Kirk Cameron and the Gospel of Christ

I was flipping through the channels last night, between watching my new show “Heroes” and Monday Night Football, and I caught a glimpse of an old sitcom my family watched when I was in school called “Growing Pains”. I watched it for a few minutes, and the thing I have discovered about most sitcoms you formerly watched is that when you watch them now they don’t ever seem as funny as they did then. Regardless, I was more interested this night, because this past weekend I went to a conference called “Transformed”, which is put on by a group called Way of the Master . The Way of the Master is actually a religious television show that is featured on TBN, and stars Kirk Cameron, who played Mike Seaver on “Growing Pains”, and an Australian evangelist named Ray Comfort.

The show has become very popular in Christianity, and has elicited such awards as the People’s Choice Award for Best Religious Show, as well as other notoriety. The show’s emphasis is on evangelism, and they routinely go up to strangers on the street and interview them about their perspective of going to heaven, as well as their notion of their own goodness. One of their foundational methods is to use the Ten Commandments to get people to the place of seeing their own guilt before God. Once they are ready to accept their own guilt before God, then they present the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. There seems to be some merit to what they are recommending, but I caution against a one-size-fits-all approach to evangelism. To their credit, however, throughout the conference, they pointed out that their method is not to give people a rote script to follow or to memorize, but to place principles in the hands of believers, while at the same time encouraging them to ultimately depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct them as they talk to people about Christ.

Overall, I think the show is very sound in its theology, and I benefited greatly from the conference. It is also very encouraging to see how God has radically transformed the life of one of TV’s former celebrities, Kirk Cameron, as he held his bible, expounded scripture, talked very clearly about giving the gospel, and even boldly witnessed to thugs in the ghetto of New York.

A Journal of Anger

Last week, my family and I went on Thanksgiving vacation at Sea World. We shared a house with my friend Sam Crum and his family, and had a wonderful time. The trip did have one hiccup, though. On the second night we were there, we were playing a game of Monopoly (the perennial game that is so similar to real life that it causes people to lash out at one another as if it were real money they were losing). I won’t bore you with all of the details of what transpired, because I don’t want to bore you (or because I am too embarrassed maybe), but let’s just say that I took the game way more serious than I should have. Not only was it stupid for us to have a conflict over this, but it perpetuated into the next day. Thankfully, we did work things out, rationally concluding that our marriage was more valuable than Monopoly, and we went on to make some great memories (as well as other things).

This past Sunday, the Lord reminded me of some valuable truths with regards to sinful anger and pride, as I listened to our lesson during the bible study time on “The Stress of Anger.” My friend Mark did a fine job leading us into a Scripture-based but very penetrating talk on dealing with anger. I felt like God was reminding me of how stupid and sinful I have been through demonstrating my sinful anger towards people. I also felt God revealing to me the massive pride that I have, and how wicked I have been in trying to metaphorically murder people with my words, thoughts, and actions.

After our bible study time, I went to the worship service, only to hear our worship leader deliver a message about spiritual blindness in all of us that keeps us from seeing Christ. The Holy Spirit spoke to my heart about how blind I am to my own pride, because I rationalize things away, and defend myself to the death, when it is really my own usefulness to God I am killing. On the way home from church, I apologized to my wife for being a stubborn jackass so often, and asked her to forgive me.

This morning, I went to the doctor for the fourth time in three weeks to get treatment for something that is known as iritis, which is an extreme inflammation of my iris. As I struggled to read any of the reading chart with my left eye, I thought of the blind people in our church, and I thought of how I frequently take the goodness of God for granted. I then thought back to the messages that God had spoken very clearly to me on Sunday, and how he has been so merciful to me in sparing my life and giving me good health.

This afternoon, I called the owner of the company who put the flat roof on our church a few weeks ago, to ask him about an insulation estimate. I casually asked him how things were going, and he told me that he was dying with arterial sclerosis, and could go any day. Immediately, everything I had complained about or fretted over during the past week grew very pale in comparison to what he was experiencing. I asked him if he was ready to die, as I myself wondered if I was. I thought of how sinful I have been in my anger and rage and bitterness and malice, to the point of losing all effectiveness and respect. I thought of how foolish it was for Michael Vick to extend his middle finger to thousands of Atlanta Falcon fans in that game against New Orleans, thereby revealing the depth of his frustration, but also exposing the depth of his depravity. I thought of Mel Gibson ranting and raving in a drunken stupor over the Jews. I thought of Bobby Knight throwing chairs and slapping players on the sidelines of a basketball game. And I thought of myself getting upset over not having enough fake money and fake property during a Monopoly game with which to escape my hopeless life.

How many times have we bowed to the moment of temptation, and given up valuable time, territory, and joy for the “principle of the matter”, when in the end it really didn’t matter. What if all the conflicts and arguments and tirades were wiped clean of our lives forever, and we could love one another unimpeded by human pride and selfish anger? Thankfully, the blood of Christ does wipe us clean from our anger and pride and wickedness. We, as believers still struggle with sin (like anger), but we have the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome it, and one day we will be at home with righteousness, and sin will be no more, because we will be just like Jesus in perfect joy and perfect love. As I reflect upon my question to the man dying of arterial sclerosis, I also reflect on the opposite question, which would be “am I ready to live?” God has renewed his mercy to all of us today. Therefore, how then shall we live? Angry at people we are supposed to love, or satisfied in Christ so completely that we do not have to die for our pride?

To the Darwinian, I Became a Darwinian?

There is an article that came out a couple of weeks ago from Time Magazine, called “God vs. Science” (you can access it at Time.com). This article features a debate involving Richard Dawkins, probably the most well-known scientist-atheist in the world, who recently came out with a New York Times best seller called The God Delusion. It also includes Frances Collins, the director of the National Genome Research Institute since 1993, who is a theistic evolutionist, who has been praised by President Clinton for his monumental work in genetics. To his credit, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who unfortunately talks down to his opponents, as if there is no intelligent person out there who believes in both God and science. Collins is an able defender of the Christian faith, who is a former atheist who was converted at the age of 27, and is no stranger to the naturalistic claims of many scientists. Collins does a good job of engaging Dawkins on the basis of philosophy, design, and moral presence within humanity.

What is also interesting is the fact that the New York Times ran a poll back in April of this year, asking people if they found fossil evidence of evolution more credible or the creation story as told in the Bible? The results were 56% in favor of fossil evidence, and 44% in favor of the creation story as told in the bible. The poll, to me, is not surprising, because it is worded in such a way as to reveal that there are a lot of people who accept evolution as fact, and yet believe that God originally created our universe.

The issue that needs to be discussed among Christians is how we reach people in this highly secular world who wholeheartedly buy into the claims of science, and yet are still interested in spiritual things. The Barna Research Institute has actually discovered that people are more spiritual now than they have ever been. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are interested in the God of Christianity, but it does mean that they are searching for answers. One of the telling things about this debate is the fact that Dawkins, as well as many other Darwinians who reject God, fails to deliver in the realm of our everyday existence. While science should be pursued and can answer many questions about the how, only faith deals with the why. That is not to say that faith is blinded by wishful thinking or empty headed assumptions. Faith that is strong is built on reason and revelation (as Collins points out). The cold logic of Dawkins, again, makes sense from a non-God perspective, but is not complete in terms of answering bigger questions that every human wants to know. Here are some observations from the debate that I think are worth considering:

1. Science is incomplete (not futile) in answering the question of whether God exists.
This is not to say that studying science can not tell us anything about God, because that would contradict the Scriptures, which tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the sky shows us his handiwork.” That certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be a scientist in order to discern the splendor of the constellations, any more than you have to be an architect in order to discern the grandeur of the Eiffel Tower. What it does mean is that the basic scientific tool of observation reveals to us the beauty of God. Nevertheless, science is not the final frontier, in terms of discovering who God is. On the contrary, it is actually the beginning point on the journey for many people. The Scriptures also tell us that “what may be known about God is plain to them (those who suppress the truth about God), because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In summary, nature reveals to us a Creator. It can’t reveal to us the message of that Creator; only a special revelation from him to us, but if we don’t accept that truth, we can’t go on in the journey of faith to find out who he is and what he desires.

2. Evolution is considered “scientific” on the same grounds that God is considered unscientific.
Evolution is accepted, because it (as science) can be observed. The only problem is that evolution has never been observed. There are evidences of it that give us insight into its existence, but there is no hard, fast trace that we can currently look at in a laboratory. On the other hand, God’s existence is denied on the basis of not having been observed, either. Nevertheless, in the same way that the traces of evolution have been researched, the traces of God have also been discerned, such as design, nature, and moral presence.

3. The likelihood of God existing is greater than the likelihood that he didn’t.
One of Collins’ best sellers, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief, cites the fact that there are six universal characteristics, or constants, of our universe, and if they were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. Dawkins argues the counter point that this universe is one of a zillion other universes, and that most of these will not have the right conditions for life, but as the number rises, the probability increases that one of them will contain the right recipe. This actually is very faith-filled for Dawkins to purport, since there are no known, observable, other universes. It seems more likely, as Collins argues, that there was someone planning the infinitesimally exact components to coincide for life to exist.

4. The acceptance of biblical miracles does not betray science, but only gives credence to a real creator.
Miracles are that which defy the normal laws of nature. It is not implausible to believe that if there is a creator, then that same creator is able to invade our world, and transcend the very rules he established. His doing that would be, interestingly enough, more plausible if he wanted to demonstrate his love and power to us by interacting with us through Jesus Christ by his incarnation, death, and resurrection.

5. Human beings acting out moral laws within this world is a good indicator of a Creator who put that in us.
This evidence is seen in those who do not have any knowledge of God’s revelation, acting on the law of their conscience. Speaking of the non-Jewish nations (or Gentiles), the Scriptures tell us that those “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them).” How is it that people will sacrifice their DNA existence within the gene pool for those outside of the gene pool if we are only trying to survive and look out for number one (C.S. Lewis talks about this power in his masterpiece Mere Christianity)? I think this is more plausible than Dawkins’ thought that we (now in a much bigger world) are merely acting out our ancestors’ drive to help those within their own gene pool, so that we can survive.

6. Whatever our Christian position of how creation came about, our main goal should be to demonstrate the fact of creation.
There is a big controversy that has been going on for quite a few years within Christian circles about whether the creation came about literally in six days, or whether it came about over the course of eons and eons by evolution. The fact is God created the heavens and the earth, and humanity, and all that is. We must respect the findings of science, but we must also seek to communicate the gospel of God. That is not done by narrowly repudiating everything that comes from science, but by seeking to find common ground between that and our faith, and seeking to become Christ (not a Darwinist) to all those we seek to reach.

Borrowing Some Thoughts On Clothes In Church

This is a blog from Mark Driscoll's blog site (TheResurgence.com), called "Dear Abby, Can I Wear My Swim Trunks To Church?" He asks some very good questions about a common debate among many evangelicals. I could try to blog about it, but he says it so much better than I, so here you have it...

A while back "Dear Abby" was asked a missional theology question. A debate ensued when one of her readers asked if people should be expected to dress up for church. The responses were all over the map:

A priest who likely wears a dress/robe curiously said, "I'm appalled at how some people come dressed for Sunday worship. . . . What has become relaxed is the attitude, the respect and reverence people have for worship and church buildings. . . the lack of respect and reverence to worship is disgusting. These same people would never allow their children to play in a sporting event out of uniform, or apply for a job interview themselves dressed inappropriately. Sunday worship should be no different!"

Diana from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wrote in, "More important than what people are wearing is the reason for being in church in the first place. Maybe it would be better if we could all enter God's house blind. If we can't see what people are wearing, we can leave our judgments and prejudices outside and use the time to learn more about God's purpose for our lives."

A cowboy from Iowa wrote in, possibly with a crayon, "That we worship is more important than what we wear. That letter reminded me of the story of the old cowboy who visited a new church in his jeans and boots. After the service, the pastor greeted him and remarked, 'We enjoyed having you here today, but before you return, you should have a talk with God about proper attire in church.' The next week, the cowboy returned wearing the same clothes, so the pastor approached him again. 'I thought I told you to speak with God about what to wear when you came here,' he said. The cowboy responded, 'I did. But he said he didn't know because he'd never set foot in here!'"

Barbara from Pennsylvania wrote, My pastor says no one would consider dressing casually if they were going to be in the presence of our president or any other dignitary. Why would we consider anything less for our Lord? Makes perfect sense to me."

And Matthew in Peoria wrote, "Church is where you go to give praise to the Lord, not check out what others are wearing. If 'Dismayed' feels put out because someone isn't dressed the way she'd like, then maybe the services should be held at Macy's so she can feel more comfortable."

The entire exchange raises an interesting series of questions, such as:
If God is our Father and the church is our family, should we view going to church services as a formal event or a family event?
If we are to welcome the poor and socially outcast, does a dress code essentially push such people away from church?
If people become overly worried about their appearance instead of their heart, are they like the Pharisees that Jesus chastised for only washing the outside of the proverbial cup?
Is the church building somehow a magical sacred space like the Old Testament Temple? Or is it simply a place where God's people gather that is no more and no less sacred than the homes they live in, now that the Spirit has been released from the Holy of Holies into the whole earth?
Do we think that Jesus the homeless guy who was born in a barn was dressed up when He held church outdoors?
Why should we press for formal dress in church when one of the only passages in the New Testament that speaks about what to wear to church rebukes women for dressing up to the degree that they turned church into a fashion show (1 Timothy 2:9–10)?
When Jesus says that people judge the outward but God is looking at the heart, does that mean that as long as women don’t show up in clear heels looking like they need an aluminum pole to dance around, appearance is really a secondary matter?
Since we are supposed to be hospitable and welcome people to church as missionaries, does it not make sense to dress like "normal" people rather than make normal people dress up like "church" people?

At our church I usually preach in a button-up shirt, jeans, and boots. A number of our worship bands, especially the indie rock ones at the evening services, play in t-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops. This is something I've been thinking through since I will be preaching a twelve-week series on questions about Jesus this fall. For the series, I am planning on wearing some funny Jesus t-shirts to show how much of a pop-culture icon Jesus is. They say things like:
Jesus is watching you smoke that weed!
Jesus is watching you download porn!
Jesus is my homeboy
Buddy Christ (from Dogma)
Jesus vs. Satan (from South Park)
WWJD for a Klondike Bar
I heart Jesus and french fries

"Dear Abby" hit one of the more debated missional theology issues in our day that is related to many other issues, such as how we view God (e.g., daddy, boss, or president), church buildings (e.g., God’s special house or just another room), what constitutes a church (e.g., a formal building or a people who love Jesus), and the feel of a church service (e.g., formal meeting or family reunion).

Christ: Still the Answer in a Post-Modern Era

We live in a post-modern world today. What that means is that for most people truth is something that is not as easily found. It is not that post-moderns deny the existence of truth, but rather the certainty of knowing what that truth is. Post-moderns have, of course, been around for a long time. The classic example is seen in Pilate, the Roman governor who reluctantly gave the order for Jesus to be crucified, when he asked, “What is truth?” The post-modern world has been asking that question ever since. Our recent world, however, has been largely modern since the dawn of the Enlightenment Period, or the Age of Reason. During this time, men said that everything in this world could be understood by sheer reason and logic. In fact, God was not needed, because reason became their God. This modern worldview has continued throughout most of the 20th century, and I would also suggest that many people living in rural areas as well as most aged forty and up still hold to this type of thinking. This period has had tremendous impact on the church and, therefore, the church has seen everything through the lens of black and white. In subjecting the world to reason, we have sought to explain everything and have pushed out any concept of mystery.

Postmodern thinking, on the contrary, began to emerge in the 1960’s but most predominately in the 1980’s. It began with the “hippy” counter-culture of anti-establishment and anti-authority. The post-moderns have questioned everything, searching for truth, but rejecting the certainty of their own perspectives of truth.
Examples of Postmodern thinking include: (this information is taken from an article entitled “Connecting Churches with Today’s Modern and Postmodern Cultures”)

• The possibility of multiple gods. There is more to the universe than we can perceive. Religion, science, and philosophy are abstracts that are difficult (if not impossible) to grasp.
• Scientific knowledge can be used for good or evil. Scientific advances often can be used to improve or destroy life- consider atomic energy, genetics, or information technology, for example.
• Morality is relative. There are many standards for morality, and my moral base is personal, therefore is not yours to judge.
• Humanity has failed to solve social and political problems. Optimism has been replaced by pessimism for the future of mankind.

One response to this way of thinking is to consider the words of Christ from the gospel of John, chapter ten. From this passage, we are able to learn elements in dealing with a post-modern culture: (1) Christ is still the answer for today’s culture, and (2) Our method of sharing Christ must consider the reality of post-moderns.

Jesus is Still the Source of Truth
In verse one of this chapter, Jesus says: “I tell you the truth…” Jesus begins this part of his talk with the religious leaders by asserting that what he will say is the truth. This assertion assumes two things: (1) Truth exists and (2) Truth can be known.

Jesus Connects the Truth with His Culture
Jesus did this by using images and illustrations that people could relate to (such as sheep jargon to his agricultural audience). Jesus often spoke in object lessons and stories. Why? Because it is an effective teaching method that relates with people. The good news is that the Bible is God’s story of redeeming His people. Our approach to sharing the gospel must include the reality of our own experiences. Today, the post-modern person relates to real life stories, because although they may deny our absolute presentation of truth; they cannot deny our experiences. We must present our faith as a journey, not a final destination. In other words, we must not arrogantly maintain that we have all the answers, but that through Christ we can hope to put some of the other puzzle pieces together.

Jesus also used the language of the day. Although they did not understand the meaning behind what he was saying; they did understand the language itself. If I drove to work this morning and a flock of sheep was crossing the road here in Grant Park, and there were shepherds walking with them, along with clods of “stuff” they had left in their path (not the shepherds, but the sheep), I might think, “wow, Grant Park is really moving in the right direction.” The point is that it wouldn’t happen, because grazing sheep is not part of our culture today, but it was common to the culture in which Jesus spoke. We must, therefore, use the language of our post-modern culture, and try not to maintain the traditionalism of our Christian vernacular, for the sake of comfort or convenience.

Jesus Presents Himself as the Only Entrance to a Relationship with God
Not only do we live in a post-modern age, but we also live in a pluralistic age, where many believe that there are a lot of ways to God. Jesus clearly states that he is the gate to becoming part of his people. Although, we want to seek continually a way to communicate this truth as less offensive as possible, this truth will undoubtedly always offend some, because the gospel is unapologetically exclusive. We must never use this as an excuse, however, to be offensive in and of ourselves, or to be mentally lazy in our methods to communicate the gospel.


Jesus’ Life now is the Key to Communicating with the Post-Modern
Jesus uses the word “saved” here, which means “deliverance, salvation, or rescue.” It is no surprise that the Jews often looked at this in terms of political salvation, because they were under the rule of the Roman Empire. Our modern era has seen this in terms of heaven and hell, and has trumpeted the gospel in cold, catch phrases like, “If you were to die today, where would you go?” Certainly, salvation does include ultimate rescue from a real place called hell, but I also believe that those who live outside of Jesus Christ live in a spiritual hell on earth right now, and need to be rescued from their miserable existence.

When Jesus speaks of salvation here, he is speaking not only of a final deliverance from hell (the penalty of sin and the presence of sin), but also of a present deliverance from the power of sin, i.e. new life right now. This means that Jesus is the answer to the post-modern’s present questions of fulfillment, joy, and existence, and he offers this life today.

Preaching to Lepers

This is an excerpt copied from a book I am reading called The Revolutionary Communicator. I found the story fascinating and especially relevant, since I just talked about "How to Approach Sinners" and even made a reference to lepers. I am sure that there are dangers in putting a story like this out there without any commentary, but I am going to trust the reader to make the appropriate applications. Enjoy:

"Molokai. The island's name was pronounced bitterly, with loathing and fear. Between 1866 and 1873, nearly eight hundred lepers were quarantined there on an isolated peninsula. Towering volcanic cliffs hemmed them in on three sides, and crashing surf on the fourth. It was a prison, a netherworld made all the more surreal by its pacific beauty.

Abandoned without law or hope, the lepers gave themselves alternately to despair and to what pleasures they could grasp. Robbery and drunkenness, sexual orgies and anarchy marked their lives. When finally, after a tortuous descent, the lepers finally succumbed to their disease, their already-decayed bodies often became food for pigs and wild dogs.

Father Damien first came to Hawaii in 1864. He had been born in Europe, the sturdily built son of a well-to-do Belgian farmer. When his brother fell ill and could not travel to his post at Hawaii's Sacred Heart Mission, Damien asked to take his place.

For a decade, Damien served at the mission. During that time, many of his parishioners were forced away to Molokai. Their memory remained wedged in his mind, slowly building into a fearsome emotion. He yearned to go to the lepers and to convey love to them where they lived. In April of 1873, Father Damien wrote to his superiors, asking for permission. A month later, he stood on the beaches of the dreaded isle. Damien steeled himself for the worst, but the sights and smells of Molokai left him gasping. One of his first encounters was with a young girl, her body already half eaten by worms. One by one, Damien set out to meet them all. Carefully avoiding physical contact, he confronted their rotting bodies, putrid breath, and the ever-present rasped coughing.

Damien's first desire was to remind the lepers of their inherent dignity to God. To demonstrate the value of their lives, he honored their deaths-constructing coffins, digging graves, protecting the cemetery from scavenging animals, and ensuring a ceremony for every passing.

As the days went by, however, Damien began to feel that he could not fully convey all that he wished to share without drawing ever nearer. He began timidly to touch lepers. He ate with them, and hugged them. Over time, he even began to clean and wrap their oozing sores. Everything Damien did, he did with the lepers. Together, they built coffins and chapels, cottages and roads. He taught them how to farm, raise animals, and even sing despite their mangled vocal chords. One report described him teaching two lepers to play the organ with the ten fingers they still had between them.

Damien sought to draw near to the lepers in his words as well, even speaking of "we lepers." Writing to his brother in Europe, he explained, "I make myself a leper with the lepers to gain all to Jesus Christ. That is why, in preaching, I say 'we lepers'; not 'my brethren...'"

It was eleven years after Damien's arrival on Molokai that he spilled boiling water on his leg. He watched with horror as his feet blistered- yet felt no pain. His efforts to draw near to the lepers was complete. Now he would meet them in their disease as well.

The final five years of his life, Damien served the lepers of Molokai as a leper priest. The days passed with both joy and suffering. Outpourings of international support arrived at the island, and also several helpers. Alongside the blessings, however, came physical pain, and times of loneliness and even depression. Finally, on April 15, 1889, Damien breathed his last. He was laid to rest among the thousands of lepers he had helped to bury in what he called his "garden of the dead."

In 1936, at the request of the Belgian government, Father Damien's body was returned to his birthplace. Years later, the people of Molokai pleaded that at least part of their beloved Father be returned to them. What they finally received, with joy, was Damien's right hand- the hand that had touched and soothed and embraced them, even when everyone else had done all they could to keep the lepers far away."

How To Approach Sinners

It is an amazing thing to me that I should ever have to do a blog of this nature, but it seems that in recent years it has become more and more popular among Christians to become politically motivated against certain sins. We have anti-gay rallies and march in the street for what we might consider “gross” sins, but then we fail to be as angry towards our own political party’s rampant adultery. What am I suggesting? I am suggesting fairness towards all. That means if we are really going to get upset about sin, let’s begin with ours initially, and let’s don’t pick and choose which ones we are going to protest. I mean, can you imagine an anti-lying rally in downtown Atlanta this morning, or maybe an anti-lust rally, or perhaps we should have an anti-hatred rally. The truth is that the reason we don’t is that we have all been guilty of those things, and we would feel hypocritical if we took part in a rally of that sort. But, it is much more feasible to protest that which we have not taken part in, and so we do. In order to shed some light on what our perspective should be towards sinners, I would like to refer you to the story of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter eight.

This story, to me, is one of the most revealing stories in the Bible about the reality of sin in our lives, and the power of Jesus’ love and grace overcoming it. The classic phrase in the King James, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (or as so often is the way that it is quoted, “let him cast the first stone”), is one of the most famous statements in the entire English language. Those who know nothing of Jesus and his love, know about the depth of that one phrase spoken so long ago. This story is a story about sinners, their sin, and their blindness to their own sin, and their need of Christ to deliver them from their sin. I hope that through this story we can learn some truths about the reality of sin and our approach to sinners. There are several principles here that to me are monumental in learning how to deal with sinners.

All of Us Have Sin and Should, Therefore, Treat Every Other Sinner Graciously.
The fact is we are usually harder on other people than we are ourselves. We look at others with an eye of frustration, because they are not like we are, or because they struggle with different sins than we do. We often condemn people, if not by our actions or words, by our thoughts. These men were so focused on this other’s sin that they failed to see the sin in their own life. Isn’t that the way we feel? We get so upset about other people’s sins, and there are all sins that make us angrier than others. You can sit and listen to people who get upset over other people’s certain sins, and they rant and throw a tirade over it, because they are angry at another’s sin.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think there are times when anger is expected, like when 9/11 happened, or when someone tries to attack our family. But, most of the time our anger and frustration with people is nothing more than hypocritical judgment. We should not be blinded to our own sin, but should look inwardly, so we can see clearly to love and help others. The men who took the woman caught in the act of adultery were showing their hypocrisy in several ways:

1. Their Judgment was Only One-Sided. The last time I checked there has to be two people involved in adultery. Where was the man? Was he not at least AS guilty as the woman? Could it be, because of their chauvinistic culture where women were little more than door stops, that they were angrier with the woman just because she was a woman?

2. Their Judgment was Humiliating to the One Involved. It says two things here that are revealing: (1) They caught her in the act. My friend Sam, pastor of the River, astutely pointed out that she was probably naked during this act (it should be apparent now why commentaries are of little value to me). Not to be crude, but it would be very difficult to commit adultery with your clothes on. Therefore, they may have brought her either naked, or half-dressed (at bare minimum) with just a blanket or something thrown over. Either way, she was totally exposed.

(2) They also made her stand before the group. There was a large crowd in the temple courts waiting to hear Jesus teach when this happened. As if being half-dressed or naked was not bad enough, then she had to stand there before the group, with some men undoubtedly lusting after her. This could explain, by the way, Jesus’ looking down and writing on the ground. We are unfortunately, often harsh in our judgments to people, and we often are blinded by our own arrogance.

The Longer We Live the More Sin We Have.
This is a very simple point, but (in vs. 7-9) it is not insignificant that the older ones went away first. They started to go away when Jesus mentions he who does not have sin can cast the first stone. Their going away means that they apparently felt guilty because of what Jesus said, because they knew that they were not without sin. The reason the old ones went away first, I believe, is because they had lived longer, and therefore, had more sins to be convicted over. This isn’t picking on anyone, but the truth is the longer we live, the more we are going to sin, and therefore, the more repentant and broken we should be before God. Sadly, though, we do not normally with time become more broken, but we become more hardened by the effects of sin in our life. And this hardness creates in us a judgmental spirit that treats the sinners of today like the lepers of yesterday. This is not the way to approach sinners. We should remember Jesus condemning the hypocrisy and condemnation of the religious leaders and extending grace and forgiveness and love to the broken sinner.

A Creator or An Eternal Mass of Nothing

The topic of evolution vs. the concept of a creator is one that is much too complicated for me to take up here. The emphasis in that sentence is not on the here but on the me- i.e. I am not smart enough to debate the fine points of intelligent design, nor am I detailed enough to be able to pick apart the problems that are supposedly apparent in evolution. This is not to say that I have not had discussions about evolution, nor does it mean that I am totally uninformed of this debate. My expertise, undoubtedly, is very scant, as I have probably read about five books about the subject of evolution in my life time. I have also taken a class about the subject of creationism (albeit not a very good one), and I have attended a debate in the Atlanta area between William Dembski (Intelligent Design proponent) and Michael Ruse (Evolutionary Agnostic who is a professor at Florida State).I have grown up in this culture, of course, and have been educated through our public school systems (which is why I write so poorly). As you can see, I am not qualified to give a dissertation on the details of science, but I have been given by God (or natural selection, if you don’t want to blame God for my stupidity) a brain to discern some logical conclusions about science and the bible, and that is basically what I would like to write about.

Premiere to this discussion, I would like to say that my belief is that God created everything. My belief in this, once all of the debates of the books have cleared, comes down to just a few things that I would like to share:
(1) I believe that God created everything, because I believe in the truth of Scripture.
This statement is very subjective in that my belief is based on my personal faith in the bible. This is not the only thing, but it certainly is the main reason why I believe in God’s creation. The bible has never been disproved or shown to be inconsistent in what it has declared. It could also be argued by those who disagree that it has never been proved to be indisputably correct, either, and this is a truth I concede. However, the possibility of its veracity must, at least, be considered.

(2) I believe that God created everything, because I am able to observe intelligent design in his creation.
I look at the sky and I see a painter; I look at the mountains and I see an architect; I look at the ocean and I see a chemist; I look at the animals and I see an engineer; and I look at humanity and I see God. This is what I observe when I look at the world in which we live. It tells a story about the one who created it. This is why the Psalmist says “the heavens declare your glory and the skies the work of your hands; day unto day they utter speech and night unto night, they give knowledge.” The great Apostle Paul accentuates this fact when he declares to the Roman Christians that the creation is enough to tell humanity that there is a God, and that because of this, they “are without excuse.”

(3) I believe that God created everything, because I see no conflict between Scripture and science.
Does this mean that evolution and a creating God can coexist, so that God started things, but used the process of evolution to bring this about? I personally do not believe that this is what happened, but I do believe that it is possible for the two to co-exist. There have been many Theistic Evolutionists who believed both in God and the theory of evolution. While I do not agree with their conclusions, I am able to see how they might have come to those conclusions. Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called No Final Conflict, in which he talked about some puzzling questions regarding the creation of the universe. His point was that there can be disagreement between Christians who value both the truthfulness of Scripture, as well as the discoveries of science. An excerpt from that book, I think, will aid in this discussion, as it is a list of things of which there is room for disagreement concerning the reconciliation of science and scripture:

1. There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe.
2. There is a possibility of a break between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or between 1:2 and 1:3.
3. There is a possibility of a long day in Genesis 1.
4. There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data.
5. The use of the word “kinds” in Genesis 1 may be quite broad.
6. There is a possibility of the death of animals before the fall.
7. Where the Hebrew word “bara” is not used there is the possibility of sequence from previously existing things.

Schaeffer does not necessarily agree with any of these conclusions, but he says that they are theoretically possible and should be allowed in the area of Christian liberty. I am thankful for Schaeffer’s clarity about this, because this issue, to me, is not “a hill worth dying on.” As I seek to reach the culture, I will continue to hold out God as Creator, but I will not get bogged down in the quagmire of literary debates about the literalness of the Genesis details, and I will attempt not to become a distraction by infecting them with my narrow-mindedness. If I seek to build these bridges, while holding to the integrity of Scripture, I have hopefully pointed them to God, and not to a mass of argumentative nothingness.

Shit Theology

A few months ago, I was having a conversation with a guy about life. He was asking me some very pointed questions about religion and God, among other things. In the course of the dialogue, he asked me if I thought a child molestor or murderer could go to heaven. My reply was that they could if they put their faith in Jesus Christ to atone for those sins and to forgive them. My friend, at first glance at least, began to cringe and look like he was struggling with my form of Christianity. I then pointed out a few things to help clarify my theology: (1) Paul was a murderer who even took part in the death of Christianity's first martyr, Stephen, and received deliverance and forgiveness for his killing Christians (you can imagine that they were a little hesitant to receive him into their small group when he was converted). (2) David (as a Christian) committed not only murder, but the sin of adultery. (3) Jesus pointed out that if we have lusted in our hearts after a woman, we have all committed adultery (which he agreed with me that we men, at least, have all done that). (4) Jesus pointed out that if we have hated someone in our hearts, we have committed murder (which he also agreed with me that we have all done that). He then followed this up with one of the clearest pieces of theology that I have heard in years. He said, "Jason, if that is the case I am a piece of shit." With that, I responded to him and said, "Sir, I am a piece of shit, too, and we all are. That is why Jesus came to die, so that pieces of shit like us could be forgiven of our sins and delivered from their stinch and sway in our lives, and so that we could be saved from a burning hell.

Now,when some of you read the word that I just said, you will care more about the appropriateness of my saying that word than you will with the theology or truth that I am representing. If that word offends you, then you have probably missed the greater point I am trying to convey, which is that we all suck when we are compared to God. These words might be offensive to some, but it is only because they fail to see the real world in which they live. People will stress out over someone using the word that I just used, and then turn around and use the word "poop" with their grandson. You say tomato and I say tomotto, but we're talking about the same thing.

The point is that we are all sons of Adam or daughters of Eve, and without Christ saving us from the genetic disease called sin that we have, we are helpless and hopeless to die and suffer in a real place called hell. This is not some made up fairy tale, but a true geographical location that Jesus died for us to escape. But the reality that many often miss is that people do not go to hell, because they are pieces of shit, but because they fail to value Christ as the most awesome treasure in the universe. It is much like C.S. Lewis has said, "We have settled for the mud pies of this world, when the greater joy awaits us with a holiday at the sea." We settle for the treasures of money, sex, people, recreation, position, and other things that are known as the stuff of this life. Man's greatest crime is not merely doing wrong, but failing to love and honor Jesus as the greatest treasure. We have settled in pursuing and loving the pleasures of this life, and have not given ourselves wholly to the purpose for which we were created, which is to love Christ. In living this, we not only find peace and forgiveness; we find true joy and life everlasting. This is what every piece of shit in the toilet of this existence needs to hear.

Beer, Bible, and Baptists

Like any good preacher, I am always thankful when I can pull off the skill of alliteration without really trying. The B’s that I am blogging about today, however, may not seem to be very preacherly (pretty sure that is not a word). I am writing about the subject of alcohol hopefully to clarify some issues. Quintillian (no, he is not a quarterback), a Latin philosopher of the first century, offered the following advice to writers: “Write not so that you can be understood but so that you cannot be misunderstood.” Quintillians’s advice is especially pertinent to the area of alcohol, because there is an abundance of misunderstanding.

Let me, first of all, come out and state directly that I am emphatically not opposed to alcohol, and the church I represent is not collectively opposed to alcohol, either. In fact, the truth is that alcohol is not evil in and of itself, just like food is not evil in and of itself (but the sin of gluttony is). This is very important to state at the beginning of this, because unfortunately the Southern Baptist Convention does not agree with me. In fact, the majority of the messengers of the Convention voted in June to oppose anything having to do with alcohol (including servers who make their living by bringing food and alcoholic beverages to customers’ tables). Thankfully, this proposal is tantamount to saying that our country is in favor of the troops staying in Iraq- in other words, there are many dissenters and the issuance of this has no power over me or my church, and we will continue to make decisions about what we perceive is right.

Rather than go off on a rant about the foolishness of this “Let’s boycott-Disney-like” proposal, though, I would like to give several reasons why beer is okay in the bible. I will start it off really simple, and then hopefully progress to more complex thoughts:
(1) The Gospels indicate that Jesus drank wine. It is actually an awesome thought to know that Jesus did indeed drink alcohol. Don’t misunderstand me: I do not believe that Jesus Christ ever sinned, but I think it can be proven that he drank wine. Therefore, drinking wine is not a sin, since Jesus did it, and since Jesus did not therefore sin. I do believe that the abuse or excess of alcohol, i.e. in the form of drunkenness, is a sin, and Jesus also never became drunk. Jesus’ drinking wine is seen by several examples: (a) He drank it the night he was crucified (c.f. Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; and Luke 22:18) The “fruit of the vine” here is considered to be the raw elements of the wine itself. Virtually no one disagrees with this fact. It is no accident that the Corinthian church just a few years after this was practicing the Lord’s Supper by using real wine. It is doubtful that they used anything other than what Jesus actually used, since it is so close to the time of the original Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians’ use of real wine is incontestable, since they were actually abusing it and getting drunk (if it means anything, they were also using the same type of unleavened bread that was used for Passover) in their worship services.

(b) Jesus was accused of being a drunkard. It says in Matthew’s gospel, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners.’” If Jesus never drink alcohol, then it would be very difficult for anyone to accuse him falsely of drunkenness. In fact, Jesus says the reason for their accusation is that He did, in fact, partake in drinking, just like he ate food (the other ground of their accusation).

(c) Jesus created hundreds of gallons of wine. This fact is seen in his miracle of John chapter two, in which he caused hundreds of gallons of water to turn into wine. There are two logical conclusions to this fact: (1) If Jesus was totally opposed to the drinking of wine, it is not feasible to consider his providing the wine for a multitude of others to sin by drinking. Therefore, Jesus was not against wine itself. (2) Since Jesus did provide hundreds of gallons of wine, and since that means he was not against wine itself, and since he was falsely accused of being a drunkard in another passage, it is probable that Jesus and his disciples drank the wine at this wedding.

(2) The Bible condemns drunkenness, not drinking. A lot of the commentary about the texts under this point is plagiarized from Mark Driscoll’s book, Radical Reformission, because he says some things better than I can. Psalm 104:14, 15 says “God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread sustains his heart.” If wine is evil in and of itself then God is evil for making it, and Jesus is evil for drinking it. I don’t think anyone is willing to suggest they are holier than God. Wine is for celebration in (Genesis 14:17-20); wine is for medicinal purposes in (Proverbs 31:6) and (1 Timothy 5:23); wine is for worship in (Exodus 29:40) and (1 Corinthians 11:25, 26); wine is for thanksgiving to God in (Proverbs 3:9, 10); and wine is for happiness in (Deuteronomy 14:26).

Why do I bring up all of this? Because we need to understand our culture and not oppose the things it does just because we were not brought up that way, or just because we are not comfortable with it. Don’t oppose cultural things just because you don’t like it. Martin Luther (who was a regular beer drinker, along with his wife) argued against the prohibitionist mentality during the Reformation and said, “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?” Mark Driscoll has said about this, “People worship rock stars, but we should not abolish music. People worship food, but we should not abolish grocery stores.”

Maybe if my SBC friends were so consistent, they might suggest these measures, or better yet they might actually throw out their cough syrup (which contains alcohol), and no longer order the popular (and delicious) dishes at restaurants which are saturated in alcohol these days. They would certainly object to this as “nitpicking,” but I guess I can object to their hypocrisy, as well, and ask them to stop trying to be holier than Jesus and the Apostle Paul. In fact, true holiness might be actually trying to win our neighbors for Christ’s sake, rather than hold on to moral straw men that affect nothing for the kingdom of Christ. So, what am I saying? I am saying let us become “all things to all men, that we might by all means save some.” Since drinking is not a sin, then let us build all of the bridges necessary to the drinking culture in which we live, holding out to those who are immersed in the bondage of this world system the truest and most satisfying treasure of Jesus Christ.

Why I Believe in the Continuation of Miraculous Gifts

This a huge subject for such a small entry, so please forgive me at the outset of this in my failing to mention every aspect that could be pertinent to this. I am continuing to study this, so I am certain there will need to be more said about this. I am going to just highlight what I consider to be the most compelling reasons for miraculous gifts continuing today, and I will try to anticipate the MAIN objections or thoughts to what is put forth here. So, here it goes:

(1) There is no text or Scripture that says that they stopped.
I know that for some, this is the equivalent of committing argument suicide, because this statement makes such an easy target, and I concede that. It is true, as the brilliant objection to this thunders forth, that there is no explicit Scripture that says that the canon of Scripture stopped, but the early church was still able to figure it out. This is not the only reason, but to be fair, has to at least be considered in this, and to me at least a reasonable starting point.

There are those, of course, who still cite 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as Paul saying that gifts will cease with the writing of Scripture. Every Christian is certainly entitled to having his opinion of what Scripture actually means, but this is too much for me. We all agree that the “imperfect” things that are listed in v. 8 have to be prophecy, tongues, AND knowledge. If the time of “when perfection comes” has to do with the writing of Scripture, then there would be no knowledge, as well. Surely no Christian will suggest that knowledge has died since the canon of Scripture closed. If there is one who does suggest that, then perhaps knowledge has died within them, but not for the rest of Christianity. Furthermore, the point is that these imperfect gifts will no longer be needed when Jesus Christ returns (“when perfection comes”, “face to face”, “then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known”). Ironically, the passage does give the time for when these gifts (prophecy, tongues, knowledge, and all other spiritual gifts) will cease- the time of Christ’s coming! Assuming that this is the case, it would not be difficult to infer from 1 Corinthians 1:7 that Paul has this same time frame in mind for all the spiritual gifts: “Therefore you do not lack ANY spiritual gift AS you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.”

This would also be consistent with Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost that announces Joel’s prophetic fulfillment (Acts 2:17): “In the LAST DAYS, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Yours sons and daughters will prophesy, your young women will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Most conservative scholars agree that there is a two-part fulfillment in this with vs. 19 being this age and the first part of v. 20 as being the signs of Jesus’ coming at the end of this age, and the last part of v. 20 as related to both parts of the fulfillment: “…before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.”) But enough about that.

(2) There is a tremendous amount of information given in Scripture about their regulation.
Again, this may seem like small potatoes to those who oppose this, but this is at least an issue to be addressed. The fact is that Paul gives a lot of detail with respect to how tongues are to be used, how tongues are to be interpreted, and how prophecy is to be conducted. All of these are miraculous gifts, and despite the Corinthian church being richly blessed by possessing all of these gifts (including the gifts of healings and miracles and distinguishing between spirits), they needed direction for how they were to be used. If the gifts were to stop, then a lot of what we read in reference to the spiritual gifts is unnecessary. Of course, one could easily argue that there is a lot in Scripture that was necessary for specific periods or cultures, such as the sacrificial system set forth in Leviticus, and the cultural commandments about veils being worn over women’s head in the Church at Corinth. These commandments that Paul gave had some relevance to the audience to which it was spoken, but that does not negate its use for the church beyond that period, either.

(3) There is a tremendous amount of examples of miraculous happenings given throughout biblical history.
John MacArthur has chaotically stated in his book Charismatic Chaos that signs, miracles, and wonders were basically “concentrated” during three periods of biblical history: the time of Moses, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Jesus and the Apostles. What is really neat about this is that he does use the word “concentrated” and he indicates that there were other signs, miracles, and wonders, but they were “isolated”. Therefore, what MacArthur has actually done is prove that miraculous gifts have always existed in the Bible, but have been more prevalent at certain times of history. I don’t know of any Charismatic that would disagree with this fact. Furthermore, it must be considered why the signs and wonders were not done. One reason that is given explicitly in Scripture is when Jesus went to the town of Nazareth and it says that he did not do many miracles, “except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them… because of their unbelief.” It is possible that God did not do many signs and wonders at certain times because of the rebellion of his people, but that does not mean that miracles at any point stopped. On the contrary, there have always been miracles in the Bible, and there has never been a known cessationist during that time saying that since miracles were done in clusters they were now obsolete. A final point must be said about this, as well. There is no evidence that miracles were isolated or little in quantity in the Biblical record. Certainly there were many that were not recorded, especially since Jeremiah says this very thing in chapter thirty-two, verse twenty: “You performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt and have continued them to this day, both in Israel and among all mankind, and have gained the renown that is still yours.” Even in John’s gospel, John mentions at the end that there were many more signs that Jesus performed that he had not written down. Could this be the case in other periods, as well?

(4) Miracles were not only for the authentication of the apostolic message.
I do not have time to develop this fully, but this is a major point. It is a major crux of the cessationist argument, because they maintain that miracles were only signs to demonstrate the divinity of the apostles’ message, just like the miracles that Jesus performed were signs to demonstrate the deity of his person. What is just described is right. Miraculous gifts were used for that purpose, and frankly can be used for that now. Cessationists assume, though, that because of this being the case in some instances it is the case in every instance, and since the Apostles are no longer in existence (which I agree with, by the way), miraculous gifts therefore are no longer active. There are two problems, however, in assuming that this is the only purpose for miraculous gifts: (a) Apostles were not the only ones using the miraculous gifts, and (b) Scripture gives other reasons for the miraculous gifts. I can develop this all night, but since I am getting tired, I will let you check this out for yourself, but it should be seen without a lot of effort. If this is seen from Luke’s account in Acts and from Paul’s purposes listed in First Corinthians, then we are in a very good position to conclude that Christians (not apostles) are still able to have or seek those gifts today.

(5) Church history does not contradict the continuation of the miraculous.
What is always fascinating to me now are the historical accounts that I remember reading as a cessationist student at a cessationist college that told me of the continuing miracles of the Holy Spirit. I didn’t put much stock or credibility in them at that time, but the fact is they were there. In fact, there have been “isolated” reports of miracles throughout the course of history, including quite a few that comprised such prominent men as St. Augustine and Charles Spurgeon prophesying (although Spurgeon explained it away). Moreover, no less a scholar than D.A. Carson has said that “there is enough evidence that some form of ‘charismatic’ gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration.” There is also the fact that prior to the Sixteenth Century, the only ones who had the written word were the rich or affluent. Their ignorance of the Scriptures certainly could have played a part in the absence of the miraculous. Finally, it must be said that the absence (if that is thought to be the case) or infrequency of the miraculous gifts throughout church history does not prove that God is opposed to their use. Again, there could be a number of factors that play into this that must be considered.

(6) Every gift that is given by the Holy Spirit is given to build up the body of Christ.
This is a simple way to conclude, but it is the most direct way, also. Paul instructs the Corinthians repeatedly that the gifts are given to edify, and for the common good. What about the miraculous gifts would preclude their being edifying to the church today? Nothing. In fact, Paul includes the miraculous in his discussion of edification. If these gifts were edifying to the church then, why would they not be edifying to the church now?

Okay, that is it for now. As wordy as I have been with this, I am sure that I left many questions in your mind, and I need to hear what those questions are, so that I can become sharper in my understanding of the Scipture. Remember, “iron sharpens iron,” so share with me your thoughts about this, and let me know whether you agree with me or not. If you don’t, tell me why, or ask me a question or even call me a name…just give me feedback. Thanks.

My Repentance of Cessationism

From the time I was a bundle of something to my most recent history, I have shared the perspectives of what is known as cessationism. Cessationism is a fancy word that basically means that all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued since the days of Jesus and the Apostles, except all of the gifts that are miraculous. That would include such gifts mentioned in the Bible such as prophecy, speaking in tongues (or languages), interpreting tongues, distinguishing between spirits, and healing. Now, for most of us rational and logical Christian thinkers, this is obviously an easy choice. We, much like our Enlightenment Age fathers, deny anything that smacks of the supernatural. Isn’t that so odd coming from the same crowd that defends the bible against “liberals” who try to explain away the miracles of Jesus and the crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan as merely the rivers drying up?

But my cessationist friends are sure to cry foul and say that we have to have balance in all our perspectives of Scripture (which is about as sensible as going on a diet that cuts out super-sized cheeseburgers, but in its place adds a slice of chocolate cake). The truth is consistency has been raped in their attempt to eliminate the supernatural from the Christian experience. But, to be fair, my friends will deny that this is so, and will argue that they are in favor of many truths that are all supernatural- things such as being saved by the Holy Spirit, being controlled by the Holy Spirit, and even being healed by the Holy Spirit. In fact, many cessationists who deny that the miraculous gifts still exist, still hold to a very “subjective” experience in their Christian faith. They will still give stories about how God speaks to them and reveals to them certain insights and information into a situation that would have been otherwise unknown. Despite their protest that this is not the same thing as a biblical prophecy, their retelling of the story often contradicts their theology.

Let me rewind for just a moment, though, to my thoughts and feelings and perspectives. Growing up, this situation never really struck me as a problem. I knew some Pentecostal or “Charismatic” friends, but when I asked my Baptist leaders what they believed, they would usually say something like “Oh, they believe in speaking in gibberish.” Having been persuaded that that was a ridiculous option, I then satisfied my curiosity by sticking with those who had all the answers. As I got older and came to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, I occasionally listened to clever one-liners or topical sermons against the continuation of miraculous gifts (mainly against speaking in tongues) and anything I heard I would concede was the best argument. The problem for many years, however, was that I had never really heard another argument. I grew up thinking that there was no credibility in believing such absurdities, even while I was attending school.

So, you may ask, what happened? Several things occurred in my life to help me grow towards a rejection of cessationism. (1) The first step towards this rejection surprisingly occurred several years ago when I was a student at a school in Florida, looking for ammunition for my already formulated arguments. I read a book called Charismatic Chaos, by popular bible teacher John MacArthur, which was a work against anything remotely Charismatic, including what is now known as the Third Wave movement started by John Wimber. Although MacArthur’s work was applauded by many, it was the all or nothing tone of the book that gave me my first concerns. I will say something in favor of MacArthur’s book-for the most part, he was consistent, blasting not only the Charismatics but also many Christians who have “subjective” experiences and actually communicate with God (wow, that sounds like something that we might want to try some time). I pondered these things for quite a few years, while even teaching them as truth at times and relishing the cold, emotionless position of MacArthur, but inwardly struggling with the position.

(2) The second step towards my current position was my own exposure to the Scriptures, and to what the Bible actually says about miraculous gifts. In my reading of the Bible, I came to find out that so much of what I had heard was supposed to be was not the case. I struggled with Paul’s long and explicit instructions to the Corinthians about prophecy and tongues, and questioning the relevance of such teaching if it would soon be past.

(3) The third step in my struggle with the cessationist position came in actually interacting with different positions. It was not that I blindly listened or accepted their opinions as fact. In fact, there was much with which I did not agree. But the truth is their arguments drove me back to the Scriptures, and my comparison of the different options led me to a clear rejection of cessationism.

I am now admitting my own mistaken notion that miraculous gifts failed to exist after the time of the Apostles and the writing of the Scriptures. I am confessing my own arrogance in looking down at those who acknowledged the supernatural happenings of God. I am now repenting of my own error in leading others away from a living, supernatural experience of God in their lives. For those who are now reading this, I am repenting of cessationism. During my next blog, I will give several reasons why.

Back in Business

Well, I know that there are many people who have been really frustated and unfulfilled that I haven't blogged in about three months. First of all, let me say that I am sorry and beg your forgiveness. I have had a really busy summer (not to make excuses, although you should know what they are anyway) and am now just getting over an incredibly busy August. Here are some good highlights of these busy times I would like to list for you, so that you, too, can be happy:

(1) CABC has started a children's church during the "message" time. Although I am still struggling to find myself in the arena of "preaching", this seemed like the best time to make this move. We were very fortunate to have a young lady volunteer to do this, although we are now in the process of rotating different workers in to help her with this endeavor. (2) My brother Marc and his family have moved to Atlanta, have joined the church, and have started a youth group. It is meeting now only on Sunday mornings, but they have actually had one activity and are in the process of spreading the word. (3) CABC had a successful Vacation Bible School that attracted about 25 kids from the neighborhood. We have been in the process of following up with some who made spiritual decisions during that week. Along these same lines, we owe a debt of gratitude to Henry Baptist Church in McDonough, GA who oversaw the whole process, as well as donated tons of workers, resources, and hours to make it what it was. (4) CABC voted to allow a classy, up-scale restaurant and pub to open across the street from us. It may seem like a strange "good" thing for those who still struggle with the concept of Christian liberty, but our leadership believes it was the right thing to do for the sake of the gospel of Christ and the glory of God in this community (more on this later). (5) CABC (from here on referred to as "we") participated in the Grant Park Summer Shade Festival, where we were able to provide a baby comfort station for mothers changing their baby's diaper, nursing their baby, or just needing cold water, rest, and/or some sugar via our snacks. It was really awesome for us, because we were able to meet and talk with literally hundreds of people, as well as provide this service for hundreds as well. I hope to see us involved with more missional services like this, as we seek to become more of a "go and do" type church, versus a "come and see" type church. (6) We have now completed work on the flat roof of our educational building, and are almost ready to begin renovations on our steeple. These are all very important things for us to get done, as are others we are trying to complete, in order to make our facilities to be more effective in their use for our touching the community. (7) We have, also, partnered with a wedding business for the purpose of their using our facilities for their weddings. (8) My friend Sam (who is now a fellow blogger who accused me of being a nerd for starting a blog, but I'm not bitter...) is about to launch his church called The River in Milton, Florida. We will actually visit with them in a couple of weeks, for the sake of taking a break from the busy summer (and yes, we will be at the beach every day).

I know this has been a boring ramble about some of the happenings of my life, but I felt like it was important for me to justify my own shortcoming of not blogging (which I am thankful the Apostle Paul did not do). Anyhow, talk with all of you later, and I promise it won't be three months this time, because I have some thoughts I need to flesh out soon. I know you'll be waiting by your keyboards until then. See ya.

Letter to a Fellow Blogger About Divorce

This letter is an e-mail written in response to a fellow blogger who has posted quite a few constructive comments of disagreement towards my view of divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion.


Dear Fellow Blogger,

Your thought process is sound and clearly spoken from someone who has a passion for preserving the permanence of marriage, but I (realizing my own pride and stubbornness) think that you are missing the forest of the issue, for the trees of debate and rhetoric.

It seems that I won't be able to convince you to divorce or remarry (jk), but let me clarify a couple of thoughts about my perspective on this: (1) The debate does not rise or fall with the God divorced Israel analogy. Like most analogies, it can be overdone, and I think the thing I want to point out is the fact that God did in fact divorce Israel for her adultery. I don't think that having sex during the betrothal constituted adultery, because I, again, do not see any proof for the betrothal being the same as marriage. Furthermore, although I concede that a bill of divorce was written up for the severance of a Jewish betrothal, just like it was for a Jewish marriage, I do not concede that they were ever the same. To respond to what you said about this issue in your comments, sex was not the only issue (get your mind out of the gutter, please), but there was also the issue of living separately and the man not supporting the woman financially, as well as the lack of a physical union. I think another thing to consider is the fact that the words "husband" and "wife" are from generic Greek words which also mean "man" and "woman." Therefore, when the Scripture calls Joseph "husband" and Mary "wife," it could have equally been translated "man" or "wife." Don't want to "beat a dead horse" with this point, but I only say that to demonstrate that there is no Scriptural evidence for Jewish betrothal and Jewish marriages both being considered "married," as you claim.

I also don't think my view of divorce for adultery and desertion is synonymous with the Pharisees' view "that leads to an epidemic of adultery." Sin is the ultimate cause of any divorce (although the divorce itself may not be sinful); not one's view of divorce or remarriage.

I must admit that this debate is a classic example of how people see things completely differently, because Mark nor Luke's omission is a problem for me. I believe that they state the general principle, and Matthew states the exception. Exceptions do not negate the general rule in any event. Furthermore, I think it is proper hermeneutics to interpret parallel accounts with the more detailed instance. Interpreters routinely follow this approach throughout the Gospels with respect to Jesus; why should it be any different with this?

My point with the "interruption" was to say that it really doesn't matter if the Pharisees interrupted, or if they "tricked" him, but that Jesus' words continued, and the subject matter did not all of a sudden change from marriage to betrothal. Once again, the Matthew 5 passage is very important in seeing this, because of Jesus' blanket statement in the middle of his Sermon on the Mount, which I do not believe is confined to a dispensational, Scofield-like, Davidic Kingdom Jew during a literal, thousand-year reign, but is in reference to all believers living in the kingdom now.

I have already addressed the Mark 10 situation, but let me just say that I do agree with the general rule that if a person divorces his spouse (of course for a biblically unwarranted reason) then they are committing adultery if they remarry.

In closing, the remarriage thing to me is consistent with the idea of a biblically warranted divorce. I see in both exception passages that the general rule of no divorce and no remarriage is still intact, but the exception applies to both parts of the sentence. Grammatically it seems to be logically inconsistent to confine that to only one part of a cause and effect sentence. In fact, without the exception, the sentence in Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife...and marries another woman commits adultery." The effect of the adultery is caused because the first marriage is still considered to be valid. If, however, marital unfaithfulness occurs (as in the exception), then the passage logically indicates that the first marriage would, in fact, be nullified by divorce, and therefore remarriage would not be committing adultery.

Finally, I know that this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, and I am thankful that we can open up this debate in a friendly way on this blog. If any of my comments have been condescending, I apologize for them. My humor, though aimless at times, is often used to blunt the sharpness of my words. I appreciate your candor and thoughtful responses, and look forward to continuing discussion in other blogs (I think this one may have had it). For now, though, we may have to do as the great Will Farrel has said, "Agree to disagree."

For Holy Matrimony,
Jason Grizzard

Brief Explanation of the Old and New Testament Church

I know that for some of you this might fly in the face of what has been popularly taught today, because there are many that would say that the church is only during the NT, and I actually believed that for many years. To be honest with you, when I first went to college, we used to argue whether the church started at Pentecost or with Jesus' ministry. I came to find out that neither answers were right. My study of the Bible, moreover, has led me to believe that the church comprises of all believers throughout history (during Old and New Testaments). Although this might seem novel to some, this position has actually been held predominately throughout the history of the church. Let me give you some Scripture for why I believe this:
- (Ephesians 5:25) “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”
- (Matthew 16:18) “…I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
- (Acts 2:47) “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
These passages assert, of course, that God has one, singular people in the New Testament. I only wished that Christ had died for those in the Old Testament, too. Well, I believe he did, because the pattern of God calling out a people to worship him is not confined only to the NT. In fact, there are several OT examples where it is clear that God thought of his people as a church, or “a called out assembly,” as the word “ekklesia” denotes.
- (Deuteronomy 4:10)(God said to Moses): “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.”
The word “assemble” here is the Hebrew word from which we get our Greek word for church in the NT. Therefore, it is not unimaginable that some of the NT writers would refer to the OT people of Israel as a “church.”
- (Acts 7:38) Speaking of the Israelites, Stephen calls them “the assembly (or church) in the desert.”
- (Hebrews 2:12)(Quoting Christ from Psalm 22:22) “He (being Jesus) says, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”
He is saying that he will declare the name of believers to the church gathered in heaven.
- (Hebrews 12:1) "This “great cloud of witnesses” which stretches back into the earliest eras of the OT according to the preceding context, has to include those who are the church in heaven in 2:12.
- (Hebrews 12:23) Speaking about NT believers who worship, the writer says, that they come into the presence of those in heaven: “to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.”
This truth should not surprise us when you consider that in the New Covenant Jewish and Gentile believers have been made “one” (Ephesians 2:14), they are “one new man” (v. 15) and “fellow citizens” (v. 19), and “members of the household of God” (v. 19).

A Response to Comments About Divorce

There were two comments posted recently that objected to my position on divorce, and I would like to respond to those objections here, for the benefit of others who might have the same or similar thoughts. I also want to say that I appreciate the person who took the time to post his or her thoughts on the site, and I am grateful for your thoughtful comments. You are one who evidently is familiar with this debate, and I commend you for your informative arguments. Nevertheless, let me address your two thoughts, as much as I am able.

Jesus’ ‘First Answer to the Question of Divorce’
Let me say that I did, in fact, deal with the passage that Jesus quoted from Genesis 2. I did not bother to deal with it again in detail, because of my having already done it. Nevertheless, I concede that one may have misconstrued my exposition as rushing over the obvious. I think the context of the entire passage of Jesus’ words, however, is to be considered as his complete answer to the divorce question. If the conversation had ended at verse 6 then this would not be an issue, but the problem is that it continues. One could conjecture that Jesus had given his complete answer before the Pharisees’ second question, or they could surmise that he was interrupted and was not, in fact, finished, but all of that is really beside the point. The point is that he said more, and it doesn’t make much sense for Jesus to change the subject from marriage to betrothal at this point in the conversation. The question then arises, how do we know that this is talking about marriage, as opposed to a betrothal? Although I resist the urge to be overly dogmatic, there are several indicators in the passage: (1) The common word for marriage is used throughout the passage. (2) Although marriage and the betrothal are similar, the words for them are not synonymous (see Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:5). (3) The two passages that Jesus alludes to (Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 24) refer to marriage, not a betrothal. I know there are good men who disagree with this, but I am compelled by what appears to be the plain sense of the passage. I do want to conclude this response by saying, also, that even if one agrees that Jesus added the exception clause because of the wicked trickery of the Pharisees, then how does one explain the fact that the exception clause is clearly stated in Matthew 5, aside from any Pharisaical trickery?

Israel and the Church vs. God and Divorce
To answer the question at face value, I have two responses. (1) There is one chosen people of God in Scripture, not two. I believe that the church did not begin at Pentecost, but is comprised of all of God’s called throughout the ages. I won’t go into the biblical defense for this belief, at this time, sense I gather that this person is in no disagreement with me about this (I just spoke about this to our own congregation, so I will follow this up with an explanatory blog about that subject). (2) Although there is one people of God, there are distinctions between national Israel and spiritual Israel. A case in point would be Paul’s argument for this very thing in Romans 9:6b, which says: “For not all who are descended from Israel (national) are Israel (spiritual).” That whole chapter really makes that point clear. Another example is given in Romans 11:1-5: “Did God reject his people (spiritual Israel)? By no means! I am an Israelite (national) myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people (spiritual), whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel (national): ‘Lord, they (national Israel) have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ So too, at the present time there is a remnant (spiritual) chosen by grace.” There are other Scriptures, but I think these demonstrate the point I am trying to make. Therefore, I do believe that God divorced national Israel, because of her adultery. Because I do believe that the church is Christ’s bride, I do not believe that God has or ever will divorce his true bride. The difference should be apparent to us, because there were many in national Israel who were not part of God’s true people, but there is no one in the true church of Christ who is not part of God’s true people, i.e. they are the same. I want to add, in conclusion to this, one important piece of information worth mentioning. Hosea records that God’s reason for divorcing Israel was adultery, not fornication. For me, personally, this is not that significant, except that this word is of extreme importance to those who hold to no divorce, because of the word fornication being used in Matthew, as opposed to adultery. If, however, God divorced Israel for adultery, then it would seem to indicate that He was married to them, rather than just betrothed. If that is the case, then, the argument, of course, seems to, at least, weaken.

Hope these responses help. Appreciate the thoughts on this important issue.

More Stuff About Divorce

I realize my last piece about divorce is something that left a lot to be desired in terms of the divorce debate. For instance, some would argue against my position, because it did not deal with some of the more basic objections to divorce, such as it being the breach of a vow, or it occurring as a law suit against another believer. There are many others issues with regard to divorce, such as the common one that God, in fact, hates divorce.

In addition to the myriad of objections against any divorce, there is the other side of the spectrum, as well. Other arguments emanate from our world of experiences: like, instances of spousal abuse (either physical or emotional) as well as child abuse. There is also the problem of ministry, and whether a divorced person has permanently severed his qualifications for the pastorate (or eldership) or the deaconate. There are many others. What I would like to do in this blog is bring some of these questions or objections to the forefront and try to answer them as clear and concise as possible. I am sure there are others, but for now I will try to deal with these common questions or problems, as they pertain to the subject of divorce:

1. What about divorce violating the clear command not to break a vow?
Although it is true that getting married involves taking marriage “vows,” it is also true that Jesus’ exception involves the one committing adultery as the one who breaks the vow to be faithful. The covenant at that point can be broken by the victim, as a result of the vow breaker. If breaking the vow was a violation of God’s law, then Jesus would not have allowed for it.

2. What about divorce being an act of taking a believer to court?
Well, let me say that, first of all, I think divorce should be settled out of court, if at all possible (“if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”). I also think, however, if a church is doing its job through church discipline (Mt. 18:15-19), then the spouse (and the church, if necessary) should be making every effort to restore the erring one to fellowship. If repentance is obtained, then the marriage should be salvaged, but if it is not, then steps should be taken to exclude the wayward spouse from the community of Christ, and their subsequent approach to him or her should be to that of an unbeliever (Mt. 18:17), and in that event it would involve a suit between a believer and an unbeliever. If that is the case, then it would not be a violation of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, which strictly forbids the practice of taking other believers to court.

3. What if the church fails to do its job in responding this way?
This is a very real question these days, because the fact is most churches do not respond in this way, because it is difficult to hold people accountable in this way. Doing the right thing is seldom easy or convenient. To answer the question, though, I do think it is possible to follow the same principle of restoration from the vantage point of the wronged spouse. In other words, having been wronged in the event of adultery, the wronged spouse should seek repentance from their partner, as well as restoration for the damaged relationship. If the offending spouse does not repent, or respond favorably, then the spouse should seek to involve other Christians in the process. The point is that every effort should be made to salvage the marriage if it is possible, and then, as the final draw (not the first) the divorce should be sought.

4. What about the extreme case of spousal abuse, or even child abuse in a marriage?
Let me say that this is an unfortunate occurrence, and does take place even in “Christian” marriages. The first thing I would say about this is that I do not recommend any spouse who is being physically abused to remain living in the same house as their abuser, nor do I recommend any spouse to remain living in a situation where their kids are being physically or sexually abused. He or she should take immediate steps to remove them from the home, at that point. This issue in regards to divorce is a bit more complicated than some of the other ones. If the spouse is abusing anyone physically or sexually, then the knowing spouse obviously needs to “submit himself to the governing authorities” and report the violations to the police and/or state, because the infractions are not just “moral issues;” they are legal issues, as well. The person involving the police in this should also include their church leadership in this process immediately. The church leadership should be especially sensitive with this information, making careful arrangements to investigate the claim, without its content being divulged to the remaining membership. If the case is found or thought to be true, then the church should cautiously, and within the realm of what the law permits, proceed to seek restoration. The important point to remember here is truth. All of the assumptions we are making about this is that it is, in actuality, a true event. If the event cannot be confirmed, however, than the church is wise to take a neutral position with respect to the alleged offender, and try to minister to each party, as appropriate. Assuming, however, that the charges are true, and assuming that the offender is convicted of this, then the spouse (though not alone, and without the counsel and support of the church) should seek to salvage the marriage. If the sinning spouse does not repent and submit to recommended counsel from the leadership of the church, then the church should proceed with the process of exclusion from the membership. If expulsion takes place, then the offending spouse is to be treated as an unbeliever. If the unbeliever, at this point, decides to divorce (as will probably be the case in most instances), then the believing spouse is free to divorce and remarry. In any extreme situation like this, special grace and special discernment is called for to determine that steps are taken to ensure that the abuses do not reoccur.

5. But, doesn’t God hate divorce?
The Scriptures do tell us that God does hate divorce, and we have already talked about how divorce has come about through man’s sin and the Fall. The fact is, though, God himself is said to have divorced Israel for her adultery with other gods. The metaphorical divorce that God is said to have acted out is consistent with his exception clause in Matthew 5 and 19. But what is also expedient for us to know is that God eventually was restored to Israel in remarriage.

6. Should a divorced man be allowed to become a pastor or deacon?
If the man has been divorced for the biblically allowed reasons I have already set forth, then I would say yes, assuming he meets the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3. I do not believe the qualification “husband of one wife” refers to past or present marital status. I think it indicates the high faithfulness to one’s wife that is required of a pastor or deacon, and that is called for in Jesus’ raising of the standard with respect to adultery in one’s heart. The qualifications that have to be discerned by the church are “above reproach” and “have a good reputation with outsiders.” If the divorce was unbiblical, then it might be cause for him not to be above reproach, and it might also be indicative of an impaired reputation with unbelievers.

7. If someone has already divorced unbiblically, what should they do now?
If someone has divorced unbiblically, then they should make every effort to remarry their spouse, and give the relationship back to God. If remarriage has already taken place for either of the spouses, then the one should repent of their divorce, and start living for God in the status that they now find themselves. If they are remarried, then they should give their current marriage to God and make every effort to sanctify it before him. If the person is not remarried, but their previous spouse is, then I believe they can remarry (since adultery is not perpetual in Matthew 5 and 19).

8. Would you perform a wedding of someone who has been divorced?
Yes, if they had divorced within the biblical permissions. If they had not, then it would highly depend on their situation, and if they recognized their former divorce to be wrong, and what steps had been taken since that divorce.

What I Believe About Divorce

Well, here it comes- the divorce issue. It is something that pastors can’t avoid, because it is something that is so prevalent in our world today-and not just our secular culture, but our church culture, as well. In fact, the statistics for Christian break-ups for the first time in modern history are very close to the ones for unbelievers. We could discuss all day about different strategies for reclaiming marriages, and certainly well-thought-out plans of action are needed to abate this epidemic. We could also talk about how it got this bad in the first place, and go into an in depth probe of how our culture has infected our church, but my goal here is different. My desire in this blog is to set forth as cogently as possible what I believe about the propriety of getting a divorce or not. In other words, for those who find themselves in marriages that are seemingly irreparable, does God permit a way out of the situation, or what?

Let me, first of all, say that this is a very difficult answer to what has become a very common question. I would add, however, that for many (sadly, a lot of Christians these days) this question is seldom even asked. The consequence is that lives are unnecessarily torn apart in the event that the marriage quite possibly may have been rescued. The most basic question to deal with in this and any situation is to ask, what does the Bible teach concerning this issue, assuming for believers that this is their basic rule of faith and practice? Let me also state that this is by no means an exhaustive defense of what I believe, but something that I have tried to abbreviate for the sake of someone reading it. I am in the process of working on a more comprehensive paper with respect to this, but here have sought to summarize what I believe and on what basis. In doing a piece of this brief nature, I understand I am opening myself up to opposing arguments and objections that may not be dealt with here, or in an exhaustive way. For the sake of my purpose here, I am willing to endure that, and actually welcome any comments for the sake of plural benefit.

Let me begin with what I believe is the foundation of our understanding about marriage: Genesis 2:24 à “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This verse is foundational to our understanding about marriage, because it relates the original design God has for the home. It is not merely a descriptive verse of the relationship between the first husband Adam and his wife Eve, but rather a prescriptive verse that is applicable to all future husbands and wives. This is hardly contestable, since Adam did not even have a father and mother to leave. It is important, however, to outline several truths that are present here that may serve as an important point of reference in our future discussion about marriage and divorce. (1) This is clearly the design of God. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this foundational ideal does not deal with any sinful situations or exceptions, because of the clear and simple fact that sin has not even entered the world at this point in Genesis. (2) This truth sets forth the primacy of marriage as superior over every other human relationship, even that of parenthood. (3) The unity that is described by the word “cleave” (or “united”) and the term “one flesh” describe a covenant act between the man, the woman, and God (Mal. 2:14-16a). (4) The oneness that the two share involves sexual intimacy, as well as a spiritual intimacy. Although these thoughts are rather sketchy and only entail a cursory explanation, they are indicative of the divine design behind marriage, and what the marriage arrangement should look like.

The second passage I want to deal with is one of the three most disputed in the divorce debate, Matthew 5:31, 32 à “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I (Jesus) tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” I want to briefly address this text, and save some of my more substantial arguments for when I deal with Matthew 19 (I know you can hardly wait!): (1) Taking this passage at face value, it at least appears to give an exception to staying married forever. (2) Although the Greek word “porneia” (translated here in the NIV “marital unfaithfulness” and in other translations as adultery or fornication), has been a hot bed of contention, the context (since it is marriage, after all) seems to support the idea of adultery. (3) Throughout this entire passage, Jesus has been contrasting commonly held beliefs with a new higher standard of life in the kingdom. Since that is the case, this saying of Jesus about divorce is consistent in that it raises the standard from divorce for practically any reason (including burning the toast) to divorcing only for marital unfaithfulness. (4) The reason it is so critical to remain married, except for adultery, is that by severing a marriage a person is actually guilty of causing their previous spouse to commit adultery, as well as themselves (Mt. 19:9). Although remarriage is also hotly contested, remarriage in the event of a divorce (right or wrong) is assumed to be the natural reaction.

Now, let us try to deal with Matthew 19 in as concise a form as possible, and then we will try to tack on a couple of odds and ends, as well as summarize our findings. First of all, this is a loaded passage and time does not permit us to deal with every jot and tittle of it, so I again (in typical Jason fashion) am going to summarize this for you. I encourage you to go through and study this intuitively and diligently and come to your own conclusions, and then perhaps we can share notes, or even blogs. For now, though, let me try to post a few thoughts about this passage (whose entire context consists of vs. 1-12). (1) Although some incredulously assert that this is (as well as Mt. 5) only in reference to the Jewish engagement (or betrothal) period, the context is clearly divorce. In fact, the Jewish leaders asked the question, “Is it lawful for a man to DIVORCE his wife for any and every reason?” Moreover, they refer to the most famous Old Testament passage on divorce (from consummated marriage)- Deuteronomy 24. It is true that the Jewish betrothal was more binding than our own culture’s engagements, but it is not true to say that there was no difference between the two. While being engaged, the two lived separately; were forbidden to have sex; and the woman was still under the authority of her parents, all until the marriage was consummated. Even the example of Mary and Joseph being “espoused” to one another in Matthew 1 is very clear in its description of what type of relationship was being discussed. If this was, in fact, a discussion about Jewish betrothal, then it would have to mean that anyone (or any Jew, at bare minimum) could not ever be married again. This puts us in the absurd position of prohibiting someone from ever marrying who has never actually been married on the grounds of pre-marital sex. (2) The exception clause in v. 9 renders the most natural reading as that of adultery, in the same way as Mt. 5. (3) The disciples’ reaction is indicative that they held to the majority view of the people of their day. Jesus had in fact raised the standard of marriage from what they had believed and abolished the view of divorcing one’s spouse over any and every reason. Furthermore, he elevated the view of women in treating the husband as equally palpable in an immoral divorce (v. 9). There is a lot more to be said about this passage, but I am going to give it a rest for now, because my blog is turning into a bog.

So, is this the only exception to the permanence of marriage in Scripture? There is actually one more, and it is found in 1 Corinthians 7, from the pen of the Apostle Paul. Paul reiterates a lot of what Jesus taught in regards to the general design of God with respect to marriage (by the way, an exception does not negate or contradict a general rule). After having given the general principles and ideals for marriage, however, he deals with specific situations that have arisen. Most specifically, he addresses the very common Greek issue of a newly converted Christian being already married to a pagan, or unbelieving, spouse. Paul gives instructions for seeking to win the spouse to Christ, and commands against divorce. Nevertheless, he does bring up the possibility of the unbelieving spouse deserting or divorcing the believer. In that event, Paul says, the believing spouse should not fight the divorce proceedings (“let him do so”), but should allow it to take place. In this non-instigated circumstance, the believer is free to divorce, and I would also add is free to remarry (as is assumed in the exception clause of Matthew). The last part of v. 15 says, “A believing man or woman is not BOUND in such circumstances.” This word, although not the same word, is very similar in meaning to the word that is used down in v. 39 à “A woman is BOUND to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” It would be difficult to believe that if Paul had meant for the deserted believer not to remarry, then he would not have used a term which clearly indicates the same freedom to remarry as the one in v. 39.

Therefore, I would like to summarize my thoughts here, and make a few closing comments: (1) One man for one woman for one lifetime is God’s clear design in Scripture. (2) Divorce is the result of man’s hardness of heart and proclivity to sin; Moses’ permission to do so was merely a regulation of what was already being done. (3) Jesus reiterated the permanence of marriage with one clear exception, which is the most fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage- sexual sin. (4) In the event of the exception, it is permission to divorce, not a requirement to divorce. All efforts should be made according to Matthew 18 to reclaim the wayward spouse and salvage the marriage covenant. (5) Paul dealt, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with a very culturally relevant issue that had come up with mixed marriages (not to be confused, please, with interracial), and he allows for divorce in the event of desertion. (6) Remarriage is assumed to take place both in the Matthean account, as well as the Pauline writing.

Well, I know that this is not exhaustive, even though I am sure you are exhausted, but it does deal with the basic interpretive issues at hand in divorce and remarriage. While I did leave out quite a few passages for the sake of brevity and clarity, and I did omit some practical issues that might arise as a result of this, I hope to do that in a follow up segment during the course of the next few days. Feel free to e-mail me your comments or thoughts or objections to this, though, so we can engage in some healthy dialogue. Thanks for indulging me, again. Later.