Tag Archive for christian at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'christian'

Overcoming Faith, Part II

Published by Chris A September 25, 2008 in Religion. 19 Comments

Esteeming God’s Word Above Experience
We know that faith can only be present where knowledge is present. In other words, one cannot believe what he does not know. Do you remember the rhetorical questions Paul asks in Romans 10:14?

“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”

The answers to these questions are obvious, because faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). When one hears, knowledge is revealed to him, creating an opportunity for faith.

Let us examine 1 John 5:4, 5 in light of what we have covered thus far:

4For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith. 5Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

We know that these verses are the truth, but they do not always seem to agree with the life experiences of believers. Why? They must first know – by internalizing this reality – and then allow their words and actions to correspond with this belief. Knowledge gives way to thought; thoughts govern beliefs. Beliefs govern actions and words, and determine attitudes.

A common mistake many people make is to judge their success as a Christian on the basis how they feel. But the Bible never promised us that we would feel like overcomers; it says that we are – by nature of our Creator and Father – overcomers (1 John 5:4, 5). We are faith children of a faith God and we are to live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). If we act like victims it proves that we don’t believe we are victors, and we never will as long as we adopt this kind of attitude. This is how real faith can be identified apart from its counterfeit counterpart, simple mental agreement; one is active, the other is passive.

Fueled by Meditation
If someone lacks faith, the remedy is knowledge. However, such knowledge is not always cultivated apart from meditation. One cannot expect to obtain the knowledge of God by mere intellectual means – that is, by reading the Bible without carefully weighing its significance. The goal is not to learn more information, but to apprehend knowledge of the Holy. Not only is the quantity of time important, but the quality of time is important. One must free himself of competing distractions in order to give full attention to the word of power by which God upholds all things.

“This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success” (Joshua 1:8).

The Hebrew word translated meditate here literally means to mutter. Thus real biblical meditation also involves the use of one’s mouth as well as his mind.

The Spirit of Faith
If a survey was taken and Christians were asked what primary characteristic would demonstrate the spirit of faith, I would venture to say that precious few would be able to answer this question. However, the Bible makes the answer quite plain.

“We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak” (2 Corinthians 4:13).

The spirit of faith is the attitude of confidence towards God evidenced by the spoken word. In fact, this is how a person initially gains entry into the kingdom of God because one must confess with his mouth and believe in his heart that God raised Christ from the dead to be born again (Romans 10:9, 10).

People often fail to receive from God because of a lack of the expression of their faith. When someone is thoroughly convinced that God cannot lie and he becomes fully persuaded of his promises towards him, he is in a position to see God work miracles on his behalf. But once knowledge comes, the faith produced by this knowledge must be expressed either through word or action. A person can have faith without expressing it, in which case he would be almost as well off if he was completely faithless. He will never tap into the reservoir of grace at his disposal (Romans 5:2). He will both shortchange himself as well as rob God of the glory he would otherwise receive as a result of the blessing.

David and Goliath
The use of words in connection with the release of faith is among the most underemphasized and neglected basic truths consistent throughout the entire Bible. Let us take, for instance, the story of David and Goliath. David’s name is listed among many of great people of faith in Hebrews 11, but how was David’s faith utilized in the slaying of the giant? The entire story is found in 1 Samuel 17, but here is an abbreviated version. Notice what David said.

45Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. 46″This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD’S and He will give you into our hands.” 48Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground. 50Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. 51Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

I think most Christians have a problem reconciling what David said in verses 46 and 47 with their theology. David literally said exactly what he believed God was going to do. In some people’s minds, this is presumptuous. They think, “How can one presume to know the will of God?” They fail to realize that the closer you get to God by prayer and meditation in his word, the less you have to presume because you know.

How Jesus Taught Faith
If Jesus ministered in churches today, he would be one of the most controversial teachers of our time – just like he was controversial in his own time. He would no doubt be heralded as a heretic. It is no wonder, then, that anyone who dares to teach what Jesus taught about faith is branded a false teacher by many modern-day Pharisees and doctors of the Law.

When it came to faith, Jesus took the spirit of faith to another level. What is perhaps most shocking about his teaching on the matter is the fact that he did not put himself in another faith class; on the contrary, his teachings were accompanied by examples he expected his disciples to follow. One such example and subsequent teaching is found in Matthew 21.

18Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry.
19Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.
20Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, “How did the fig tree wither all at once?”
21And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen.
22″And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”

What was the mechanism of faith demonstrated here? It was Jesus’ spoken words to the fig tree. Yes, folks, Jesus spoke to inanimate objects! Am I saying that those who follow Christ should do the same thing? No, but Jesus did – his words, not mine. He told his disciples that not only could they do just as he did to the fig tree, but they could actually move mountains. Some have surmised that Jesus was speaking strictly in a figurative sense, but that cannot be the case. This was not a parable. Jesus literally spoke to a literal tree and in that same context told his disciples they could speak to a literal mountain. Could mountains represent other obstacles in life in some way? Yes, just as the barren fig tree was an obstacle to Jesus getting some food in his stomach. But that is different from drawing some kind of cryptic meaning from the passage. Mark’s account of this event sheds even more light on the emphasis of the spoken word to release faith. Mark 11:

21Being reminded, Peter said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.”
22And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God.
23 “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.
24″Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

In this account, we see that the potential for this kind of demonstration of faith is extended beyond Jesus’ twelve disciples, because Jesus said, “whoever says to this mountain…” Essentially he said that anyone – not just Jesus or his disciples - who says something, and believes it is going to happen it will happen; and anyone who prays for something should believe that it is received prior to actual physical evidence. This is exactly what David and many other people in the Bible did.

Expectancy
Anyone who lives by faith must of necessity live in expectancy. If the Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, we should believe and expect him to do so. If the Bible says that God gives wisdom liberally to all men, we should expect to become wise as we seek God for wisdom. If the Bible says that God’s words are health to all our flesh, we should expect to be healthy as we spend time meditating in the word.

What do you suppose David expected to happen after he said to Goliath, “This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you”? He expected to both kill and decapitate someone most people would have thought he had no business challenging in the first place.

Far too many pray as a last resort and expect nothing. They may think they are in faith, but they are sadly mistaken. They wait and see if something will happen, instead of expecting that something will happen. These are “que sera, sera” prayers. Many have thought that “if it be thy will” should accompany every prayer they pray. They fail to realize that Jesus only prayed that way in a time of great distress when he was consecrating himself to the will of God by laying down his life for humanity (see Mathew 26). In most instances where this phrase is used, it actually destroys faith. It promotes the idea that God is so far off as to remain mysterious to mankind, such that he may never really be known – even by his own offspring.

In matters where the will of God is completely unknown, certainly it would be appropriate to seek God by supplication; that too, is biblical. But pertaining to matters where God’s will is clearly revealed through his word, it makes no sense to pray as if we don’t know God’s will.

Overcoming Faith, Part I

Published by Chris A September 24, 2008 in Religion. 0 Comments

The Triumphant Faith Life
The Christian, by his very spiritual nature, is a triumphant being patterned after the triumphant Christ. This is the reality of his actual identity as seen through the eyes of God. As a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, his time of sojourning on earth is to be one of absolute mastery over the kingdom of Satan and his schemes. This does not mean we will not have problems, it just means that God will always cause us to prevail despite the problems. Christians were never intended to live as victims, but victors. Since God himself is for us, the idea that any adverse circumstance should hinder us from accomplishing his will for our lives is a completely bankrupt concept.

Although God has determined that his children be more than conquerors through Christ, sadly this is not the experience of many believers. Why is this? They are either ignorant of the thoughts God has towards them as revealed in his holy Word, or they have been taught otherwise, crippling their ability to grasp the knowledge of God that is sufficient to multiply the manifold grace of God to them. Consequently, many of them will live out their lives far below their Christian potential.

Identifying the New Creation
We would all do well to ask what qualities make up the spiritual substance of those who have been born by God’s Spirit. The answer to this question cannot be determined solely Christian experience. The experience of the new creation is only valid to the extent that it agrees with the word that proceeds from the mouth his Creator.

23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does (James 1:23-25).

Here James compares the word of God to a mirror that reflects actual Christian identity. This concept is laid out in John 1:12-16.

12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

True Christian identity, then, has its sole basis in the Christ himself – the incarnate word of God. By beholding the glory manifested forth from Jesus, we are transformed into the same image. Although this identity may be evident in the traditions that express Christian thought, the true characteristics of Christ’s followers can never really be derived from them. The church, being the body of Christ, is an extension of the thoughts, will, and purpose originating from the Head. As he is, so are we in this world. In truth, we are to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). We are representatives of a heavenly kingdom that operates by entirely different principles than the world where we presently reside.

The Second Transformation
Certainly the born again experience constitutes the spiritual resurrection of the dead – the translation from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, but it is also a part of a greater metamorphosis and is only the entrance into the faith life. It profits neither the believer nor the kingdom of God for those having been born of the Spirit of God to then nullify many of the benefits of this new life by failing to adopt the new manner of thinking consistent with this spiritual reality. A man thinks, so his he (Proverbs 23:7). He cannot manifest this new nature without thinking in concert with it. This is both a process of deprogramming and reprogramming – ridding our consciousness of impurity while internalizing Truth.

22That, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, 23and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Ephesians 4:22-24).

From this passage we can conclude that in order to “put on the new self” one must renew his mind. Here we see the possibility of one being a new creation and yet failing to manifest the godly characteristics he unknowingly possesses.

Next time: Esteeming God’s Word Above Experience

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream - Christianity Edition

Published by Colin September 15, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Politics. 3 Comments

Since I wrote my last piece on this subject, I have had the time to think a little more about the nature of cultural and political shifting over time. I’ve realized that the principles I examined apply just as easily to other arenas as well - including religion. When one of our forum members posted a link last week to this study, I could very easily see that another look was needed.

Less than one in five Christians had the following characteristics:

* Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ
* Committed churchgoers
* Bible readers
* Accept leadership positions
* Invest in personal faith development through the church
* Feel obligated to share faith; 79% do so.

I would argue that these are the mainstream features in the bible and of the major figures in Christianity. But yet why is it that four in five people calling themselves by the very same name do not share all of these values?

Christianity is considered the mainstream religion in the western world and the US but only 1/5 of the people who identify themselves in the mainstream seem to actually abide by these basic principles. In other words, four fifths of the mainstream have adopted an extreme version of Christianity while still identifying it, describing it and surrounding it in those traditions and terms which define it historically.

This explains part of my last article, where I maintain that “Christianity” is likely much more of a threat to the United States (for example) than radical Islam. This is why: when four fifths of the dominant religion, while still couched as one thing, are openly acting to various degrees in opposition to that thing, we have a massive break from reality on the behalf of most Christians. It is no wonder that many Christians (probably even including the first group) generally support such reckless, irresponsible and reactionary politics and are the greatest threat for ushering in destructive policies and leaders.

Evangelizing “Evangelicals”
But moving away from the politics of it, consider that this means that a good portion of people whom bible-believing Christians will evangelize are people who already consider themselves Christian! No wonder such seeker-friendly methods such as relationship and friendship evangelism or the “four spiritual laws” are complete failures - they use terminology that most people think they already know and abide by (so they believe).

If I say to a member of the other four fifths:

Jesus loves you and died on the cross for your sin

then we might see the dissonance. Whereas I would mean:

Jesus loves you - in that you were deserving of hell because you are a sinful, wicked person who has broken God’s law and deserve god’s wrath and judgement. But Jesus showed his love by enduring your punishment for you so that you could be forgiven from your sins.

But he, believing he already is a Christian, might hear:

God (whoever he is, I guess Jesus is one way to view God) does indeed think I am swell and good. That story about him on the cross reminds me that I am loved and encourages me to live a good, self-sacrificing life.

This is our challenge and the great failure of the Church since it was first birthed.

Like a Man Who sees Himself in the Mirror…
The propensity of men to continually move farther and farther from some point in history, while still proclaiming that they really haven’t moved at all, is astounding. How many times is Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Paul or Jesus quoted to give legitimacy to some idea or doctrine that they would have never supported or approved? I am not talking a Simpson’s episode that is done openly in jest, I am talking about an idea within “the Church” that is sold as a legitimate extension of some traditional leader or scriptural doctrine. I would throw in here everything from egalitarianism on the liberal side to hyper-Calvinism on the conservative side.

I suspect this has come about with Christianity in the same way it has come about in politics - through a lack of independent, critical thinking and also blind devotion and trust of leadership. In the same way that George W. Bush or John McCain is eventually just accepted and amalgamated into conservative political ideology so too are men like Joel Osteen or Rick Warren embraced as bible-believing theologians. I am not saying these men aren’t saved, but I am saying that their books and teachings often try to lend the authority of God to extra-biblical or even unbiblical ideas.

Examples: Prophecy, Guidance
But that is really the problem. Take most of the first fifth’s view on prophecy. Many will say that the New Testament “gift” of prophecy is exactly the same as the kind of massive, authoritative pictures that Ezekiel got from God. An otherwise bible-believing Christian has no problem elevating a dream (possibly the product of last night’s fettuccine alfredo) to the same authority as a “thus saith the Lord” from the Old Testament prophets.

We see this same product with mysticism and divination in guidance - X worked out well, it must be God’s will. Or X didn’t work out, plus I had a feeling about it - therefore it must not be God’s will. With so many Christians, even with generally biblical theology, placing the authority of God to personal impressions or circumstances - it is no surprise that objective anchors such as the bible are given a lower and lower place. Nominally, of course, the bible will always take the highest place, but functionally, it will continue to lose influence.

The World is Up in Arms - But Not Really
Some might object to both these articles and say that I am over-exaggerating the problem as we aren’t seeing everything blowing up in Christianity or the society at large. But that is precisely my point - it would be healthy if people were up in arms over the kind of ideals, worldviews, policies and doctrines that are dominating the culture, but aside from the vocal minority, most people are content with the current streams of debate and discourse. So while there is plenty of argument in the Church - it is often more about something trivial like whether homosexuals should legally marry rather than whether perseverance of the saints is a acceptable teaching.

The Libertarian Paradox

Published by Constitutional Conservati July 28, 2008 in Religion. 32 Comments

Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:

… which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.

The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.

Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.

Obviously Libertarians disagree.

Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.

Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.

It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.

But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.

And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.

Motives, Actions, Results

COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.

Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).

Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.

Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.

This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)

Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).

Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
Continue reading ‘The Libertarian Paradox’

Praise and Worship: What it Isn’t and What it Is

Published by Chris A July 24, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 35 Comments

In a Word, Silly
Last Sunday while I am at my church that I love very much, I noticed myself singing one of those unscriptural “praise and worship” songs. Disappointed with myself for singing something to God that was – well, stupid – I decided to refrain my tongue from lyrical heresy and instead focused on what my relationship with God is really like.

For Christians not familiar with praise and worship is in the popular vernacular, it is basically what “contemporary” Christians sing instead of hymns. If and when contemporary believers sing the old hymns, the tempo is usually changed so that one barely recognizes it as the original song. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to either brand of music and really see value in both insomuch as they are scriptural in their approach and actually magnify God. It’s just that some of these new songs are downright corny. I can scarcely sing them without laughing, thinking to myself, “Am I actually going to sing this song to the Creator of the universe?” Here’s an excerpt from a popular one:

A grateful heart I give
A thankful prayer I pray
A wild dance I dance before You
A loud song I sing
A huge bell I ring…

A huge bell I ring? I can’t even type that without wanting to reduce myself to embarrassing hilarity! Look, I’m not against thankful prayer or even dancing wildly. Heck, I’m not even against ringing huge bells if that’s your thing. But if I’m going to sing a song to the Lord and mean it, I can’t honestly sing stuff like this. It just brings up too many images of The Gong Show or Sanford and Son with Redd Foxx calling someone “big dummy” or Aunt Esther calling him a “heathen” or a “fish-eyed fool.” Then it isn’t long before my mind wanders even further and I’m singing the Welcome Back Kotter them song again – definitely not conducive to worshipping God. And just so we’re clear I believe in rejoicing “with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8). I just see a major difference between the joy of the Lord, and the comedy that results from letting my quirky imagination run wild when I sing cheesy churchy songs. I mean you might expect kids to sing songs like this (maybe), but when we are singing the adult equivalent of If the devil doesn’t like it he can sit on a tack (ouch!), I think we really have to evaluate what we are singing to God here.

Some Basic Standards
I don’t presume to be the world’s foremost authority on praise and worship, but I think the following guidelines would help us.

Worship songs should be scriptural. Technically it is not even praise to sing about our relationship to God. But if we are going to sing that, it just makes sense that such songs should reflect ideas consistent with the Bible.
Worship songs should be more truth than emotion. The truth never changes, but feelings are fickle. We may not always relate to the emotion the songwriter may have experienced when he wrote the song, but we should all be able to relate to a number of things related to our salvation for which we can be thankful.
Worship songs should ideally seek to minister to God rather than simply minister about Him or our relationship with Him. I don’t mean to say that there is no place for singing about Him, but that should not be the greatest emphasis.
If a song is going to sing about God or our relationship with Him rather than directly to Him, it should not minister condemnation. Condemning songs are NOT praise or worship! God is not impressed, and in fact is rather insulted, by songs that tell us how worthless we are. People who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ cannot be worthless. God never made a worthless new creation.
Praise and worship is not entertainment. Dance teams, streamers, and the like should probably be voluntarily retired. Dance as a way to praise is not unbiblical, but when it is choreographed as a means of entertainment it isn’t praise. If this kind of action demands your attention as a spectator, it isn’t praise.

Biblical Praise and Worship
Aside from what is commonly known as “praise and worship” there is a such praise and worship from a biblical point of view. What is praise? Here is a basic dictionary definition: the offering of grateful homage in words or song, as an act of worship. Beyond this basic agreed upon meaning, Hebrews 13:15 gives us a good description.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

We could paraphrase this by saying praise is verbal thanksgiving to God done through Christ. However, I think we could even extend the definition of praise to include other instruments besides the human voice. Psalm 150:1-5 expands the definition for us.

1 Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,

4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,

5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

Praise as a Lifestyle
I think to most Christians, praise is something done in church on Sunday morning. Certainly corporate praise is biblical, but God never intended that praise should be limited to a weekly exercise. Let’s examine Hebrews 13:5 again.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

Notice the word continually. Praise to God should be continual. How can one do that? The answer is in the opening phrase of this verse: Therefore by Him… Many of us have conditioned ourselves to think of this sacrifice as something hard to do continually. Why? Because we have failed to realize that we do it by the power of Christ and not sheer human will. I think a little more meddling will help to illustrate this fact. Let’s look at more of the lyrics to the song I quoted earlier.

But I will not forget you
You are my god, my king
With a thankful heart I bring my offering

(Okay so far, but watch out because here it comes)

And my sacrifices are not what you can give
But what I alone can give to you…

I don’t think most people realize it, but believing and singing this will absolutely cripple a person. The “I alone” phrase is particularly troubling to me. You may think that I am being too critical here, but I have to ask - why the emphasis on independence here? Someone may ask, “But aren’t we supposed to offer ourselves as a sacrifice to God?” Yes, but even this we do not do apart from the awareness of God’s mercy. Consider Romans 12:1:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritualact of worship.

Rather than saying “in view of God’s mercy” the King James and New King James versions render it, “by the mercies of God.” So for us to say that we are offering a sacrifice to God in and of ourselves is just false. It is only because of His grace and mercy that we have been reconciled in the first place. Our approach to God in all respects is based on this principle. Have we who begun in the Spirit perfected by the flesh? I think not.

The Personal Effects of Real Praise
Praising God should affect us in a number of positive ways. Not only should our praise bless God, but it should also bless us. The word magnify is often used in the Bible in connection with praising God. Of course this word means to cause to seem greater or more important. So when we are magnifying the Lord we are enlarging our capacity to see God as greater than any adverse circumstances we may encounter, and generally brings us into a greater consciousness of God’s presence.

Many people run into a problem and immediately begin to magnify the problem; it becomes the sole object of their attention to the extent that it robs them of the one sent to indwell them and counsel them on the matter. Although He hasn’t left them or forsaken them, they feel as though He has because they have actually robbed themselves of God consciousness by focusing on “the wind and the waves”. Paul and Silas had a perfect opportunity to do this in Acts 5 when they were beaten and thrown into prison, but instead they took a different approach.

But about midnightPaul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16:25).

Paul and Silas knew that things never can get so bad that you cannot praise God. In fact, the worse things get, the more we should praise him. We’re not praising him because of our trouble but in spite of it. Paul knew very well the power of praise, instructing the Ephesians to cultivate a lifestyle of thanksgiving while conveying to them how to maintain consciousness of the Holy Spirit.

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:18-20).

Where Do We Go From Here
First of all, we should acknowledge that many people are ignorant about praise. You may fit into that category. I know I once did, and still don’t claim to know everything about it. People only know what they’ve learned, and someone probably (ignorantly) taught them that singing unbelieving songs was somehow praise. I feel that many songs are being sung from a pre-Christ perspective, not a righteous perspective. This is the result of not knowing one’s identity in Christ. Personally, I refuse to sing songs like this – not because I’m being rebellious or defiant – but because I understand that the purpose of singing songs is to praise God. If it isn’t accomplishing that, then what good is it? However, it doesn’t help the situation to try and make the worship leader appear to be wrong or to criticize him personally.

The best thing Christians can do is to begin to cultivate a life of praise themselves. Begin your day by saying, “I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth” (Psalm 34:1). In this way, they will never be unfulfilled by any songs your church sings that are weak, and you’ll never have to rely on your worship leader to uplift you by selecting the right songs.

I’ll be honest, there are some “worship” songs that I absolutely detest, but I’m not upset at people for singing them. Nor will it affect my fellowship with God one way or the other. I think it is perfectly right to judge songs that exalt human experience and feelings above the knowledge of God; we just shouldn’t judge people, especially when their actions result from legitimate ignorance. If you have knowledge they don’t have, that just makes you more responsible to act on what you know; it certainly doesn’t make us better than others who do not know.

You can try to educate fellow believers about what worship actually is, but without the proper approach this could blow up in your face. People can be very sensitive about these things, and if you come off as judgemental it could really do damage to your relationships. And it probably isn’t worth that. Forums such as these are non-confrontational and can function as a teaching tool or as a place for civil (well, most of the time) discussion and debate, but people participate voluntarily. People can read it or not read it. And even if someone strongly disagrees, we will probably never meet face-to-face.

Why I am not a Democrat

Published by Kenneth Martens July 16, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:

My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
Why I am not a Libertarian Party member

Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.

In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:

There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):

Foreign Policy

Social Policy

Fiscal Policy

Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).

Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.

Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.

Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

[Democrats.org]

Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.

Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.

Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.

To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.

Wisdom Applied, Circumstances Denied

Published by Colin February 14, 2008 in Religion. 8 Comments

Author’s note: The following is from a study I taught last weekend on Godly wisdom. As I go through the book “Decision Making and the Will of God” (reviewed here), I find that the basic view of the book has much wider applications than merely those which the author intended. In this study, I took Dr. Garry Friesen’s ideas one step further, and considered the erroneous Biblical roots of determining “individual will” via circumstances.

Wisdom is the summation of all the characteristics of a man of God. A wise man is going to be dependent on God in prayer, he is going to study the Bible diligently, he will have faith, he will have integrity and he will be a man devoted to Godly love.

A wise man fears the Lord so much that he looks to God and his word for all things pertaining to the Christian existence:

Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom,
And to depart from evil is understanding. (Job 28:28)

It is up to us, however, to search for wisdom in the truth of God’s Word, not by trying to subjectively read our emotions and auger our circumstances.

Biblical Wisdom Applied Correctly
There are many places where wisdom was applied correctly, and circumstances (even supernatural ones) were ignored in favor of it. One impressive example is when Paul and Silas had been imprisoned in Acts 16:25-30:

But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.”
Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

The man and his entire household went on to be saved because Paul used wisdom. How? This is merely surmising, but consider that Paul and Silas were very likely praying that they would be able to escape or leave the prison - that is definitely what I would be praying for. However, when God responded miraculously, Paul waited in the jail and rejected an “open door” because it was wise to prevent the guard from killing himself. In all honesty, he could have left the jail, which was clearly an option. But his wise decision was rewarded with a new convert!

We know this today, and Paul knew it then, that we are called to preach the gospel. We are to value it more than our freedom – so it’s an easy choice between an open jail cell and a person in distress (I know I would have bolted out of the prison, but that is another story). Paul was obviously prepared in wisdom and so he did not have to rely on “reading” his circumstances to make his choice. The truth of the word was hidden is his heart, as it says in Psalm 119:11.

This is the essence of Biblical Wisdom: being prepared in the word.

The Opposite of Biblical Wisdom: Divination
In a broad sense, I would call wisdom’s opposite “mysticism” – a philosophy which rejects free-will, reason and absolute truth and instead relies on fatalism, human experience and subjectivism. The closest thing Biblically is the practice of divination - the attempt to use common objects or signs to auger supernatural direction. We see God’s thoughts on the practice several places, but Ezekiel 13:1-3, 6-7 is one particularly strong passage:

And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy out of their own heart, ‘Hear the word of the LORD!’”
Thus says the Lord GOD: “Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!
…They have envisioned futility and false divination, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD!’ But the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope that the word may be confirmed. Have you not seen a futile vision, and have you not spoken false divination? You say, ‘The LORD says,’ but I have not spoken.”

It is important to see here that these diviners were doing so under the pretense of being God’s people. However, they were not being deliberately deceptive, but ignorantly foolish. These prophets were misguided, having reduced God’s wisdom to vain mysticism.

Wisdom Applied Incorrectly
Because the Bible is honest, we have many examples of man’s ignorance in action. Let’s look at a somewhat controversial one in Acts 1:23-26, where the remaining apostles are trying to determine how to fill Judas’ place:

And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The Apostles chose to cast lots to determine next apostle rather than apply wisdom. They were impatient and impulsive, which led them to use mystic methods to make a choice rather than rely on wisdom.

For example, they knew that God promised them the Holy Spirit - Jesus just told them this in their recent memory. They knew that God keeps his promises. Yet they chose, in the moment when it came time to apply wisdom, to instead “read the signs” of divination, and ignored what Jesus had just spoken about the coming of the Holy Spirit. They wouldn’t have had to wait long, as Pentacost was just around the corner.

Anyone who has heard a modern sermon on idolatry knows that idolatry does not require stone statues to exist in today’s society. But do we also realize that lot casting is also a popular method in today’s church for determining wisdom? Just as it was incorrect then, it is incorrect now. Casting lots is, in essence, trying to divine God’s will by circumstances.

For example, in looking for a new job, relying on criteria such as “if this job calls me first, then I’ll know it’s right” or “if the interviewer is wearing a white shirt, God wants me here.” This is modern divination, using time in the first example and a man’s shirt in the second to determine God’s will.

But divination appeals to us because it allows us to cede what God has given us along with free-will – responsibility. Its the same method that legalism employs, where the believer can be immune to critical thinking by following prescribed rules and laws. For the diviner, he can avoid responsibility (and consequences) by claiming that the stars weren’t aligned, the energy was bad, or (the Christian favorite) it wasn’t God’s will.

But we can know God’s will – it is clearly written in the bible. There is nothing magic or mystic about it. God is a God of order, not confusion! Thus, God, in his wisdom, gave us everything that is pertinent for us to know about who He is and how to obey him – in the bible.

Solving Interpersonal Conflicts Biblically

Published by Colin January 17, 2008 in Religion. 28 Comments

I wanted to take a break from my normal ultra-political writing to focus on an area that is tremendously important to my faith. As a Christian, I am thrust into a body of believers, all of whom I will be spending an eternity with in heaven. I hope God has got a plan for making everyone get along when we’re up there, because down here it seems that Christians are at each other’s throats just as much as anyone else.

As I see conflict in my church, and hear of it in other places through anecdote, I have noticed what appears to be a basic divergence from scriptural teaching on dealing with the inevitable personality clash. Often, it seems the most minor disagreement or misunderstanding has a propensity to balloon into a bigger issue - and soon people are no longer speaking, leaving churches or having emotionally charged confrontations. While not all of this can be avoided, I think there are some clear principles in scripture that help us to handle one another.

Jesus Speaks on the Issue
In two separate places, Jesus himself dealt with the issue of interpersonal conflict. Here is Matthew’s account:

…if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:15-17).

And also in the sermon on the mount:

Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:23-26).

Clearly, the bible declares that we should confront these issues head on, even forsaking spiritual things for a moment to “be reconciled.” A church full of smiling people, singing together and worshiping - who also happen to be in unresolved conflicts, or at enmity with each other is a major problem if we take these verses at face value.

Authority is Last, Not First
However, I think much of the conflicts within the church, especially in mainline American churches, are less about enmity and more about communication breakdowns (not heeding the primary advice in the passage to “go and tell him his fault”).

As far as I know, I have had very few conflicts in my own church of ten years. But it is alarming that when I have been informed of a word in error, or an insensitive action, it has been from authority first, and rarely ever from the person whom I have faulted. It seems that Christians have bought into the “tattle-tale” victim-based society in which we live. For example, when Billy calls Jamie a name, Jamie runs screaming to the teacher. In my wife’s classroom, she won’t even listen to Jamie until she goes to Billy and attempts to resolve the conflict with him herself. This is successful often, and so Christians are made to look more immature than first-graders.

How to Handle Confrontation
Scripture gives clear guidance on how to deal with confrontations as well.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another (Galatians 5:22-25).

This famous passage of scripture is a pragmatic guide to dealing with other people in the body. First of all, we are to take a moment (my recommendation) and consider that we are to be kind in confrontation, and exercising self-control. This is critical if we are to accurately communicate our case to the believer without being inflammatory or offensive ourselves.

This is easier to do if we remember some basic things that are true of many conflicts:

Christians are on the same team. Many conflicts arise because of a disagreement on how to arrive at a shared goal. It is critical to acknowledge that the other person still shares Christ in common and isn’t trying to undermine our whole world. It is often helpful before a confrontation, to work down from broad things of agreement so as to reveal the detail that is in conflict.
Presumption of innocence. Most people don’t deliberately like to go around offending or hurting people. In most conflicts I have observed, one party is either ignorant or unaware that they have even done anything. Rather than retreat into self-imposed victimhood (”they should know what they did”), we have to assume that the other party really did not want to cause such distress.
Pray for them. This is not to be confused with fake “prayer requests” to others, which are gossip-based. This is individual prayer, to God, praying for the other party in general. Prayer for their marriage, or job or whatever. This helps acknowledge the first two principles.
Forgive. Forgiveness is not conditional. We are not to hold grudges until someone apologizes or pays us back or whatever. We are to forgive without question, because we were forgiven in the same way.

Doing these things before addressing a conflict are helpful ways to dispel the discomfort of confrontation. In fact, if successful in practicing these things, a confrontation is no longer a battle of enemies, but an opportunity to resolve an error in communication between to allies.

How to Perpetuate and Augment a Conflict
Even if none of the above seem correct or accurate, or another way seems better, there are basic things that are almost always going to make a conflict much worse. Again, I have seen all of these destructive things in practice in both church and non-church environments. I have placed them into two categories, as usually people prefer one style of conflict augmenters over others.

Subtle Augments

gossip and “prayer requests” that are really gossip
attempting to bury or ignore hostile feelings
passive aggressiveness
authority first

Continue reading ‘Solving Interpersonal Conflicts Biblically’

Christian: Bearing Christ’s Name?

Published by Thainamu November 16, 2007 in General. 12 Comments

Although it has served me well in the past, I’m starting to hate the word Christian. I’m enough of a linguist to know that language changes over time–words change their meanings, vocabulary becomes outdated, and even grammar structures change. I think that is what has happened with the word Christian.

A string of sounds–what we call a word–is just an arbitrary string of sounds until a community agrees on what the meaning of those particular sounds is. When someone says the word house, we all have an idea in our heads of what that means. Interestingly, we don’t all have exactly the same idea. In fact, we might have quite different ideas, but we can communicate something meaningful between us because my idea of the meaning of house overlaps enough with your meaning of the word. We agree on a basic core of meaning, even if the outer edges of meaning are different for me than they are for you.

The same is true for the word Christian. There is a basic core of meaning something like ‘having to do with Christ or the religion he started’ that almost all people can agree on. But when it comes to the rest of the meaning of the word, that’s a different story!

A quick lesson on the history and etymology of the word. First there was a Hebrew word moshiach (מָשִׁיחַ) which meant ‘anointed one, usually a priest or king’. Moshiach is translated into Greek as christos (Χριστος). (Jesus claimed to be the anointed one, so that’s where we get Jesus Christ.) Then the Latin suffix -ianos was added to mean ‘related to, belong to’ which turns the noun into an adjective (which itself can be used as a noun). BTW, we do this all the time with other words, eg., Canada –> Canadian.

The first meaning of the word Christian was to refer to Jesus’ specific followers who lived in Antioch (Acts 11:26). A lot has changed since then. Now we have meanings that range on the one hand from ‘kind‘, all the way to the meaning ‘Western‘. We have people who say you are a Christian if your parents were Christian or if you try to treat people fairly. Many people think American equals Christian. Then we have a really nice definition that tells us you’re a Christian if you say you are. Can’t go wrong there, huh?

So what’s the problem? The problem is I want to call myself a Christian, but I don’t want a Muslim to think I espouse everything in Western culture; I don’t want a politician to think I’m part of a certain voting block; I don’t want the man on one street to just think I’m just a nice guy and the man on the next street to think I’m a wacko. I don’t want the person I’m sitting next to in church think that he’s a Christian just because he’s sitting there with me. I don’t want my children to think they’re Christians just because I am.

I’m beginning to wonder if we should consider some of the other terms used in scripture to call ourselves: followers of the way, disciples, brethren, the faithful, elect, saints, believers.

Or maybe Christ follower would work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYdD-Qc7lbY

Christ follower

The Apostle Peter might have been thinking about the meaning of Christian too when he wrote this (1 Peter 4:16):

However, if you suffer because you are a Christian, don’t be ashamed of it, but thank God that you bear Christ’s name.

I voted.

Published by Thainamu June 14, 2007 in Religion and Politics. 13 Comments

Two days ago I voted (early) in the Dallas mayoral run-off election. I didn’t really know that much about either candidate. I had heard their positive ads about themselves, their negative ads about the other guy, and a bit of commentary about them both. I visited both of their websites to see what they had to say about themselves. Not being that much into politics, I didn’t see anything special to make me vote for either of them. I never did hear what party they belong to.

However, I ended up voting for the straight man, and conversely, against the gay man. Yes, (gasp!) I voted based on their sexual preference.

Why did I do that? I do not see myself as a card-carrying member of the right-wing moral majority who strives to “take our country back to a land of Christian values.” But, in reality, I do end up voting like them most of the time. My vote is not so much to legislate morality as it is to make a statement about what I wish the world were like.

For example: I wish there were no abortions. Therefore, I vote against anything that legalizes or encourages abortion and I vote for anything that speaks against or discourages abortion. Do I think that will end abortions? No, unfortunately. Do I think if abortions are illegal then we will have a Christian nation? No, not at all. Laws do not change what is in people’s hearts and often don’t even change how people act. Nevertheless, the principle still stands: I want to live in a world without abortions, so I vote that way.

I struggle with knowing what role to take in my country’s affairs. After thinking about it quite a bit, I’ve realized that the dissonance I experience is because the fact that I’m a Christian is much more important to me than the fact that I’m an American. Physically I am at home as an American citizen, but spiritually I am displaced as an alien—I don’t belong here, and the affairs of my (or any) human government are really only incidental to my life. My allegiance is to a higher potentate, and in many, many ways, it really doesn’t matter what laws are passed or who is elected. True, certain laws may make my life richer (or not) or happier (or not), but I view all of that as pretty much irrelevant, because I don’t really belong here.

Back to the Dallas mayoral election. When I apply my principles to the election, it comes out this way: I do not want to live in a world where homosexuality is considered normal and on the same par as heterosexuality, so I voted against the man who is endorsed by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. However, if this guy wins the election, Dallas will not be any less Christian than if he didn’t, I know that. But I will have voted in concert with my own political principle: I’d simply rather live in a place that did not affirm homosexuality as just another possible lifestyle.

Zeal For Truth