by Logan Ames
How hard would you be willing to work with no guaranteed tangible reward whatsoever? Most people know what their jobs pay them and know exactly what they get for any extra work that they do. If they do the work, they expect to be paid fairly. The Bible even tells us this is a good and right concept. Jesus himself said, “Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7). This was what he told his disciples as he was sending them out to minister. Many Christians know the quote “the worker deserves his wages," but they don’t remember the first part. Sometimes, we’re called to do work and to accept WHATEVER the reward is. It might be a million dollars, it might be nothing, or it might be something in between. Either way, the work almost always gets done before the reward is given.
This is especially true when talking about work that is right in God’s eyes, or even work that he has commanded us to do. The thing we all have to decide for ourselves is whether we are willing to do whatever is right in his eyes, no matter the cost, with the knowledge that he commanded it being the ONLY reason to do it. That’s where the rubber of faith meets the road of life. Today, we look at an unnamed hero of the faith who was willing to do what God said JUST BECAUSE he said it.
Last week, I wrote about King Hezekiah and his refusal to cower in fear to the threats and ridicule of Israel and the living God, as well as his leadership during that time. Hezekiah’s faith may have had an impact on those who knew him or heard the stories of what God did through his leadership. But two people who clearly didn’t care about his faith enough to follow in his footsteps and faith were his son and grandson. The two kings who immediately succeeded Hezekiah were his son Manasseh, and then after that, Manasseh’s son, Amon. 2 Kings 21 tells us briefly about their reigns as king, but the most important thing to know about them is that they did evil in the eyes of the Lord and worshiped idols. Hezekiah had destroyed all the idols that previous kings and generations had worshiped, but Manasseh decided it was a good idea to go through all the effort to rebuild them. Hard work and effort can be completely wasted if it’s toward ends that are not pleasing to God. Manasseh reigned for 55 years, so his detestable practices led his people into sin for a long time (v. 11). After he died, Amon simply followed in his dad’s evil and his reign only lasted two years before he was assassinated by his own officials (v. 23). Because the kingship was passed through the blood line, it had to go to Amon’s son, despite the fact that he was only 8 years old! His name was Josiah, and he’s our hero of the faith for the day.
Whether it was because Josiah wasn’t old enough to understand or enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin that his father and grandfather pursued or because someone spoke truth into his life to turn him toward God, Josiah chose to go back to the glory days of his great-grandfather Hezekiah’s reign and worship the Lord only. 2 Kings 22:2 tells us, “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left." I find two things about this verse fascinating. First, it lists his father as “David” even though we know his biological father was Amon. That shows us that David was his “father” in the sense that the faith tradition which had been ignored by the previous generations began all the way back at David’s reign. Secondly, it says he didn’t turn aside to the right or to the left. I’m sure this has nothing to do with the author’s purpose for that statement, but isn’t it interesting that “right” and “left” are the two words used to characterize the intense division in our politically-crazed and agenda-driven nation right now? This one verse in the Bible ought to remind us that NEITHER side is always right in the eyes of the Lord!
I consider Josiah one of the unnamed faithful heroes in Hebrews 11 because verse 33 says that the faithful “administered justice." Now, that’s what my NIV translation says. However, I realized that another translation I look at from time to time, the NKJV, says they “worked righteousness." This is where any knowledge we can gain from the original Greek is critical. In our language, those two phrases are not as synonymous as they are in the much broader Greek language where words can meet a number of different things in English. So, I did some research in my dusty old Greek New Testament from seminary. While “administered justice” would not be wrong, it appears the more accurate representation here is “worked righteousness." This would especially be true if applied to Josiah and the work that he did.
I encourage you to read 2 Kings 22-23 to see all that King Josiah did during his reign. I’ll try to give you a brief overview. In the 18th year of his 31-year reign, he sends his secretary to the high priest at the temple of the Lord so that those working hard to repair it are fairly and honestly compensated. While his secretary is there, the high priest tells him that he has found the Book of the Law in the temple. This suggests that previous generations didn’t care to read it or follow it, and we already know that is true. The secretary takes it back to Josiah and reads it in his presence. This is the life-changing moment for Josiah. As he hears the Law of God, he can’t bear the thought of how long his throne and the people of Judah have been far from him. He recognizes that the Lord has every reason to be angry with them and seeks the Lord through a prophet about how they should respond. The prophet tells him that disaster will be brought on the nation and its people because of their disobedience, and all Josiah is promised is that he will actually die BEFORE any of the disaster happens so he doesn’t witness it. Gee, thanks Lord!
Josiah then decides to read the Book of the Law in front of the entire nation of people and calls for them to renew their covenant with God. The people do so, but then Josiah gets to work. 2 Kings 23:4-24 then tells us how Josiah systematically destroyed all of the idols of the pagan gods his people had been worshiping and even killed some of the priests who made sacrifices to those gods. One of the idols he destroyed was for the god Molech, to whom human child sacrifices were made (v. 10). Not only does Josiah destroy everything that was evil in the eyes of the Lord, but he also restarts the observance of the Passover to the Lord (v. 21), which had been commanded in Exodus 12:24-27, yet had not been observed for many generations. You see, true repentance and fear of the Lord has to do with not only eliminating the sins of commission, but also the sins of omission. If you haven’t done what God says, it’s time to start.
Make no mistake about it, the work that Josiah had to do was long and hard just to get his people back on track. I’m sure it didn’t make him happy to slaughter the unrepentant priests. I’m sure he had people ridicule or hate him for tearing down their precious statues. But he knew this was what was righteous in God’s eyes and he was committed to “working righteousness” back into the nation for which he was responsible, no matter how hard it would be. And we’d think that after everything he did, he’d be blessed and things would end well for him. But it wasn’t so. 2 Kings 23:26 tells us that God did not change his mind about bringing disaster on the nation of Judah, and then verse 29 tells us that Josiah was killed by the king of Egypt in battle. So, God kept his promise to Josiah and spared him from having to witness the destruction of his people and country. But still, it doesn’t seem to us like a fair end to Josiah’s story. He reigned 31 years, meaning he died at the age of 39. And it wasn’t like he slowly went to sleep and never woke up either. He was killed in BATTLE, so not fun at all. He received no tangible reward for his faith. Back to one of the original questions: Is doing the right thing in the eyes of the Lord enough for you? Do you need something more? It’s a question of faith and total surrender to him that only you can answer.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Nathan Buck
[This is my third blog post on recent events, and builds somewhat on the previous two. You may want to read my last two posts here and here for additional insights on navigating policy, public debate, and checking our motives.]
A recent trend in our culture has been to elevate someone who has experienced a trauma or suffering, as if they were an expert on making policies that may be related to their experience. Jimmy Kimmel positioned himself as a spokesperson on healthcare, because of his child's experience with tetralogy of fallot. Soon after, the #metoo trend went around, and women who had experienced sexual assault or harassment positioned themselves as spokespersons for women's rights. Then we had the Florida school shootings, and students who suffered severe trauma were put out on the media and encouraged to make statements about policy and gun control.
In each situation, the policy changes requested, the platforms advocated for, and the legislation demanded were narrow and tuned almost exclusively into the one slice of experience that impacted these individuals so greatly. Now let me say that each of their situations are worthy of our listening, support, compassion, and care. They are experts in their own experience, and it is worthy of our respect and attention to hear their story, to consider our role in helping them move forward, and to guard others from unnecessary pain - in so far as that is possible and purposeful. I would think that any human being with half a heart would want to see healing and wholeness come to the hurting, the broken, the abused, and the grieving. That is a given.
It is a separate issue though to consider policy measures and laws based solely on their experiences. It is a fair question to ask if their experience had in some way endowed them with an expertise or insight that should dominate the focus of policies on related issues. Consider the story of Job (pronounced “jobe”). In chapters 38-42 we see the conclusion to his story, which answers that question pretty clearly.
Let me set the stage with Job. His story challenges the notion that those who are suffering are cursed and those who prospering are blessed. In his day, there was an assumption that God always blessed the righteous, and as long as you didn't do anything wrong, God would make you wealthy and healthy. Now Job is a guy who did everything right. He was wealthy and everything he had was healthy and prospering - his family, his herds of animals, his fields, etc. Unknown to Job, there is a conversation Satan has with God. It's essentially a dare; Satan dares God to let Job experience pain and loss to see if Job will curse God. God accepts the challenge and is confident that Job will pass. The only condition God ultimately puts on Satan is that he cannot harm Job himself.
What happens next is so traumatizing that most of us would go insane with grief. Job's herds of animals, his crops, and all of his children are stolen, destroyed, or killed in ONE day. Then when Job doesn't curse God, Satan afflicts his body with sores from head to toe. It's so painful and dramatic that Job's wife even tells him to "curse God and die." I can't imagine the pain, the grief, or the suffering.
Job's three friends come and sit with him for 7 days and say nothing. It's the most compassionate thing they do. Because after the 7 days, each of them speaks in turn and each of them tries to get Job to admit to some fault or sin that must have caused this. Chapter after chapter of Job's story is their discussion with him, insisting he MUST have done something wrong. Eventually, Job has defended himself against their accusations long enough, and he demands an audience with God to vindicate him and show that He committed no sin, even in the depths of his grief.
Now, if we were to accept the idea that Job is an expert by his suffering and that somehow he had gained insight into the workings of the universe and wisdom for policies that would benefit humankind, then we would expect God to vindicate Job and the story to be over. This is not what happens. Yes, Job had not sinned to cause any of this. But in his suffering and frustration with his friends' assumptions, he stepped into a place that appears to be indignation. Somewhere, in the midst of his pain, the absolution he wanted became something he felt he deserved, to the point where he accuses God of denying him justice. And after the youngest friend speaks to defend God and convince Job of his own guilt, then God speaks.
“Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me..." (Job 38:1-2)
In the very first sentence, God demonstrates the simple truth that Job has not seen and cannot see what God sees. I love the "brace yourself like a man" statement; I can hear both sarcasm and a loving father about to deal a hard truth to his child. God goes on to ask Job if he was there at the start of creation, if he helped build all that exists, if he has the power to put the stars in place, if he can create or tame the great creatures of the earth, etc. By the end of God's questioning, the one clear thing displayed is that Job is NOT an expert on justice, or creation, or anything in comparison to God. And it's important to notice Job's attitude in Job 42:1-6.
While Job's experience was painful and his suffering worthy of compassion, it had not imparted him with greater knowledge of who God is or how God works. He also didn't have greater insight into justice or policies to protect people from bad things happening.
We learn that our lives and experiences are part of a greater story in which our gains and losses all play a part in the victory of good over evil. God revealed to Job what He planned from the beginning after the testing by Satan. He blesses him with more than he had previously and let him see his grandchildren to the fourth generation. God also confronted Job's friends and affirms that Job had represented Him well throughout their accusations.
In Job's story we are reminded that not only are those who suffer not experts in regard to passing law and policies, but also those 'friends' who seem wise may not be experts either. There is only one sound way to have good laws and policies, and that is to have insight beyond our own experiences. We need to have God's perspective on things if we hope to have laws and policies that benefit society and build people up. So, we can listen and learn from those who are hurting, and we should. But before we set to writing laws and policies, we need to take a breath, pause, then discern God's guidance for the decisions ahead.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
I and many other young earth creationists (YEC) often get accused of legalism by insisting on the authority of Scripture in regards to origins. But is the accusation true? First, let me examine what is actually being said. When the YEC are accused of being legalistic, what the accusers are really saying is, “YEC are closed-minded. They need to be more open to other ideas.” In only a few occasions are the accusations actually about legalism.
Now to be honest, it is very possible for a YEC to become legalistic. So we need to actually address what legalism is. I would describe legalism in this way: Legalism is the practice of enforcing laws beyond their intended purpose and making the laws both the means and the end of all things. I want to emphasize the latter part of this definition I am using.
It is easy for a YEC to make Creation the center of everything. While it is foundational to every part of Christianity, the center of Christianity is Christ, not Creation. I can see many old earth creationists shouting “Amen!” to that statement, but they best hold it. The OEC will take such a statement and then say that Creation is unimportant enough that they can insert their opinions and pagan-based ideas into their theology. Even in supposed secondary issues, there is never any right to insert pagan ideas into the Bible at any point. Where YEC often go wrong is focusing too much on Creation without using creation to point to Christ. The young earth position by itself is meaningless; it needs the cross. Where YEC get into trouble is when they make a young earth the end of the means. But where YEC get it right is using Creation to point to Christ. While I don’t agree with everything they say, this is one thing I greatly admire about Answers in Genesis. You will not attend a single one of their presentations without hearing the Gospel in some way, form, or shape. That is their end goal. Creation is the primary angle they use to get to Christ.
However, there is an equal and opposite fallacy to legalism: and that is the spirit of the Nicolatians. In the letters to the churches at Ephesus and Pergamum in Revelation 2, these people were addressed. Jesus praised Ephesus for hating that teaching, but chided Pergamum for letting them in. It is not clear who started their teachings but what they taught was clear and very dangerous. The Nicolatians taught that because of the grace of God and once we are saved, therefore everything else is a free-for-all. It does not matter if we sin or not because God’s grace covers it. It does not matter about any other “side issues” because all that matters is Jesus, so therefore we can believe whatever we want on anything else. At the time, they taught that it was okay to worship other gods as long as you gave Jesus credit, and sexual immorality was no big deal because there is freedom in Christ. And all of this is a lie straight from hell.
Paul saw this argument coming as he wrote Romans and in 6:1-2 he addressed it. Those in Christ have died to sin, died to this world. Why should any of us continue living after its lusts? And yet this Nicolatian spirit is precisely what the Old Earth crowds put forth. Among their favorite arguments is: “All that matters is Christ, therefore which model of creation does not matter,” and then proceed to promote a pagan ideology decorated in Christianese.
While Christ and Christ crucified should be our focus, that means that he is the center. It does not mean that the only thing that matters is the cross. It means that everything should point towards the cross. If Jesus on the cross is the only thing we needed to know, then the entire rest of the Bible is meaningless. The cross has to stand upon something and be anchored in something, and that something is Genesis. A cross by itself cannot stand up. There has to be a hole in the ground deep enough so the cross doesn’t topple. But without the cross anchored to that foundation, it is nothing but an empty foundation.
YEC and the cross are inseparable, just as sin and death are inseparable. Any attempts to break them apart is heresy. The cross means nothing outside the context of Genesis 1-12 as written. Likewise, YEC is useless without the cross answering for the problem YEC lays out. OEC has no connection to the cross, something that the OEC crowd praises. That is also why they are wrong, because they provide is no connection to Christ or that cross. If Paul makes every effort to know nothing but Christ and Christ crucified, that does not mean he dismisses Creation, the end times, or other supposed “side issues.” It means any topic he addresses, he is going to speak about it and use it to point to Christ. We live in a day and age where intellectualism and scientism reigns supreme. There needs to be a way to show the Bible as reliable from Genesis 1:1 all the way to the end. That is what Henry Morris set out to do when he started the Institute for Creation Research. His primary angle of addressing the cross was through Creation, but the cross was his end goal. He was not out to start a new origins model, and he never did. He was out to win souls for Christ by showing that in every statement the Bible makes it is true, including where it touches on science and history. The old earth founders were not seeking for God or his truth. They were out to destroy the authority of Scripture, and in the minds of many, they succeeded. It will go down as one of the most successful hoaxes played on mankind.
No one likes a legalist and that is why it often makes a good “catch-all” to silence those standing for truth. However, when one calls standing for the truth of Scripture “legalism,” that is a very clear sign of apostasy. Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7:21-23 is against those who claim to be his disciples and yet live as though he gave no law to follow. Being a Christian is not about getting out of hell. It is about surrendering to Christ and letting him live his perfect life in and through you and about getting out the sin which has so corrupted us. If you think you can be a Christian and not change your entire paradigm, you are lost. If you think you can claim the name of Jesus, make a profession of faith, and live and believe whatever you want and however you want on those “side issues,” you are lost. That’s not Christianity at all. Jesus did give a law and part of that law is to keep away from worldly thinking. Yet many OEC out there chides and mocks us YEC for not bowing and caving to the world’s “expertise.”
While a YEC can fall into the trap of legalism, the model is not legalistic by nature. And those who accuse YEC of legalism do so because their standing for truth convicts them of their sin of the Nicolatians. You who are YEC. Are you being legalistic in how you approach Genesis? Have you made YEC the end of your means, not the means to the end who is Christ? Then repent and make Christ your focus. Continue defending the authority of Scripture but make Christ the goal and purpose. You who are OEC, are you more fascinated with the expertise of this world than you are of Almighty God? Then repent and turn to Christ who will show you very clearly how the Creation was done and whose wisdom is supreme. Next week, I’ll address another aspect of this issue: the supremacy of Scripture.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Another tragedy has filled the news and social media, with everyone weighing in on their opinion. Unfortunately, many of those opinions were thrown out onto social media or covered by the “news” before any information was really known and with an exceptional amount of emotion. My purpose here today with this blog post is to express what I believe is the obvious issue or issues allowing for these sorts of things to happen. I'm talking about the school shooting at Parkland, FL.
On Valentine's Day, February 14, 2018, an evil person sought to kill as many as possible before being apprehended by authorities. This terrible individual was taken into custody, but not before killing 17 unsuspecting individuals—14 students, 2 teachers, and the athletic director. There were multiple heroes and some who may be counted as villains.
Back to the lashing out we saw (and still see, unfortunately). Most of the loud, highly publicized opinions being spouted on Facebook, Twitter, CNN, and the other “news” outlets were very one sided and very uninformed. And I get it. This cowardly, heinous act demands we do something. But blame and going after people who had nothing to do with this tragedy isn't going to fix what happened or prevent it in the future. Will more laws concerning who can own firearms and what kind fix this? No. Of course not. Repeating firearms have been around for centuries—literally existing before any European colony was in the New World (that's America for those of you unsure). And the AR-15 is just one of them. There are many firearms available today (and they've been available for some time) that fire faster and shoot more damaging rounds. And the NRA did not do this or even remotely contribute to it. They have not killed a single person since their formation and they are not even in the top 20 for lobbyists. President Trump didn't do this and his power to change things are exceptionally limited.
The facts here are eye opening and, unfortunately, the story is all too familiar. There were dozens of warnings that this person was going to attempt some sort of horrific act. We know that the FBI was aware of this person's threats 6 months prior to the shooting. We know the local authorities had been notified long before February 14th, 2018. The fact is the system was set up to stop this from happening, but it didn't. More laws won't get this fixed. That would just mean more laws and procedures that won't get followed. Had proper attention been given to this threat, it may not have happened at all. Had the proper information been shared, it's possible the AR-15 may not have been able to be purchased. Does this mean the mass killing wouldn't have occurred? Of course not. Nearly 3000 people were killed on (and many since due to) September 11, 2001. Not a single gun was used in this mass killing. In Oklahoma City, on April 19th, 1995, a man killed 168 people including 19 children and didn't fire a single shot. You see, it's not a gun problem. Mass murder has been around for a long time and there are many more ways to inflict death and destruction than with firearms—ways far more efficient than guns. Blunt objects (like hammers and bricks) have killed a great many people. Fists and feet have killed a large number as well. So have cars, knives, poisons, and explosives.
The worst school killing in US history was in 1927, the Bath School Disaster. Forty-four people including 38 children were killed with an explosive device. No guns were used to kill students or teachers. The worst school massacre in the world was in Russia and did involve firearms. This resulted in over 300 dead and nearly 800 injured! I can't believe that myself, but it seems to be how it's reported. So the idea that this is an American problem is also not sound. In fact, the 4 worst (in terms of numbers) mass killings at schools were not in the US. Please don't take this to mean I'm trying to minimize the events of February 14th this year. I'm not at all. Any shooting—especially a shooting involving children—is tragic and inexcusable. I'm trying to express the truth about what's wrong here, in my opinion. The truth that it's not about guns is evident to me fairly clearly. Let's move on.
Some suggest we need to regulate or even prohibit who can buy what gun. The truth here is that we already do this. There are many firearms out there that I am not able to buy as a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I understand why someone would irrationally lash out concerning this. But most of them don't understand some of the basics concerning guns. I'm not going to get into the minutia of that topic. But some will suggest that even though the US Constitution gives us the right to own firearms, that doesn't mean we should. They want to suggest that either modern firearms change the discussion or that one must be part of a “well-regulated militia” in order to own firearms. Both of these arguments are void of logic. I'm not suggesting someone saying or believing these things isn't smart or sincere. I'm simply saying such things are easily proven false.
As stated already, repeating and/or rapid fire guns were in existence long before America was a nation. It is true that such weapons were not widely available to the layperson, however. This was changed by James Madison, who sponsored actions to create mass production of rapid fire or repeating firearms and to make such firearms affordable for the average American. If one of the Founders (James Madison is a Founding Father) desired to make it possible for average Americans to buy repeating firearms, I think it's fair to say this argument is finished. Concerning a “well-regulated militia,” let's read the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The argument goes that this reading makes it necessary for the owner of a firearm to be in a militia. In a recent discussion with former Worldview Warrior's writer Michael Homula, the two statements (maintaining a well-regulated militia and owning a firearm) in the Second Amendment are not connected so strictly. In fact, I would argue the connection is the other way around. In order for a militia to exist, the citizens must have the right to bear arms. According to Mr. Homula, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote on the topic significantly in the Federalist Papers (which are useful in interpreting the Constitution of the United States) and it seems rather clear that they believed armed citizens and a militia were not the same thing but both were important.
Noah Webster (another Founder) said this: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." This sounds like being able to defend yourself, in the minds of the Founders, was less about home defense against an assailant and more about keeping the government in check. Doesn't it?
I heard a person talking about this and said it this way: “The FBI failed to investigate this guy. The local sheriff failed over and over to look into this guy's statements and possible actions. He shouldn't have been able to buy a weapon but was able to because of this breakdown in procedure. These people (the governing authorities) want me, a law-abiding American, to give them my guns so we can be protected? Are you kidding me?”
This senseless act was a symptom of a major problem our nation and our society has. Before I go any further, I want to say that I realize many people will read what I have to say here and roll their eyes and check out. That in no way is an argument against my statements and certainly doesn't mean they're not true. The foundation of any further issue I'll describe for you today is Jesus Christ—or a lack thereof. Come on, Americans! This nation was founded by Christian men on Christian principles derived from the Bible to govern a predominantly Christian people. There is little rational or fact-based argument against this nation being a Christian nation. This isn't to say it’s a theocracy but it’s a nation built by Christian men using Jesus Christ and the Bible to govern a Christian society. In 1835, Alex de Tocqueville said of Americans, "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." This was based on his observations of American society. How I long for such a thing to once again be true. We have lost our first love and the Truth that our nation was built upon. Because of this—this rejection of our Savior and the Lover of our souls—all other issues cannot be treated. If we treat the symptoms of the problem while leaving the problem untouched, we'll end up frustrated and the problem will not be resolved at all.
Our society is becoming more and more withdrawn. People interact over online social media and have less actual face-to-face relationships. This is a problem. It creates isolation and can easily lead to depression. It also leads to empowerment through anonymity. If we're just typing words on a screen, it's easy to feel like you're not really going to be accountable for your actions. Cyber bullying is one of the major results of this. Without real (and, let's face it, online interaction with someone is not a real interaction... and I'm not saying Facebook or Twitter or whatever are not useful, but they shouldn't be used as a permanent substitute for human interaction) interaction and relationships, our society turns into isolated, angry, lonely people with less conscience. I believe there can be a lot of healing in our land if we'd just value people over technology. If we took time to sit with someone and chat rather than mess around on an online game or waste time on social media, we'd probably find a little more value in humanity. And this leads to my next point.
We don't teach the value, as a society, to our youth (or adults) of human life. We don't value life. We're outraged by a man who likely has some mental issue who killed 17 people with a firearm when nearly 3000 innocent lives are terminated in the womb every day—EVERY SINGLE DAY—in the US. No one has a thing to say about that? Almost 1/4 of all pregnancies are ended by willfully killing the child in the womb. Yet we're up in arms about gun rights and mental health? We teach that whatever you feel is right. We teach that whatever you do is right. Your morals are between you and no one else. We teach that you evolved from an animal, so how can we be confused when our children act like animals? I'm seriously asking this question. We don't value human life as we should. The value of human life is derived from God Himself because He breathed life into man, creating him in His own image. We alone have this distinction. The Ten Commandments tell us not to murder. This is explained further in Exodus as meaning not just the intentional killing of a human being, but the death of a person due to negligence or carelessness. God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to die to save humanity. If this doesn't give us a hint as to the unspeakable value God places on human life, I'm not sure what does. We are all—every single human being—something of value. We are valued far above all else in creation according to Jesus. We have failed as a society to teach this unwaveringly.
We also are a fatherless society. One in three children in the US don't have a father in their home. This is a significant and connecting factor in many of our society's woes. But the underlying problem is a lack of Jesus Christ; I'm convinced of this. Every school shooter to my knowledge, or at least a very high percentage of them, has come from a fatherless home. Fathers provide something in a stable family situation that leaves an enormous hole when he's absent. Read more about that at this website, and I also wrote about that in this blog post.
Connected to our society's lack of value for human life is its lack of interest in other. Something I found heartbreaking was this statement from a person from Parkland who knew the shooter: “I never really got close to him, because I always had a feeling there was something wrong.” I've seen many of my Christian friends on social media ask questions after a tragedy like this like, “Why wasn't this person loved?” or “How could we have shown this hurting person the love of Jesus?” and others. These are good questions but the answers are the concern: we're an apathetic society. We need to take an interest in the “unlovable” and the “undesirable.” If we are around people on a regular basis that there seems to be “something wrong” with them, what if we took an interest in them and showed them the love of Christ? No. We'd rather go home and play Candy Crush or Minecraft or binge watch Walking Dead or This is Us. The phrase “Be the Change” has been worn out, I suppose, but it's good advice. Be the change. Make a difference. Get uncomfortable.
This is also true of many parents concerning their children. We are so stressed and high paced in this culture that it becomes a burden to even care what our kids are doing. This obviously isn't true of all families, but way too many. I know teachers who've told me about conversations they've tried to have with parents concerning their unruly children. Very commonly, the parents seem disconnected and quite often just don't care. Recently, a teacher in Florida named Kelly Guthrie Raley made waves by stating the woes of a many teachers—that students behave terribly and have no respect for themselves or others and parents don't care. Children talk with disrespect, react with violence, and play role-playing video games where they kill people up close and with graphic detail (sometimes as an act of terror rather than the role of a “good guy”). If parents take an interest in their children (as parents and NOT as friends), many children would better understand their value as human beings and members of society and, hopefully, this would lead to an increase in the awareness of the intrinsic value of the rest of the human beings they run into day to day. Children need to force themselves onto their parents and vice versa. Truly. Let's be families again. There is so much that would be resolved if we would just unite as families again. But these families need to have, at their core, Jesus Christ and His principles.
I guess, really, what I'm getting at is that love is all you need according to Kevin Prosch or, as the Beatles would say, all you need is love. First and foremost, the love of Jesus Christ in the hearts of man would change this nation and for the better. There's healing in the love of God and it's immeasurable. This would trickle down from Christ to each of us, to those who are “unlovable,” to our children, to our classmates and coworkers, to strangers on the street, etc. With the love we share from Jesus Christ would flow a feeling of acceptance and self-worth. From it would also flow a great appreciation for the value of human life. It would bring an end (or at the very least a drastic reduction) in the number of cases of this sort of tragedy. I guess you'll have to take my word for it.
The nation seems to be going insane and has no interest in literally the ONLY thing that can help heal our land. Who can argue that the longer and further we turn and run from God, the worse this nation becomes. I hardly recognize it and I'm only 40 years old. When I was a kid growing up in the 80's and 90's, I felt safe and had little fear of being attacked or shot or whatever. I felt secure because I was. Sure, there were dangers, but nothing at all like there are today. I was permitted to do things as a child that I would be investigated for today if I allowed my kids to do them. The world (the American world) is very different and I don't mean better at all. And it all stems from our public or national rejection of our Savior. We built this nation on His principles and then told Him to get lost.
Seek Him. Seek His will. Share His love. What do you have to lose? What could the down side possibly be? If our nation continues this way—attacking decent folks for things bad people do, desiring to DO SOMETHING even if it's the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, lashing out at people who didn't do anything, and making this about symptoms rather than addressing problems—we will only get worse. We can't heal if we don't want to accept the truth of our condition. Jesus is the only answer, friends. If you're one of those who roll your eyes and sigh when you read that, you're probably part of the problem or not far from it, in my opinion.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
In the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, America has once again turned her collective attention to the Second Amendment. Our nation is split between two competing views of this small portion of our Bill of Rights. On the one hand, there are those like Jeffrey Toobin, a contributor at CNN and the New Yorker, who claims that “the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.”
And on the other hand, there are those who take the position advanced by Dana Loesch of the National Rifle Association in CNN’s town hall on gun policy. When asked how the Second Amendment applied to the gun policy debate, Loesch answered that, “In the context of the time, a ‘well-regulated militia’ meant an American man, an American woman, a citizen of the United States of America who could operate and service their firearm.”
These two competing statements offer a nearly complete overview of the current gun control debate. Those in favor of gun control claim that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, and those opposed to gun control respond by claiming that every American citizen is part of the militia. Both sides claim to have the support of the founders, and they’re both right on that account since the founding fathers were somewhat divided on the issue of state and local militias.
However, I think that both sides are missing the mark on their interpretation of the Second Amendment. In fact, neither of them is even aiming at the right target. The real key to understanding the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the militia.
The single most important part of the Second Amendment is not its reference to a “well-regulated militia,” nor is it the question of what is meant by “keep and bear arms.” No, the most important part of the entire Second Amendment is the small and often overlooked phrase: “the people.”
The right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is not a right that belongs to the federal government, for that right existed before the federal government was formed. It is not a right that belongs to the state governments, for it preceded them as well and was present in each territory long before it became a state. It is not a right that belongs to the militia, for it still exists even when militias are no longer needed. The right to keep and bear arms is specifically designated as a right of “the people.”
So who exactly are “the people” to whom this right belongs? That question is answered repeatedly throughout the Constitution.
According to the Preamble, “the people” are the collective body of individuals who authorized the Constitution itself. Our constitutional form of government was ordained and established by “We the People” – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
According to Article I Section 2, “the People” are the ones who vote for the members of the House of Representatives – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
According to the First Amendment, “the people” cannot be a reference to a governing body since “the people” are the ones who have the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
According to the Fourth Amendment, “the people” are those who have a right to be secure against warrantless search and seizure by the government – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
In the Ninth Amendment, “the people” are recognized as those who retain rights not granted to the federal government – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
And in the Tenth Amendment, “the people” are contrasted with both the federal and the state governments as those to whom rights are reserved by default if not delegated to a government by the Constitution – i.e. the entire citizenry of the United States.
As you can see, the meaning of the phrase “the people” in the Constitution is fairly easy to ascertain. “The people” are the ones from whom our government was established, by whom our government was established, and for whom our government was established. This body must necessarily include every single citizen of the United States.
There is much that could be said about why the need for a well-regulated militia justifies the right to keep and bear arms. And we could spend a great deal of time discussing the extent of the arms which were intended to be including in this right. But all of that is of no benefit to us at all if we do not have a firm grasp of the most important part of the Second Amendment. In order to discuss the scope of this amendment, we must first understand that the right being discussed is a right of “the people” – a right which belongs to every single citizen of the United States of America.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Last week, I wrote on what the Bible says about how to treat animals. We know that God created the animals, and He cares for them. But what about when it comes to eating animals - killing them for our food? What does the Bible say about that?
In Genesis 1:28, right after God created humans, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Humans are the pinnacle of God’s creation, and we were created to rule over the animals. We were not created to treat them as equals, but to have dominion over them. Having dominion does not mean ruling like a dictator and exploiting something, but having a proper responsibility over them.
Before sin entered the world, there was no death, so animals would not have been killed in order to be eaten. But after Adam and Eve sinned, that all changed. The first death was an animal that was killed so its skin could make their clothing, now that it mattered that they weren’t wearing any.
A bit later, right after the great flood, Genesis 9:1-4 records this: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.’” This makes it clear that it’s now just fine for humans to eat animals.
In the Leviticus 11, God gives Israel a list of the clean and unclean animals, explaining which they are allowed to eat and which they are not allowed to eat. In that time and culture, things were very different than they are now regarding food. For one, they didn’t have refrigeration to properly preserve meats that would easily spoil in the Middle Eastern heat. They also didn’t have as thorough of cooking methods and checking for proper meat temperatures as we do today. So, one reason God gave them these rules was to help them survive and not get sick from what they ate. They were also a way for the Israelites to show their devotion to God through their actions, since they were living under the Law and before the sacrifice of Jesus.
But what about now? In Acts 10, the apostle Peter had a vision where God showed him that animals are no longer either clean or unclean; that distinction is no longer necessary, just as the distinction between Jew and Gentile was no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection, all people could be saved! These specific rules given to the Israelites about unclean animals no longer apply to us today, in our time and culture.
What about Jesus? Would he have eaten animals? While the Scriptures don’t give us a detailed diet that Jesus ate, we do know that He ate fish after His resurrection, as recorded in Luke 24:42-43 and John 21. Jesus likely would not have helped the disciples catch so many fish if he didn't believe they should be eaten.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul writes to the church at Corinth about eating meat from sacrifices that were made to idols. He concludes that it’s perfectly fine, as long as it does not cause you or those around you to stumble in the faith.
So the Bible clearly tells us that it’s fine to eat meat. But what about those who choose to be vegetarian or even vegan? Romans 14:2-3 says, “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” This doesn’t mean that vegetarians have weak faith; this means that we should not judge others critically for their dietary choices. We know that we are to treat animals well, and some live that out in their lives by choosing not to eat them.
Whatever our preference on eating meat, we should always be seeking to glorify God and strengthen our faith and the faith of others in all areas of life, whether we do so while eating a cheeseburger or a salad. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Logan Ames
What bothers you enough to make you want to fight? In this day and age, a person can’t talk about politics or religion without making someone else so aggravated that they could actually threaten or cause bodily harm to the one whose view offends them. When I was growing up, people didn’t seem to get all bent out of shape about those things like they do now. That probably has a lot to do with the more recent explosion of social media and 24-hour access to the Internet and news updates than anything else. We had to find real things to get upset about when I was growing up. The line generally got crossed when someone talked about someone else’s “momma." When a person couldn’t get under your skin by insulting you alone, he had to turn his attention to your mom and sometimes even your dad.
We were taught growing up that words were never enough to start a fight. That old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," was basically branded in our minds. Of course, everyone knows it’s not entirely true. Words do hurt and they are often the catalyst for violent conflicts. Still, we were taught to walk away from someone who was picking on us, ignore insults, and refuse to come back with violence.
As we begin to look at heroes of our faith who are not mentioned by name in Hebrews 11, the first one who comes to my mind is a man who had to stare down hurtful words of not his mother and father, but worse! His entire nation and their God were being put down by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib. Hebrews 11:33-38 tells us all of the things that the anonymously faithful were able to accomplish, overcome, or endure through their faith in the living God and his promises. The first thing mentioned is that they “conquered kingdoms." This could be describing a number of different people, some of whom we’ve already acknowledged on this blog. Today, I want to tell you about King Hezekiah.
The story begins in 2 Kings 18:17 when Sennacherib sends several of his delegates to King Hezekiah in Jerusalem to threaten them. His delegates speak what they’re told by their king, which is nothing but an attempt to intimidate Hezekiah into surrendering to Sennacherib and the Assyrians. Hezekiah evidently had some level of confidence because he had honored the Lord (verse 19), but the Assyrians were intent on destroying that boldness and instilling fear. But like the new song from Zach Williams says, “Fear is a liar." Hezekiah knew that and his faith allowed him to stand firm in the midst of this threat and fear-mongering that was happening.
Sennacherib’s message to Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:19-35 is basically that he shouldn’t have any confidence in the Lord or anyone else because no god of any other nation that has been conquered has been able to stop Sennacherib and the Assyrian advances. The thing that Sennacherib ignored that Hezekiah remembered is that our God isn’t like any other god. We know that Hezekiah remembered this because verse 36 tells us that his delegates “remained silent and said nothing in reply because the king had commanded, ‘Do not answer him.’" Isn’t that sometimes the hardest thing in the world to do? When someone is threatening us, putting us down, or mocking those we love, all we can think about is what we can say or do to shut them up. But that isn’t always what God wants. Let me say it differently: it’s almost NEVER what God wants. He tells us through James, the brother of Jesus, “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:19-20). In other words, we should always be slow to respond even when someone is really irritating us or saying hurtful things.
Hezekiah could’ve felt like it was all up to him to defend the name of God. He could have put himself on that pedestal. But instead, by faith, he remembered who God was and who he wasn’t. He let Sennacherib and his minions threaten, mock, and ridicule them. He even let them mock the Lord their God. Why didn’t he respond? It’s simple, really. Hezekiah had the necessary humility to be a human king who submits to God, and he understood that God didn’t need anyone to defend him. Hezekiah knew that God could look out for himself, and any fool who would mock him was only signing his own death warrant.
Hezekiah not only acted in faith personally, but he led by faith when he commanded his delegates to not even respond to Sennacherib’s obviously idiotic statements. In 2 Kings 19, Hezekiah goes to the prophet Isaiah and asks him to seek the Lord on behalf of the nation. He admits that they are in distress over the threats facing them, but still leaves it in the Lord’s hands rather than walk by fear. Isaiah seeks the Lord and promises Hezekiah that the Lord will take care of Sennacherib and have him killed without Hezekiah or his army even having to lift a finger (verse 7). Sennacherib sends messengers to Hezekiah one last time with one final threat and mocking of our great God in verses 9-13. After that, Hezekiah goes to the Lord and basically tells him, “Take care of your light work, God." He reminds God of the ridicule sent from Sennacherib (verse 16), declares that Sennacherib was only able to destroy other nations and their gods because they were “only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands” (verse 18), and then implores the one, true living God to deliver them from Sennacherib’s hand so that the whole world will know who really is the living God (verse 19).
When we put the ball on the tee for the Lord, he knocks it out of the park every single time. Hezekiah could’ve focused on his own strengths and winning a great battle to improve his own popularity. If he had made it about himself, he would have surely been destroyed. He accepted that his situation was hopeless without God, but with God victory would be a certainty unless God wanted them to be defeated temporarily, in which case nothing they could do would prevent it anyway. When his native people and living God were mocked and threatened, Hezekiah resisted the temptation to respond and sought the Lord. May we all take such an approach to those who want to harm us, be it physically, verbally, and even on social media!
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
