IrContent

Several years ago I agreed to debate a Muslim named Nadir Ahmed from Examine The Truth. I was reluctant because we had already debated (via email) before and it was fairly fruitless. However, a friend at Answering-Islam.Org encouraged me to go along with it. So we had the debate. It was also fairly fruitless and I pretty much forgot about it. But recently people have started mentioning it again. Weird. Well, I discovered that the debate has been posted on YouTube and several other websites (I have no idea who posted it nor have I listened to them, so I can only assume they have not been edited). Well, there you have it. So I decided to use this as an opportunity to comment on the debate and discuss biblical morality as well.

To begin with, Nadir refused to debate me according to a format which would have allowed for carefully considered responses to opening statements. The format he demanded was this: First there would be two opening statements, each about 15 minutes long (Nadir “volunteered” to go first, and then announced that he would also be the moderator . . . unbelievable!) Second, there would be a nonstop “crossfire session” where we each would get 60 seconds to ask and answer questions of each other (Nadir went first here too, which pretty much tanked any possibility of me getting the time to ask my own questions. I learned that falsehood favors the sound bite - it’s just too easy to ask a question in 60 seconds that might require 60 minutes to answer adequately. Unfortunately I was not prepared to take advantage of this format flaw as was Nadir). Finally, we had some audience Q&A for about 30 minutes (in this section we only were allowed to respond to questions specifically asked of us. Also, as this was a “G” rated room, we were warned and / or muted several times by the room boss when sexual issues arose. This made it extremely difficult in a debate concerning sexual ethics!).

Nadir’s basic contention is that the Bible does not speak to the moral issues of our day and that therefore the kind of rampant sin Christians speak out against is actually biblically allowed and tacitly approved. Nadir’s basic (and completely unproved or even argued for) assumption is that if the Bible does not specifically and in great detail address an issue then it must be acceptable. Nadir’s example was that since the Bible does not say anything about driving cars, then obviously driving cars must be acceptable. Further, anything that is acceptable to God is also encouraged by God. Thus, if wearing a miniskirt is not specifically addressed in detail then God must want people to wear them. My position was that this is not how Christian ethics works. The Bible itself does not affirm this system of moral authority. In fact, the Bible teaches that there are multiple ways in which God has revealed His moral will including conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, Government, etc. (See the chart below for more details.) Taken as a whole, God’s revelation is sufficient for all moral decisions (2 tim. 3:16-17) so any lack is on our part - not the Bible’s.

click image for full size

Concerning the specifics of the debate, my opening argument countered the idea that the Christian must be able to produce a specific and detailed Bible verse for every possible moral scenario. Christian morality is based on both general revelation (conscience) and special revelation (scriptural commands). This argument completely undercut Nadir’s position, yet he never rebutted it. In fact, Nadir’s contention that Christians may only use the Bible actually counters his own position because the Bible itself commands the use of extra-biblical sources of morality! Nadir also has a penchant for pitting the Bible (a book) against Islam (a religion). But Islam’s teachings are not limited to the Quran any more than Christianity is limited only to the Bible. Extra-scriptural writings and traditional interpretations are appealed to in Islam just like in Christianity, yet Nadir will have nothing of these kinds of sources when referenced by Christians. This is a classic case of special pleading.

As to Nadir’s constant demand for specific and detailed rules, I pointed out that the while Bible does have many instances of these it also makes use of general categorical commands. For example, some argue that the Bible does not have anything to say about an abortion procedure. But because abortion fits the category of murder abortion a sin because the Bible commands us not to murder. I do not need to know specific details about how a murder is done to know it is wrong. Nadir did not successfully rebut this argument either. So even if I had not provided one shred of biblical refutation against his opening arguments I still would have won because the understanding of Christian morality that I presented completely undermined the foundation of his position. Because Nadir never refuted (nor, in some cases, even attempted to refute) my points about Christian morality being based on more than specific, detailed, biblical commands, I was free throughout the debate to reference conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, etc. to bolster the historic Christian understanding of these issues.

Nadir’s tactic was to argue based on descriptions of actions he claimed are moral evils (or at least things most Christians would say are evil - other than the millions he claims he knows who disagree) that the Bible encourages by not saying anything about them. He concludes that Islam is superior because it does speak directly to these issues. He did not back up his unwarranted claim that Christian morality must be found in direct and specific commands in the Bible. Since I had argued for categorical commands, conscience, the witness of the Holy Spirit, Government authority, etc., for Nadir to win the debate he would have had to argue against their use. But he did not. He also appealed to certain question-begging word definitions which I countered by quoting from the authoritative Greek Lexicon (see notes below). He then reverted to saying that because the Bible was not written in English we can’t know what it means anyway. Well which is it? First he argues be misrepresenting the meaning of biblical words, then claims that the meaning of biblical words cannot be known!

I answered Nadir’s arguments with appeals to scriptural word meanings in their context plus the varied sources of morality available to the scripturally knowledgeable Christian and he simply kept responding with his mantra of “the Bible doesn’t teach this.” Repetition, however, is not an argument. The problem is that when Nadir’s arguments are seriously challenged he often simply returns to his original conclusion as if no counter-argument had been made. Then, when he predictably receives repeated refutations of his repeated assertions he concludes that he has “hammered his opponent into merely repeating himself.” But this is not sound argumentation, this is posturing in the hopes that the louder and more repetitive one is the more believable one becomes. Unfortunately this trick works in a sound bite style debate with an untrained audience. In a debate two sides bring arguments to the table and then attempt to rebut each other’s arguments while supporting their own. Thus, there is an objective component to whether or not a debate was won. My position undercut the foundation of Nadir’s entire position, yet he did not offer a refutation. Rhetorical issues notwithstanding, you can’t win a debate if you don’t answer your opponent! This is not me being arrogant; it’s just how debates work (for some third party reviews see soc.religion.islam).

SUMMARY

Nadir’s fundamental assumption of a flawed ethical idealism may obscure the fact his arguments prove nothing more than that the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. Well, I agree - the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. The real question is whether or not this is a problem. If it is this has yet to be proven. Just because someone might like God to have done things differently does not prove God wrong. If God decided to use categorical laws and extra-biblical sources to communicate His moral will then who is Nadir to question that decision? I am willing to bet on God as the better judge of how to communicate morality!

In fact, there was one question during the Q&A that beautifully illustrated the difficulty in Nadir’s idealized model for moral authority. A girl asked what Christianity and Islam would think of a person marrying a person who had undergone “sex-change” surgery. I answered that because of the nature of humanity the person’s gender was not actually changed, therefore it would still fall into the category of homosexuality. But Nadir had nothing to say! He admitted that he had no answer for her. This is exactly what happens when one demands a specific and detailed rule for every moral decision. Once something new comes along you have no direction. Nadir could not answer because the Koran says nothing specifically or in detail about this matter, but what is worse - according to his principle of “if it doesn’t say anything about it it must be acceptable and endorsed” he should have concluded that Islam endorses people having sex change operations and getting married! Now of course Islam teaches no such thing, but Nadir cannot explain why it does not teach that based on his own system of moral interpretation.

The problem that Nadir does not seem to grasp is that the letter of the law does not promote wisdom, character, or virtue - which are the results of thinking through problems and acting rightly regardless of fear of punishment. Islam offers many specific and detailed laws (as did the pharasaical form of Judaism that Jesus so despised), but this offers almost nothing in character development (Nadir provided his own example of this fact when he said he would like to try drugs but hasn’t because the Quran says not to). But acting morally merely out of fear of punishment is no more virtuous than my dog peeing outside to avoid a spanking.

Muslims may persist in claiming that the Bible is inadequate because it does not provide the detail they want. But we Christians will, as we have for the last 2,000 years, continue to be held accountable to moral virtues anyway.

“MODESTY”

1 Tim. 2:9 - “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly [aidos] and discreetly [sophrosune].”

aidos:
1. modesty (of women 1 Ti 2:9)
2. reverence, respect

sophrosune:
1. reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness
2. good judgment, moderation, self-control.

“LUST”

epithumia:
desire, longing, craving.
1. as a neutral term, desires for other things Mk 4:19.
2. in a good sense have a longing for something Phil 1:23
3. in a bad sense as a desire for something forbidden in accordance with physical desire alone to satisfy the desires of the body: gambling, drunkenness and gluttony are called many foolish desires (1 Ti 6:9); youthful desires (2 Ti 2:22); in accordance w. their own desires (4:3); the desires that ruled over you formerly, when you were ignorant (1 Pt 1:14) defiling passion (2 Pt 2:10). deceptive desires (Eph. 4:22).

I heard this post’s title in a line from a song by R.E.M. recently and it really hit home. I admit that I tend to be rather easily star-struck, especially when it came to my favorite musicians, authors, and apologists. I am pleased to say that I have met many of my heroes: bands like Saviour Machine, the Violet Burning, even Whitecross (hey, it was the 80’s give me a break!). But even more impressive is the list of apologetic luminaries I have rubbed shoulders with in the last few years:

Yeah, I pretty much know them all (and a few even know me!). What is interesting to me that it turns out that these are mostly just regular people once you get to know them. I think everyone knows that at some level, but sometimes it is hard to avoid celebrity awe. Beyond my own star-stricken issues, however, is something more serious. It seems to me that once someone gets their name in a brochure, on a poster, or (hold tight!) on the cover of a book, they automatically attain a kind of mythic status. I distinctly remember the first time it happened to me: It was my first time speaking at a large conference (name and picture on the brochure and everything!), and as I was walking through the building one of the attendees saw me. He approached with with wide-eyed wonder and said, “you’re one of the speakers!” I think I just blinked. I guess he thought that since I was listed alongside some big names I must be worthy of note. It’s closer to the truth to say I just knew some of the right people. But the experience made me realize that I probably thought the same way concerning others who I assumed were great because they were on a pamphlet.

The truth is that while many of these people have earned their lofty reputations, others aren’t nearly as impressive as they are made out to be. Some get inordinately popular by simply re-stating what real scholars have been saying for years. The truly praiseworthy ones have sufficient training in their areas, have original thoughts on their subjects, write carefully, and produce genuinely impressive works that contribute to scholarship. Unfortunately their materials often do not see the light of day because they “put the cookies on the top shelf” (i.e., they are written above the 6th grade level), and lack the funny stories, endless anecdotes, and pretty pictures necessary to sell well in today’s dumbed-down environment. Books that don’t sell well do not get re-published. Books that do not get re-published become very expensive and difficult to find. So they do not get read, and the authors don’t make money or get offered speaking engagements. And authors that don’t sell a lot of books or speak often don’t get published again. So guess who does? The guys who reformat them.

These popularizers get published because of new packaging ideas, not original thinking. Then they sell a million books and get on the speaking circuit so their adoring fans can can actually be in their presence. I’ve heard some of these guys at conferences do nothing but tell stories and prattle on about unrelated subjects, yet get standing ovations at the end. I’m sitting there thinking of many professors and even many students who could have done a much better job (with content, if not cheer-leading). It is frustrating to see truly original, high-level thinkers being ignored because they have not written dozens of pop-level books while their popularizers are made into celebrities. For example, I was in a church once that had just had Lee Strobel speak there the previous week. The Sunday School teacher was discussing some point of translation or theology concerning an ethical question, and said he sure would like to know what Lee thought about it. WHY? Now, it’s entirely possible that Lee Strobel knows Greek, ethical theory, or enough theology to be helpful - but I have never heard him give any reason to think so. what he has done is sell a lot of books where he interviews apologists. This generally goes unnoticed by the masses who do not know to check on such things; they simply assume that publication in any area qualifies someone to write on every subject under the sun with equal authority.

Further, some of the headliners I have met are just plain jerks. I don’t know what it is about celebrity status (if it is the cause or the effect), but many of those in the spotlight are, to put it mildly, socially deficient. Maybe it’s the constant adoration from people who don’t even know them. Maybe it’s pride. Maybe it’s the passes they often get get when they behave badly. Of course this problem is not limited to Christian celebs, but I guess I expect more from them.

I say all this because of my prior status as a star-eyed fan of anyone with their name on a book. I understand the gravitas that comes with publication, but there are simply too many ways to get it these days without warrant. When I was in seminary I took 2-3 courses per semester, worked 40 hours per week, ran a website ministry, and taught at churches and schools. Addi tonally, for two of those years I spent a considerable amount of time killing myself assisting someone with a book just so I would have my name mentioned on the “Thank You” page. Talk about desperation! After all that, guess how many people are impressed? Pretty much none (including myself!). It was a great experience, don’t get me wrong - but my purpose for doing the work was seriously flawed.

This and other experiences have taught me to be a lot more careful with who has hero-status in my eyes. My advice to you, regardless of your particular areas of interest, is to be careful who your heroes are (as well as why they are your heroes). Don’t be surprised if you discover that they are not really all that heroic. There truly is a lot of nonsense out there - and spotlights don’t change that.

There are a significant number of Christians out there that seem to think that their beliefs offer some sort of protection from tribulation. After all, didn’t God promise to provide for believer’s needs and protection? If so, why do Christians suffer all over the world?  Despite some scriptures that might seem to imply that this is the case (see below), the idea that God will keep believers from suffering is clearly unbiblical. Christians are not promised a life free from suffering - quite the opposite in fact as Jesus and His followers plainly spell out in Scripture.

Jesus said, “In this life you will have tribulation” (Jn. 16:33). Jesus promised His own disciples that they would be “handed over to be tortured . . .  put to death, and . . . hated by all nations because of my name” (Mt. 24:9). Jesus told certain churches that they would suffer tribulation, but that they would ultimately be delivered to heaven (Rev. 2:10). So from the Gospels to Revelation Jesus predicted suffering for believers. 

Jesus’ disciples were not under the impression that believers would be kept from suffering. James says that Christians should “consider it all joy . . . when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance . . . that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing,” because, “the man who perseveres under trial . . . will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:2-12). The author of Hebrews says that suffering leads to “great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised” (Heb. 10:32-39). Peter says that if anyone suffers as a Christian, he should “not feel ashamed, but instead glorify God” (1 Pt. 4:14-16, see also 1:6-7). John, writing from imprisonment for his faith, called himself, “John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation” (Rev. 1:9). Clearly the disciples did not understand any of Jesus’ teachings to mean that God would protect believers from suffering. 

Paul, the greatest of the apostles, was not confused by his or any other believer’s suffering. In fact, he says that believers are destined to suffer (1 Thess. 3:3-4), and that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:11-13). Yet Paul also said that Christians are to “exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance” (Rom. 5:3). The believers at Thessalonica “received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6), and this led to Paul’s telling them that “we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure . . . that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer” (2 Thess 1:4-5). Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, was written just before he was cruelly martyred. Rather than complain or express disappointment with God, Paul devoted the entire letter to exhorting Timothy and other believers to endure persecution and suffering. Just after proclaiming that “God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power,” he says, ”by God’s power accept your share of suffering” (2 Tim. 1:7-8). Later, Paul exhorts Timothy to “take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3). Paul even pointed to his own trials and tribulations as part of what built his character (Phil. 4:1-13). He goes so far as to claim that he “takes pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:7-10). This hardly sounds like a man who expected protection from suffering! 

Even this brief survey covers Jesus and all of the apostolic writers except Jude. Yet even Jude wrote to believers facing false teachers in a time of predicted trouble (Jude 1:18 quoting Peter in 2 Pt. 3:3). So whatever promises God may have for his children they certainly do not exclude suffering. The most important thing for a believer to consider with regard to suffering is that God will keep them through it - and thus tribulation will not separate true believers from His love (Rom. 8:35). 

What about Luke 21:18 (“Not a hair of your head will perish.”)? The context makes it clear that this does not refer to physical suffering because Jesus had just said that, “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will have some of you put to death” (Lk. 21:16). The expression “not a hair of your head will perish” should be taken to refer to eternal life (as opposed to eternal perishing, or death). Note that this promise is in connection with the next verse: “By your endurance you will gain your lives.” “By your endurance” is a call to remain faithful – it is a parallel to Mt. 24:13 which states, “But the person who endures to the end will be saved.” Jesus was not teaching a works-based salvation, rather that genuine faith is one that endures tribulation. 

What about Matthew 6:25-34 (“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life.”)? Once again, in context this does not seem to be referring to protection from suffering or death. Jesus asks, rhetorically, just after this, “Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing?” Well, yes – but if asked with reference to remaining physically alive then it isn’t true for more than a few days! Rather, Jesus’ point is that worrying won’t help you one bit with your physical life. “Which of you by worrying, ” He asks, “can add even one hour to his life?” (Mt. 6:27). Even the analogy Jesus uses – that of the birds in the air – shows that physical protection is not in mind here (birds die all the time, and sometimes pretty nastily if a cat gets them!). Jesus’ admonition is to simply trust God for your physical life needs, for “your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Whether or not we get them is up to Him. 

What about Matthew 6:13 (“Deliver us from evil.”)? Although often quoted, and sometimes translated, this way, the Greek actually uses the definite article in the “evil” reference. Thus, it should read “the evil” which can be understood as “the evil one” – in other words, Satan.  This same construction is used just a bit earlier in 5:37. Clearly the command is not “do not resist evil”! The NET commentary states that “Every instance of this construction in Matthew is most likely personified, referring either to an evildoer (13:49) or, more often, ‘the evil one’ (as in 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38).” Therefore, what we are asking for in the Lord’s Prayer is protection from Satan, not evil in general (and, it should be noted, that even here this does not guarantee that God will answer in the affirmative).

Why? This is, of course, the most important question most anyone ever faces when undergoing suffering. It is important to see that God is not simply being mean. Rather, as we suffer from sin (ours and others), punishment for our sin, natural dangers, and specific trials, it is our response that matters. In fact, the Greek underlying both of the terms “trial” and “temptation” are the same. We are tempted when we react sinfully (James 1:14-15) to a trial (which should have led to building up our character - see above verses, cf. Heb. 12). When we react in godly ways to life’s circumstances (good or bad) we are really preparing for the prize - the full enjoyment of God in heaven in concert with godly character. Believers who fail to do so will spend eternity with “full cups,” but their cups will be smaller than those who by perseverance were made worthy of greater reward.

I sometimes feel bad that I don’t have a fish symbol (you know, the IXOYE  thing) on my car, but here’s why I choose not to do so.

First, I don’t like putting junk on my car to begin with. It is rare to see bumper stickers or other sticky things on cars that add to the overall aesthetic (there’s my grad school term for the day). I hope my kid is an honor student, but he’ll just have to understand that I don’t find it necessary to inform the people driving behind me of that fact via a big ugly sticker.

Second, it is virtually impossible to please someone driving behind you, but it is almost a guarantee that you will eventually tick them off. People have different driving theories, habits, and desires. Some of these are objectively good or bad, some are subjective, but this really isn’t the issue. The fact is that no matter how you choose to drive there are a potentially infinite number of ways to irritate someone with a different style. And of course it is easiest to anger someone when you are driving the car directly in front of them (the only position from which they can see your bumper sticker or fish).

Take the other day for example – I experienced two instances of pretty poor driving (which is exceptionally good by Charlotte, NC standards). In both cases the driver could be identified as a Christian (one had a fish, the other’s license plate said “4GIVEN”). So here I am, a Christian, and I’m thinking, “Why don’t you just stay at church if that’s as good as you can drive!!!” Whatever spiritual gift it is that keeps people calmly share the road with bad drivers I was passed over on that one.

Anyway, I am just not sure that it is beneficial to Christ or anyone else to ID yourself as a Christian (or anything else) from the back of your car when the odds of making someone driving behind you  happy are extremely low, while the chance of making someone irate are very high.

I am occasionally challenged by some who believe me to be in violation of “the stumbling clause” (e.g., Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8:1-13) when I speak about my views on certain subjects (usually movies and music). I have made some adjustments to my website in the past in reaction to some valid points, and I wish to make plain what I believe stumbling refers to and how we should act according to biblical precepts concerning the subject. There are two issues I wish to discuss: (1) What is stumbling? and (2) How does the command not to cause others to stumble affect public ministry?Before beginning let’s get the specific passages out on the table. Paul writes in Romans 14 that “we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. . . . Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.”And in 1 Cor. 8 he says, “But this knowledge is not shared by all. And some, by being accustomed to idols in former times, eat this food as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, because it is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us close to God. We are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do. But be careful that this liberty of yours does not become a hindrance to the weak. For if someone weak sees you who possess knowledge dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience be ‘strengthened’ to eat food offered to idols? So by your knowledge the weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed. If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. For this reason, if food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause one of them to sin.”What do we learn about stumbling from these passages? First, stumbling is not simply doing something that upsets a fellow believer. Rather, it is willfully and knowingly taking part in some action that another Christian sees and so decides to join in even though they think it is sinful (although it is not). So, for example, if I think smoking is a sin and someone smokes in front of me I don’t stumble if I don’t decide to join in. The key to the issue is that a strong believer (who knows the truth about whether or not an action is truly sinful) can cause a weaker believer (who is in error) to sin if they follow the lead of the stronger by partaking in action that they (mistakenly) think is sinful.Second, stumbling only occurs in situations where the action being taken is truly not sinful. In other words, the weaker brother is weak because they are wrong in their judgment – they believe something that is false. Thus, the teaching on stumbling would not apply to, say, robbing a bank (that’s just sinful) or saving a child from drowning (that’s just good).

Third, the strong believer is not expected to pretend that they agree with the weaker believer, nor are they to affirm them in their error. They are also not to allow the weaker to speak evil of that which is not evil. Rather, they are simply told not to partake in the action in question in front of the weaker if it might cause them to join in and go against their own conscience.

Now all this brings up an interesting question: How do the weaker become stronger?

Obviously at some point they will have to be confronted with their error or they will never mature and grow stronger in truth (I am indebted to Leroy Lamar for this insight). Thus, teaching someone the truth about a certain action’s ethical status is not the same thing as performing the action in front of them.

For example, one day a student of mine called me and told me that he has decided that he needs to get rid of all his secular music because he thinks it is sinful to listen to and wants to know what I think about that. Now, I have a fairly well developed position on this subject and disagree with his view. However, as someone in a teacher-student relation to him I have to be very careful (James 3:1) here. On the one hand I am not to allow him to call something evil that is not evil, but on the other hand I am not to cause him to stumble and I may be in a good position to do so. I would say that in this situation because I already know what he thinks I am not to try to convince him to listen to secular music – especially not by doing so in front of him. However, I think this is different than educating him on my position. Simply communicating one’s position cannot be wrong because that is what Paul does in the very passages under consideration (e.g., “we know that “an idol in this world is nothing”). It is quite clear from Rom. 14 that the difference of opinion was well known - the issue had to do with using one’s freedom to partake in certain actions in front of those who did not think it OK to do so.

If this is true then what do we do who have more publicly accessible ministries with a more widespread audience? For example, is the posting of thoughts in a magazine, book, BLOG, or website a means of causing others to stumble? Doing so seems to differ from Paul’s examples quite a bit. Paul is referring to people in one’s immediate vicinity at the time the action is taking place. So, for example, he says not to eat meat in front of a vegetarian for their conscience’s sake (Rom. 14:2). However, that did not stop him from stating in the very same breath that the vegetarian position in question (that eating meat is sinful) was wrong. Nor did it stop him from eating meat elsewhere. If Paul, a public figure if there ever was one, could “post” his views in Scripture then it should be no problem for someone else to do so on a website or in a book. Letting someone know your thoughts on behavior is not practicing that behavior in front of them (and since it is the job of a teacher to help make the weaker believers stronger by teaching them the truth, a public forum dedicated to such teaching should also not be considered a stumbling block either).

Many times it is assumed that some action is one of those “questionable” situations and therefore it should not be done by stronger believers. But stumbling only refers to issues that are not (truly) morally questionable. So it begs the question because to the stronger believer the action is not questionable in the first place! It is up to the weaker believer to alert the stronger that it is an issue for them. But this raises an insurmountable practical issue for public teaching. The only way to solve all potential stumbling problems on the planet (if this is what was meant by the term) would be to stop saying much of anything because there are people who might ‘stumble’ over almost any view on any topic.

For example I have a movie evaluation section on my website and I have been accused of potentially causing others to stumble because of my position on various moral aspects of films. OK . . . but guess what? Some Christians don’t think we should go to the movies at all! So should I now take down my entire evaluation site? So far no one who has taken issue with my views has said so – but why not? If I cannot express certain thoughts because someone might stumble then following the same line of reasoning I should not post any movie evaluations at all. What about music? Well, that’s even worse – believe me! What about bible versions? Does the fact that I do not generally quote from the KJV mean that I am in danger of causing KJV-Only folks to stumble? What about my articles on the cults? Some Christians don’t think we should engage the cults. Am I causing them to stumble too? Are my beliefs in the Trinity going to cause Modalists to stumble??? Obviously we are not accountable to the entire Christian world in the area of stumbling.

In order to properly accuse someone of potentially causing some member of the general Christian public to stumble we would all need to agree on which actions count toward “stumbling” and which are simply black and white issues. But since Christians do not have an agreed-upon set of issues that are in the stumbling category (which is true by definition) then we cannot use the stumbling clause to accuse others of doing so on a widespread basis. Going public with one’s thoughts over a certain matter is not a potential stumbling block, at least not in the sense that Paul uses the term. In conclusion, then, based on Paul’s practices and the absurd results of trying to do otherwise, I answer that the command to withdraw from potential stumbling activities is limited to performing actions in the presence of known weaker believers and not to the general publishing of the thoughts of stronger believers.

A while ago I was asked by a friend for some marriage advice - specifically the “Is she the one?” question. I struggled with this question a lot in college and was tired of people saying, “You’ll just know!” It was true, as it turned out, for me at least - but I think this ideal can be easily misconstrued. So this is my brief response to him (I have tried to make it gender-neutral so that the entire human race can benefit from my wisdom).First, you need to go into this realizing that marriage is a covenant before God. This will be the only person you ever get to be in a serious relationship with from now on so you should be reasonably sure that you won’t get tired of them in any way (spiritually, physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc.). If not, married life will become boring quickly (hard to believe, but true). Marriage is great, but it is also a big pain the butt sometimes. Your money and time are not simply cut in half - they are gone! 100% of your resources must be devoted to “the family” and you only get to use them for yourself once in a while. You need to be able to accept your decision even if the hottest/nicest/smartest/ person on earth falls in love with you the very next day (assuming, of course, you are not already married to that person!).(Side Note): Living together to “test the waters” is not only sinful (if sex is involved) or extraordinarily tempting (if sex is not involved) but it is simply not useful. I know of many couples who lived together for years, got married, and then quickly divorced. Marriage is just different - there is no way to “play at it.” Marriage is a covenant - an unbreakable agreement - so in a sense it really doesn’t matter how someone does living together without being married. It’s a decision you make and then you just deal with whatever comes along. That’s why vows are exchanged, it is a promise you make before God so that there is security no matter what. (I like to ask people who say they “don’t need a piece of paper to prove their love” why, if it is so unimportant, do they not simply go through with it. I think deep down they know there is a difference and are afraid of failure.)

Second, remember that the dating period is probably the most excited you will ever be with this person, so give it some time. It’s not that your love won’t grow, but emotionally you probably won’t ever be “higher” than the point at which you decide to marry. Don’t expect it to last. Once the thrill of the chase and the new situation is over all you have left is each other - all day, every day. The emotional growth in marriage is down (deeper) not up (higher). Don’t expect anything to change for the better either. It might - but do not count on it. Be careful not to confuse your fantasies with reality. Fantasies have no necessary connection to reality so they do no good in real decision making. Probably they will do a lot more harm as no one will ever live up to them. So base your decisions on what you think when you are with that person - not when you are apart (”Absence makes the heart grow fonder,” as they say).

Now it might sound like I am down on marriage which I am not. My marriage rocks. I love my wife and appreciate her so much it hurts. But I know many people who are not this happy and most of it is because they have not counted the cost going in. Once the initial excitement wore off they didn’t know what to do. You’ve got to go in with eyes open. You have to think “There is no turning back - I can never, ever, get out of this.” If that comforts you, that’s a good sign - if it freaks you out then just wait. Being single is like being a virgin - you can never get it back. Therefore, don’t waste the single life and don’t simply have ending it as your goal.

Finally, don’t worry over whether this person is THE ONE in the fatalistic sense. There is no “ONE.” While I do not have time to go into my theology of God’s will here, the gist of it is that unless God reveals someone to you with supernatural backup you are responsible for your own choice. Your future happiness is not dependant on peeking in on God’s omniscience. The Bible gives very few guidelines for choosing a mate - and desire is one of them! Basically, so long as you are both eligible (both believers, different gender, of age, not blood relatives, etc.) then you become “the right ones” when you make your vows. Don’t buy into the Hollywood lie that says you can miss out on “the right one” and suffer forever for it.I end with the best advice I ever heard on choosing when to marry: “Don’t marry someone because you can live with them, only marry someone if you cannot live without them.” So if you have to ask, “Is he/she the one?” then he/she probably isn’t. When the person (and timing) are right then marriage will be the obvious choice.

This is a question that I have not wrestled with completely as I do not have Halloween-aged kids at this time - but one I have given thought to over the years. I have to say that growing up, Halloween was one of my favorite holidays. I was not raised as a Christian and was somewhat surprised when I got saved to find that many Christians did not like Halloween. Trick-or-treating never influenced me toward evil - it was just fun! Anyway, since most Christians begin their answer with a (sometimes dubious) history lesson I will include one here as well . . .In the ancient Celtic belief system, borders such as evening or morning, the seashore, the forest’s edge, or the turning of one year into the next were seen as the times or places where the veil between the physical and spiritual world was thin. At these times / places the living might communicate with dead ancestors or spirits. Halloween’s origins go back to the Celtic festival of Samhain, one of two main feasts including Beltane at the beginning of summer (May 1st), with Samhain at the end of summer (November 1st). Celtic druids built sacred bonfires, where the people gathered to burn crops and animals (and, some believe, people) as sacrifices to the spirits and deities.During the celebration, they wore costumes to hide from, or blend in with, the spirits. In order to please the spirits, they would leave choice food outside their houses so that if any hungry spirits came by, they could take the food and leave in peace. Many of the people would imitate the spirits and go from house to house begging for treats. Failure to supply the treats would usually result in practical jokes being visited on the owner of the house (i.e. Trick-Or-Treat). The Jack-o-Lantern was a means of scaring off evil spirits and they were originally made from turnips or beets.

Christianity later spread into Irish lands. Pope Boniface IV introduced All Saints’ Day to replace the pagan festival of the dead. It was observed on May 13. In 834, Gregory III moved All Saint’s Day from May 13th to November 1st and for Christians, this became an opportunity for remembering the saints who had died. In 1517 Martin Luther chose All Saints Day to issue his challenge to the Roman Catholic church. The night before All Saints Day, the night of Samhain - October 31st, thus became “All Hallows’” Eve and, eventually, “Halloween.” (When the Irish emigrated to America they could not find many turnips to carve into Jack O’Lanterns but they did find an abundance of pumpkins.)As you can see, Halloween as we practice it today has pretty sketchy origins. However, my thoughts are that we should not allow evil use of a good thing to bar its good use. For example, some argue that Christmas trees are evil because they have a pagan origin. Well, the fact is that almost no one today is even aware of this fact, and I doubt that anyone puts up a Christmas tree with any pagan significance in mind. That meaning has been lost.If we allowed evil usage to forever taint certain actions then we would quickly run out of things we are allowed to do! For some reason, people who think this way will grant evil the power to forever stain certain actions - but not good. I wonder why? Shouldn’t good have the power to overcome evil? The early church thought so, and that is why it took over the pagan holidays and transformed them. The celebration of the pagan god Ishtar turned into our celebration of Christ’s resurrection (Easter), and winter pagan practices were taken by the church and used to celebrate Christ’s birth. So unless a given practice is evil per se, then I do not see why Christians cannot participate provided the meaning they give to that practice is good.OK, so the question is - what does Halloween mean today? Well, if it is truly a celebration of darkness and evil then no, we should not celebrate it. However, there is a distinction between “celebration” and “participation.” For example, most Americans participate in Christmas but many of them do not celebrate Christ’s birth. I think that just as Christmas means nothing more to many people than exchanging gifts, Halloween need mean nothing more than getting to wear a costume and getting free candy (that’s all it meant to me!). Participating in Halloween does not make one a pagan any more than participating in Christmas makes one a Christian.So I think that as parents we should not be overly concerned over practices that are not bad in and of themselves, but rather we should make our decisions based on the meaning we place behind them. I would guess that most Christian parents allow their kids to go to costume parties, eat candy, play games, make things out of food, etc. So why not on October 31st as well? For example, churches often offer “harvest day” celebrations as an alternative to Halloween with many of the same practices. So they seem to recognize that simply dressing up and getting candy is not evil per se.

Unless we ascribe occultic power to the holiday (which is exactly what real witches and other occultists would like us to do!) then I can’t see much reason not to let my kids participate in an activity on Halloween that I would allow them any other time of the year (one exception would be my witness to others and if I thought that were somehow in jeopardy I would not do it - but the world does not seem to think Christians are better for not going out on Halloween - in fact, it’s more like the opposite). Of course this would not include dressing as witches, vampires, or other evil things. But I don’t have a problem with them having fun getting spooked.

According to the popular view of God’s leading, since God spoke directly to people in the Bible, He will also speak to us today. Though we can see God’s past works through past circumstances, answered prayers, and other believers, the only way we should expect God to speak directly to Christians today is through the Bible (the only way promised). This is not to say that God cannot manifest Himself to anyone He chooses – it’s just that we should not expect it based on anything in Scripture.The popular view sees the special manifestations of God in the Bible as God’s normative method of communication. Since God does not change, it is assumed that He continues this practice today. But is this really the case? Even in the Old Testament era it was exceedingly rare for God to manifest Himself, it just doesn’t seem that way because the OT is a record of these events. Further, when God spoke there is no indication in the records that He did it through the “signs” or “inner impressions” that followers of the popular view seek today. When God manifested Himself there was no doubt about it. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 state that if someone claims to speak for God and is found to be false they were to be killed, yet today it seems that everyone in the church is hearing from God on a regular basis. Not only is there no reason to expect this from Scripture, it would actually represent a change in God’s methods, so the idea fails either way.Many Christians are being told that God speaks directly to them today “just like in Bible times” through subjective impressions, signs, and other means. This is because they are taught to expect that since people of God were spoken to directly in the Bible that they can expect the same today. When God does not do so, some other means must be put forward. Hence, we are told to look for “signs” instead of real manifestations or miraculously verified messages. We use language like “I felt lead” or “I feel called” so that when things go awry we can piously blame ourselves. But do we find this kind of waffling in Scripture? Hardly. Note how Experiencing God author Henry Blackaby (the prophet of the popular view) admits to this subjective problem:

“Is it important to know when the Holy Spirit is speaking to you? Yes! How do you know what the Holy Spirit is saying? I cannot give you a formula. I can tell you that you will know His voice when He speaks. . . .
No one of these methods [circumstances, answered prayers, other believers, and the Bible] of God’s speaking is, by itself, a clear indicator of God’s directions.
But when God says the same thing through each of these ways, you can have confidence to proceed.”

Really? Suppose one had an inner impression backed up by “signs” that they were supposed to kill their only child. What could be said in response? Someone might argue that God will not contradict His word – but this does not contradict anything, God can certainly use humans to kill others and in fact He has. The reason I ask this particular question is that one of the heroes of the “signs” movement is Abraham who was asked to do this very thing! He did not look for confirmation, check Scripture, seek counsel, or anything else. He just did it. The fact that God stopped him is immaterial - the command was real and Abraham was going to obey.

The Bible, according to the popular view, is just one of many ways God speaks to Christians. And apparently we cannot know God is “speaking” unless the Bible is backed up by our own experiences. But are we expected to wait on an experience before they can understand the word of God? Are someone’s feelings about Scripture indicative of its meaning? Can contradictory experiences create contradictions in Scripture? It is easy to see the problems that can crop up with a mystical view of God’s leading.

As with most other “knowing God’s will” schemes, the question that is consistently begged is this: how do you know that you know? The whole “sign” system still fails at this critical point: how can one know by experience what God is doing? There is always an alternate explanation to signs. For any given sign we have to ask ourselves how we know whether God or Satan placed it. For example I once knew a woman who was trying to go on a mission to Brazil. When her passport got messed up she asked for prayer against Satan who she thought was trying to stop her. When I suggested that perhaps it was not God’s will that she go she simply laughed. You see – she had to know God’s will in advance in order to interpret the sign as satanic opposition instead of indicative God’s will. But if we need to know God’s will in order to interpret the signs of His will then what good are the signs?

In light of the popular view’s questionable and unsupported assumptions, its confusing and sometimes contradictory methodology, the dangerous consequences that its principles could lead to, and the impossibly subjective and circular means of verification that the system is tested by, I think it needs to be abandoned. If we claim that “God told me this” we had better be ready to die for it. God’s will for us is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Let’s be about getting that done before we worry over any particulars. If they really matter God can always tell us in the clear and unmistakable manner He did in Scripture.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. Atheism is a recognized religion and it is being taught in publicly-funded schools all the time. The only question is which religion will be taught. I think that public schools should teach the truths this country was founded upon, and American Freedom is rooted in belief in God.

1620’s-1960’s

American Government upheld religion in many ways from the very beginning: The Mayflower Compact: The reason for coming to the new world was “for the advancement of the Christian Faith . . . in the name of King James the Defender of the Faith” (1620).

The Old Deluder Satan Law: The first public schools were started in the 1640’s to teach children to read the Bible in order to resist the schemes of Satan.

The Declaration of Independence: The authors are quite clear that America’s morals and government are based on belief in God, His special creation, and His moral absolutes. As they wrote in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Amendment encourages religion and free speech. “Free Exercise” was given to keep government out of churches, not the other way around. Not only is ‘separation of church and state’ not in the Declaration or the Constitution, the idea that liberals try to read into it is against the very foundation of America and its practices. The Massachusetts Supreme Court (Kneeland, 183 stated that the First Amendment “ embraces all who believe in the existence of God. This provision does not extend to atheists because they do not believe in God or religion.”

Promotion of Religion in Public Schools: McGuffy’s Reader used in public schools from 1830’s-1930’s reads, “God is the Creator, and His creation enables us to understand Him. In proportion as we investigate the secrets of the natural world, we are able to understand the nature of God.”

Presidential Prayer Proclamations: President George Washington (1789) declared: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . .[I recommend] to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer”

Congressional Prayer: At the very first Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin urged that “In the beginning…we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.–Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered…. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?… I therefore beg… that henceforth prayers…be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.” Congress has begun with prayer ever since.

School Sponsored Prayer: Class prayer was practiced in Schools for over 300 years from the 1647 to 1962 when it was outlawed by the Supreme Court (in Engel, 1962).

Government Supported Missionaries: In 1796, under president Washington, Congress gave land to the United Brethren for the purpose of “propagating the gospel among the heathen.” In 1803 Congress granted money, signed by President Jefferson, for a Church to do missionary work among the Indians.

Religious Based Colleges: 106 of 108 of the first colleges in America were founded on the Christian Faith. Harvard’s (1636) Rules for Students stated its mission: “To consider well the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3.”

Compare America’s rich Christian heritage with the Secular Humanist Manifesto of 1933:

1. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
2. “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.”
3. “Modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values…We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.”

In denying God, His special creation, and Moral Absolutes, the religion of Atheism is not only ungodly, it is un-American.

1960’s – 1990

Following the atheistic humanism of Darwin, Nietzsche, and others, the Supreme Court ruled that God was to be removed from the public square:

• Class prayer banned from schools in 1962.
• Class devotional Bible readings banned in 1963.
• Laws protecting the unborn nullified in 1973.
• The Ten Commandments banned in schools in 1980.
• Teaching creation banned from schools in 1987.

Laws removing God from public life make the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional! Not only do these losses flatly contradict the foundational beliefs and tenants of American government, they were not lost by majority vote. Most of these were taken away from America by a non-representative minority (5 Supreme Court judges or 34 senators). That is taxation without representation!

Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian and is credited (though mis-quoted) with the idea that church and state must remain separate, asked, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” The answer is that they cannot be secured, and this is borne out in experience. Between 1960 and 1990:

• Abortion rose1,000%
• Child Abuse rose to an all time high.
• Violent Crime rose 500%
• Teen Suicide rose 300%
• Divorce rose 200%
• Teen Age Pregnancy rose 200%

Wake up America!

If I hear one more person whine about someone being “judgmental” and then quote Matthew 7:1 I might go insane. This is one of the most common misinterpretations I hear regarding Christ’s words in the whole of the gospels and it’s a mistake being made by believers and unbelievers alike. Please pay attention - this is important. When someone accuses someone of “judging” they are, in fact, judging that it is wrong to judge. Read that again if you missed it! Yes, it’s self defeating. If we are not to make judgments then how could we ever discover that someone was doing it? You see, when we proclaim something to be true or false or right or wrong, we are judging that thing. The issue is not whether or not we are to judge (for to even say it is wrong to judge is itself a judgment), the issue is how we are to judge.If we judge others self righteously then we are guilty of sinful “judgment” - this is confirmed by the very next verse (i.e. Mt. 7:2 plus Rom. 2:1; ch. 14; James 4:11-12). Only only God is truly “Self Righteous” and therefore in a position to judge according to His own thoughts.

But stating facts is not this type of judgment. For example, if I state that homosexual behavior is sinful I am stating a fact (for God has stated that this is the case). If I say that a homosexual is going to hell I am judging wrongly - because I just don’t know. With only that information I cannot make an accurate judgment. If I am told that a homosexual has received Christ but continues to live in sin I can only state that he is living in sin - I STILL don’t know if he is really saved or not. But if that homosexual comes to me and says, “I have rejected God and do not believe in Christ,” then I can make this accurate statement: “If what you have said is true, you will go to hell if you die right now.” I am not “making the call” here - this is simply what is true based on what Scripture records.

Further, we cannot avoid judging even in a “good” sense. When we say that a thing is “good” that is in itself a judgment! We can judge things to be good as well as bad, but no one ever complains when we say something is good. But in order to know that something is good we need to know that it is not not-good (i.e. bad). So once again we are judging between good and bad. There is simply no way to avoid this (in fact, to even think that we should avoid making judgments would require a judgment!).

If the philosophical problems with this erroneous view are not enough then let’s look at Scripture. We are actually commanded to judge in many places. Jn. 7:24 says to judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Wisdom is judging situations (Prov. 1:2), “testing the spirits” is judging messages (1 John 4:1), confronting sinning believers is judging actions (Mt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 5:3-13, 6:2-4, ), “correcting those in opposition” is judging doctrine (2 Tim. 2:25), etc. Anytime we differentiate between one thing or another we have judged. How could we even tell the difference between right and wrong without judging? (see Lk. 7:43, 12:57; Jn. 7:51; Acts 4:19, 16:15).

So the next time someone accuses you of being judgmental do this: Ask yourself if the statement you made was a statement of fact or just your own ideas. If it is just your opinion, apologize and restate what you said. If not, simply ask them, “Is it your judgment that I am wrong for judging?”

This isn’t being clever, it’s being consistent.