direct command coming from Him. However, those in such marriages should not seek church office and should also be confirmed to acknowledge that the God-given design of marriage is 1 man + + 1 woman.  Traditional, Biblical, Jesus-defined 1 man + 1 woman marriages should continue to be promoted by the Church as God's preferred arrangement.   

What about polygamous marriage and the secular culture?  What about polygamous marriages and theologically liberal churches?  I think the modern mainstream/liberal "Church" will be loathe to accept polygamy even though they are quick to accept and embrace homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." In other words, though acceptance may be a logical slippery slope, the logical slippery slope would not necessarily result in acceptance. Why? Homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable to the secular culture of the West - and the churches who follow the "world" rather than the WORD (or who follow the WORD only when it agrees with the "world") object to polygamy not because it doesn't conform to Scripture's definition of marriage, but because they believe it subordinates women. In other words, it goes completely against the Feminist agenda and would move womens' rights (as they see it) backward more than Biblical man-woman marriage.  Therefore, polygamy and polygamous marriage would be abhorrent to them.  For them (these churches) polygamy would always be extreme and unacceptable; homosexuality and same-sex marriage loving and acceptable.

Here's another thought: Even though the The LDS "Church" is known historically for its past practice of polygamy, the LDS church (now) actually has better grounds to militate against polygamy than traditional Bible-believing Christians - especially Sola Scriptura Reformation-minded Protestant Christians. Why? They (Mormons) don't have a closed canon. They always have a living "apostle" to steer the ship - doctrinally and otherwise. So, when their then-living prophet said that polygamy was to be no more, they were internally consistent when they subsequently abandoned it and forbade it.  The Roman Catholic Church also will have an easier time being internally consistent regarding prohibition of polygamy; they have the Magisterium and the pope.  Biblical Protestant Christians on the other hand don't have that handy "thus saith the Lord" type of condemnation ready to issue.  It will be interesting to see history unfold.  For as for me and my house, we're staying non-polygamous!  

The Clock Stops For No One

As I get older, I have become more aware - or at least dwell more upon - the passage of time.  Thirty-five used to be "middle-aged" to me.  Now it is my age.  Time doesn't stop for anyone.  What shall I do within the time allotted to me?  Lengthy self-examination often just leaves me feeling wasteful and selfish in the end.  The time to act is now.  Find time for reflection and navel-gazing, but not too much.  I have found some ways to combat over-reflection and the stress and waste it often produces.

Why do I enjoy long distance running and other exercise so much?  One of the reasons could be that both I and others find that the dizzying array of options are cut down to just a few while engaged in a long training session.  There are only so many things one can do while running or cycling after all.  Mental/emotional/psychological peace is gained when the time at hand and its usage is made simple.  Perhaps it a good time for the reflection and navel-gazing I mentioned earlier.  This can be done as you tick off the miles.  If not reflection (which I slip into all too easily), it is a good time for listening via i-pod to lectures, books, or music.  It is also a good time for blunting pain of other sorts.  The physical discomfort of exertion has a way of submerging emotional and mental pain.  Sometimes, the harder the better.  Finishing your planned distance is also a concrete "done" feeling.  It is a task completed - and with an endorphin high to boot.  The run (or the ride) mirrors the run/race of life.  We all have our appointed course.  We all run our course, and hope to finish well.

I get impatient with those who claim boredom in their lives.  How can there be boredom?  There is so much to do!  Open the eyes, open the ears, realize that there is a finite amount of time allotted to this mortal life, and get passionate about something...but don't stress about it.  Find what you're good at, and then do it!  What you're good at will often be the thing or things which you can find true enjoyment in.  Don't beat your head against the wall trying to do those things for which you have no aptitude for.  Don't do too many things, but do a few things - and do them well.  Accept the fact that you will not be good at everything - or even many things.  Accept that you will not have time for many things - and that if you try and find the time for them it will end in frustration, stress, and disappointment.  I have found this works for me.  At least, it helps make life more enjoyable.  Use time well.  The clock stops for no one.  

Going Back To The World That Was

I have to admit that as much as I find religion and politics important and necessary areas of thought and other engagement, I often wish to escape from all concern of them and the unavoidable divisions they make manifest - and to go back to a time of blissful ignorance when the only world to care about was the house and yard around me, and my parents were the two smartest, wisest, strongest, and fastest people in the world.  The closest I get to this now is to escape for a  long run or bike ride, and then to come back home to my kids to play the part my parents played to me.  Oh how I must savor this time!  It is to be a hero in someone's eyes, and in a world not yet made complicated.

Vain Raging and Hopeful Attempts at Breaking Restraining Cords

It's been a while, hasn't it?  However, recent events and postings from others have inspired me to post.  My thought for the day is from the Psalms (Psalm 2):

 1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people murmur in vain.
 2 The kings of the earth band themselves, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
 3 Let us break their bands, and cast their cords from us.
 4 But he that dwelleth in the heaven shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

...and another from Paul's letter to the Romans:
31 Which men, though they knew the Law of God, how that they which commit such things are worthy of death, yet not only do the same, but also favor them that do them.


The voice of the people ("vox populi") is not the voice of God ("vox Dei").  Furthermore, God is the only origin of what may be properly called "fundamental rights."  We mock God and provoke his wrath when we put ourselves in His place, ignore his law and limits, and pretend we are speaking for Him.