For months I’ve been praying about the ministry of this website, seeking God’s will as to whether to keep Living to God going or shut it down. My desire has always been that God would use this site to impact the local church for good — for His glory.

As I tracked readership, however, I began to be concerned that this desire was not striking a nerve. I’d been blessed with a strong core of faithful readers but the readership wasn’t growing. I was on the verge of deciding to shut it down, convinced that maybe this wasn’t part of my calling.

Then, by God’s providence, I was contacted by the editor of a much larger website about the possibility of using some of my writings on his site. After using just a few of my older posts, he contacted me again about migrating my web “ministry” to his site. The benefit? For him, another writer. For me, a wider audience — to the tune of 5 million plus per month – a bigger stage, a higher platform, a chance to make a greater difference for the kingdom of God.

It seems that God isn’t done with Living to God just yet. So, that said, His will clear, I’m moving. Effective February 2, I’ll be posting my blogs exclusively at www.christianity.com. If you don’t see my face on the home page, click on the “Blogs” link.

Thanks for reading. God bless.

All too often some Christians will claim the high ground by saying that while they might disagree with something or someone, the biblical admonition to “judge not lest ye be judged” prohibits them from handing down a moral verdict on someone else’s behavior. Please. That’s not biblical. That’s not ethical. That’s not helpful. That’s an out. That’s the proverbial washing of one’s hands. That’s moral cowardice.

Setting aside the exegetical fact that the command to judge not is in the context of eternal judgment, and ignoring the fact that Jesus elsewhere in the same book describes the necessity of church discipline (which requires moral judgement) and displays righteous indignation (clearing of the temple), the argument just doesn’t hold water. Are we as Christians to stand aside and assume that we are to have no say in matters of clear moral importance, matters that the Bible clearly addresses?

Take for example an the ongoing trial of Kimberly Trenor. Horrifying details of the beating death of her child are coming out at her trial in Texas.

A plastic container was found in Galveston Bay in October 2007. In it were the decomposed remains of what police would come to call Baby Grace. It turns out the body was that of 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers. The child had been clearly beaten to death, fractures to her skull causing the mortal wounds.

Her offense? She didn’t say “please” and “yes, sir.” For that, her mother and husband proceeded to spank the child with a leather belt. They held her head underwater. They pushed her face into a pillow. All the while, she begged for mercy, crying out to her mother, proclaiming her undying love.

The response? The daylong torture session continued. The abuse ended only after Royce Ziegler, Trenor’s husband, threw the child across the room and against the wall several times. After allegedly attempting CPR, Ziegler handed the limp child to her mother who set the child down and watched her die, afraid to call for help, afraid of the consequences for her own action. They then purchased a plastic tub and lid. The placed Riley in her Wal-Mart tomb and set her to sea.

How’s that sit with you? Should we just look the other way? Are was Christians to deny our outrage, to suppress our grief? To ignore the righteous indignation and anger that rightly wells up in the bosom of any normal mother or father? All because we’re not supposed to judge one another? Give me a break.

This episode sickens us to our core because we know in our hearts it is wrong. The Bible says so. The account of Baby Grace’s murder angers us because sin angers God. Our response is part of our human nature. Made in the image of God, that which angers God angers us. As Christians our response should be all the more stronger because we now have the Spirit of God living in us.

To look away from this violent tragedy, since we cannot overlook it, is to deny the truthfulness and authority of biblical teaching. To claim that “it’s not my place” to judge this woman and her mate is to ignore Christ’s mandate to love the little children, to care for the orphans, and to clothe the unloved.

God will judge Kimberly Trenor and Royce Ziegler. Their eternal fate is in His hands. “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.” He can have it. It’s His. The government and a body of jurors will also judge these two lowly creatures. I am not to exact revenge for Riley. That job has been entrusted to our government by God and our own submission.

However, I am not to sit idly by and pretend I’m not allowed to evaluate and judge the morality of the behavior that has taken place. As a Christian, I am to proclaim as loudly as I can that the death of this child is a violation of the loving will of God. That requires judgment. As a father, I am teach my children such behavior is unacceptable. That requires judgment. As a citizen, I am to do my part to make sure it never happens again. That requires judgment.

I don’t have a choice. I don’t have the convenience of saying “that’s not my job” or “that’s above my pay grade.” I am to call sin “sin.” I am to judge between right and wrong. I am to avoid on my part and prevent on the part of others. If I don’t I am guilty by implication. Remember Peter’s accusation on the day of Pentecost: “This Jesus whom you handed over to be crucified (my paraphrase).” Those people in the crowd didn’t bind Jesus. They didn’t beat Jesus. They didn’t crucify Jesus. They stood by and did nothing to stop it. And, they were found guilty by silent association.

“Judge not lest you be judged?” Please. It doesn’t apply and it doesn’t fly. I am angry. I am grieved. I am morally outraged. As a Christian, I’m supposed to be.

Actually, Williamson isn’t denying the holocaust per se. He’s just denying that it was as extensive and deadly as historians have mistakenly believed. He contends that there is no evidence to support the commonly held number of 6 million Jewish victims. Regardless of his Catholic roots, Williamson’s remarks make him sound remarkably like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the holocaust. The key difference is that Williamson doesn’t think Christians should evangelize Jews, Ahmadinejad just wants to annihilate them.

Christians are also guilty of selectively reading our history as well. We ignore facts that are embarassing. We overlook foibles that are regrettable though undeniable. Consider a few examples:

Protestants would love to forget the fact that Martin Luther was antisemitic. Of course, the cultured despisers of Protestantism won’t let us. Nor should they. However, we should learn from history. Luther was antisemitic. So were most other Germans. Luther reminds us that good theology doesn’t always guarantee good thinking.

Calvinists would love to forget the fact that John Calvin was involved in the execution of Michael Servetus. Of course, the theological haters of all things Calvin won’t let it go. Servetus was killed for his heresy. Calvin was involved though he sought a more humane method of execution. But, we need to realize that during the middle 16th century, the church and the state were essentially in bed together. Calvin didn’t kill Servetus. The ecclesiastical state did. Thus, we learn, just as the Anabaptists and Roger Williams among others would argue, a state enforced religion can be bad when that religion demands absolute adherence.

Southern Baptists would love to forget the fact that the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention revolved around the issue of slavery. Yes, the theological face of the debate was over missions. Yet, truth be told, the question at hand was the involvement or lack thereof of slaveholders. Moreover, many early SBC leaders owned slaves or were involved in the defense of the institution. Is slavery bad? Yes. Is it an ugly stain on our national and denominational history? Yes. Can we deny it? No. So, let’s learn from it.

Southern Baptists would love to forget the fact that the SBC had a less than favorable track record in the area of civil rights in the 1950s and 60s. So, let’s admit, learn from it, and never repeat it again.

Southern Baptists would also love to forget the fact that the SBC once espoused a pro-choice position that allowed for abortions in broadly defined circumstances. That position was all the rage early on. We were there too. No longer, praise the Lord. We can’t deny it. We can’t rewrite. Let’s repent and move on to the right position.

History is history. It’s in the past. Our selective memory, our political editing, and our wishful rewriting can’t change it. But, as bad as some of things are in our individual and collective pasts, we shouldn’t want to forget them. To forget is to ignore. We can’t afford to ignore the past. We need to learn from it. Change our ways. Make amends. Take steps to prevent it from ever happening again.

I have made mistakes that I hope my children will never have to experience. The way to protect them from my miseries and heartbreaks is not to deny my past or rewrite it in favorable terms. Instead, I can teach them to avoid my pitfalls only when I own them and share them for the purpose of illustrating the dangers of paths better not taken. I’d rather embarass myself than hurt my children. We should feel the same way about our national and denominational pasts as well.

Christians are much the same. We want to be autonomous in our churches and in our faith. We cry for the freedom of the local church and the priesthood of all believers in one breath and decry the behavior of others with the another. Likewise, we claim that the Bible is our authority for matters of the faith. Yet, we turn to the Christian gurus of our age for advice in all areas of the faith. We, too, fail to see the inconsistency of our confession and our actions.

Periodically, we must return to think again on the great doctrines of the faith, those things revealed in the Bible and revisited in history. It is time for the church to once again to relinquish our prideful control of self and submit to the final authority of the Bible once for all.

Southern Baptists began this process in the 80s and 90s as they battled for the denomination and lifted up the banner of the Bible. Unfortunately, even those who were willing to die on the hill called “inerrancy” have hedged their bets. They’ve raised one hand in allegiance to the Bible and kept the other on the books of men who profess to possess the secrets of church growth and spiritual happiness.

I write here not to downplay the value of many good books that line the shelves of the church. I write here to lift up the Good Book. It is time we seriously reconsider and rededicate ourselves to that great Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura.

At the most basic level, sola scriptura claims that Christians have no greater authority than the Bible alone. This authority is not shared with man or his institutions. It resides in the revealed word of God, the final word on all matters of faith and practice.

As such the Bible is not only inerrant, reflecting the perfect character of God, it is infallible and authoritative. Moreover, it is also sufficient for the church and all its needs.

The Bible is sufficient to accomplish God’s will – Isaiah 55:10-11.

The Bible is sufficient for evangelism – 1 Peter 1:23.

The Bible is sufficient for sanctification – Psalm 119:11.

The Bible is sufficient for guidance – Romans 12:2.

The Bible is sufficient for all areas of Christian living – 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The church should praise God for the many gifted men and women he has graciously provided to guide and inspire us. However, we must never allow ourselves to blindly follow the word of men while we ignore the word of God. May he forgive us for doing so in the past. May he keep us from doing so again.

Posted in

Unfortunately, there’s nothing unique about the national messiah complex. Look down through the corridors of history and see how many skeletal remains there are of those who were expected to restore a nation’s pride and it’s proper place in the world order. Some of these leaders truly exhibited a messiah complex. They were convinced that they were the anointed savior. Others had that expectation of greatness thrust upon them. I cannot diagnose the desires of Obama’s heart. All we can say for sure is that today, in America, many are looking to the President and his inauguration as the triumphal entry of a new and better era in American and personal history.

We shouldn’t be  surprised by the near religious exuberance of some Obama supporters. Times are tough. Money is tight. American supremacy is in doubt or challenged on many fronts. For many Americans, things can’t get a whole lot worse. They’re looking for, they need, someone to turn things around. They need a savior. They think Barack Obama is that man.

We also shouldn’t be surprised by the warmth of enthusiasm created on that cold Tuesday. The Israelites of the first century were looking for a savior, too. Taxes were high — maybe as much as 50% by some accounts. The nation was confronted with an unwanted enemy and ruled by an unpoplular king. Worse, they couldn’t vote to change things. So, they waited. They watched. They hoped with great expectation for a coming messiah. In their case, they were looking for a great leader to rise up, defeat the Romans, reestablish Israelite automony and lead the people into a golden age. When they thought that kind of messiah had arrived on a donkey, his triumphal parade was marked by shouts of hosanna and many an unspoken “Thank God.” Sound familiar?

Those who thought Jesus would deliver them from their felt needs and enemies were quickly and sorely disappointed. He was the Messiah, just not the kind they were looking for. He came to save souls, not nations.

Today, like the Jews of the first century, we’re caught in the perfect storm. The economy is bad. Our enemies abound. Our nation is tired and looking for change. Any change will do. Whoever promises change, we’ll follow, waiting for him to save the day. And, like those who mistaked their ideal messiah for the right One, many today are looking to President Obama to save the economy, our health, and our world. He can’t do it. I hope and pray that he affects change for the good. But the kind of good that we really need is the kind only the real Messiah offers — new life not new money.

So long as we’ve got our vision of the messiah confused with our needs of the moment, we’re never going to find the true Savior. When we need to wake up and realize that Obama cannot change the real problem in our country —  sin, sin in the form of racism, hatred, greed, murder, etcetera. Those things are the purvue of the real Messiah. When Jesus saves, He brings real change. That’s the kind of change we really need.

Let’s pray that President Obama will lead us in righteousness. More importantly, let’s pray that Jesus will lead us to righteousness.

Though we might not be any smarter than a fifth grader, we can learn a thing or two about the church in the 21st century, if we take Foxworthy’s fun and poignant approach. Rather than simply identifying Christians — “You might be a Christian if … — I want to take us in a more practical direction. I want us to look, with a gleam of humor in our eyes, at some of the foibles and failures of modern Christianity. I want to consider those things that we do regularly that get in the way of true Christianity, those things that prove we’re religious rednecks rather than the faithful and fruitful folks we assume ourselves to be.

You might be in the way, if your testimony is more about how bad you were than how good God is.

You might be in the way, if the leather grips on your golf clubs show more wear than the leather cover on your Bible.

You might be in the way, if you ask questions to prove how smart you are rather than how little you know.

You might be in the way, if you spend more time introducing the worship song than singing it.

You might be in the way, if you try to give God all the details in your prayers for the benefit of those humans who might be listening.

You might be in the way, if you invest more energy in being “relevant” than you do in being reverent.

You might be in the way, if you put more thought into your illustrations than your exposition.

You might be in the way, if you dress for the beach when you go to the traditional service (or vice versa).

You might be in the way, if you are talking when the preacher is praying.

You might be in the way, if you think your feelings, desires, tastes, interests, ________ are more important than God’s glory.

You might be in the way, if you come to church for the fellowship and ignore the worship.

You might be in the way, if you approach every evangelism encounter as an argument to be won rather than a soul to be saved.

You might be in the way, if you say one thing but do another.

You might be in the way, if you think the church world revolves around you.

You might be in the way, if you assume that what you do, wear, or say doesn’t matter to those around you.

You might be in the way, if you confuse inviting people to church with evangelism.

You might be in the way, if you believe that you know all that a Christian needs to know.

You might be in the way, if you mistake church membership for salvation.

You might be in the way, if you think all of this is about you.

It’s about Him. And, it’s time we get out of the way and let Him preeminent in our lives, our churches, our world.

Soldiers in the military don’t get to decide if Obama is their Commander in Chief. He’s the man. Foreign heads of state don’t get to choose another president of their liking. He’s the man. The media can’t elect or impeach the President. He’s the man.

Closer to our ecclesiastical home, Christians don’t get to call for a recount. He’s the man. We don’t get to cry out, as my children do, “Do over!” He’s the man. We don’t get to decide if we’re going to submit to his authority. He’s the man. And, we don’t get to choose if we’re going to pray for him. He’s the man.

The biblical mandate is clear. While I may not like all that President Obama believes or stands for, he is the President of the United States. As such, I am faith-bound to pray for my president. I am to pray for his safety and his guidance. I am to pray for his salvation and his family. I am to pray that God will work through him for His glory and our blessings.

Moreover, Paul says that Christians are to submit to the authority of the governmental institutions over us. According to Romans 13, the government, and the man in whom much of its authority resides in America, exercises its authority according to God’s permission and anointing (for lack of a better word). Any authority that Obama has is a gift of God, a stewardship, and a divine responsibility.

Will any of us like everything that President Obama does? Of course not. Will he do everything our way? Surely not. Will he frustrate any of us along the way? Absolutely.  But, when it’s all said and done, he’s still the man.

While we may not understand why God ordained this hour in American history, and we certainly don’t know what the future holds, we do know that God is still in control. He was yesterday. He is today. And, he will be tomorrow. Our task is to submit to His authority and, by virtue of His delegation of that authority, to those in whom His authority has been invested.

So, on the first day of President Obama’s watch, let’s thank God for our nation, our freedom, and the ability entrusted to us to establish or overthrow our government peacefully every four years. Let’s thank God that the process (though not necessarily the results) worked again. Let’s thank God for the mercies contained in the governmental authority He has given to our authorities, blessings that issue in blessings and protection for us. Let’s thank God for America.

And, along the way, let’s trust God do what is right. He always will.

Let me also encourage you to be ready to respond to pro-abortion arguments. This time, however, I want to talk about arguments given in favor of abortion from Christians, many of whom are actually against the practice but have social or biblical concerns about combatting the issue. The arguments come in various forms. Here a just a few:

This is a personal matter. The person who makes this case is probably pro-life. They would never imagine, never consider the possibility of getting an abortion themselves. They would be devastated if their daughter did so. Yet, they don’t want to force their morality on others. So far, so good. Beliefs are personal and should never be coerced. The problem is that all sins are a personal matter. If we were to apply this line of thinking to any of the Top 10 (the Ten Commandments), the consequences would be dire. We couldn’t object when someone committed murder. We’d have no moral legs to stand on when a loved one was raped. This laissez faire approach to morality is really little more than an abdication of our moral responsibility to post-modern theology: “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.”

As Christians we have a biblical mandate to protect the weak whoever and however old they may be. The rights of the strong are subject to the needs of the weak. Abraham rescued Lot after he’d been kidnapped. Jesus ministered to the needs of the woman with the issue of blood though doing so violated social standards of the day. Then, there’s that whole thing about ministering to Jesus when we minister to the needs of others. Does that apply to the abortion debate? Would Jesus think the abortion issue is simply a matter of personal beliefs or would he jump in and address the problem?

We can’t legislate morality. This is another classical argument against traditional Christian beliefs on any number of matters. In some ways it’s just a variation of the “it’s a personal matter gambit.” But, it’s more. The presupposition here is that while the behavior of an individual may be wrong and sinful, it is not my place to force my morality on others. This sounds very American but it’s not. Moreover, it’s also very unbiblical.

We do legislate morality in our country, contrary to what many seem to think. We have, as a nation, outlawed many things that are arguably moral issues. It is against the law for an adult to have sex with a child. It is against the law to post nude pictures of minors on the Internet.  I am not allowed to take my six year old to a pornographic film. Adults by any other measure are not allowed to purchase hard liquor under th age of 21. We legislate morality all the time to protect the innocent and to protect our nation. This argument doesn’t work.

This view doesn’t work biblically either. God didn’t take a popularity poll before He forbad certain behaviors. He knew that the people of Israel were going to do immoral things. He knew they’d want to. He knew that it would be bad for them individually and collectively. Rather than letting them run wild, He instituted, He legislated, morality. He handed down the Law. As Christians who are to be holy because God is holy are we not to believe and think as God does?

Judge not lest you be judged. This stance finds its voice often in Christian dialogue. It’s applied in the case of abortion and matters like the clothing choice of worship goers alike. As far as being biblical, the quote is. However, we need to ask whether our application of this passage is correct? Does Jesus mean to say that we are to judge nothing? That we are to tolerate all things? I’d say not.

While we are not to judge the motives or the eternal destiny of other human beings, we are to judge their beliefs and their behavior. If not, how are we to execute church discipline as Jesus Himself outlines in Matthew 18? If I am not allowed to say adultery among Christians is wrong, on what ground am I to approach the adulterer in my church? Based on this argument, I can’t. Moreover, based on this argument, I can’t obey Jesus’ command about church discipline. Based on this argument, Jesus contradicts Himself.

What about the beliefs and opinions of others? Are they off limits as well? Of course not. The New Testament is loaded with examples and admonitions about judging the teachings of others. We are to told to reject those teachings that are unbiblical. How can we recognize and handle those wolves in sheep’s clothing, if we’re not allowed to judge and condemn their beliefs? Again, if this argument is right, the Bible is wrong on this matter, too.

NO! We are to judge, to discern, to distinguish between right and wrong. We are to embrace what is right and reject what is wrong. We are to do so according to biblical standard not personal opinion. We are gunshy about this today because this has not always been handled wisely in the past. The failures of the past, however, cannot and should not prohibit our actions in the future. So long as we follow the Bible’s dictates and apply our discernment to sensitive issues like abortion with love we are well within our rights as Christians because we are doing what we’ve been told to do as Christians.

On last though. What would Jesus do? As Christians, we are to be “little Christs” (literal interpretation). We are to become more and more like Christ. We are to do what He did. We are to believe what He believed. We are to represent Him as His royal priesthood here on earth. As such, we need to do what He would do, if He were here Himself (which He is — in us). We need to ask, “What would Jesus do?

Would Jesus sit quietly by in the abortion debate? Would Jesus think it’s wrong but do nothing about it? Or, would Jesus weigh in with a biblical argument against murder? Yes, Jesus would love the women who’ve fallen prey to this problem. So should we. He would counsel the expectant teenager with patience. So should we. He would seek to redeem the lost. So should we. But, we need to remember, He would call sin a sin, too. And, so should we.

Many causes and factors figure into the rise and sustaining power of the pro-choice, pro-death movement. In spite of thirty plus years of battles and protests, in spite of the efforts of three American presidents whose terms total nearly two thirds of those years, abortion continues.

Over the years the abortion debate has been framed in the language of choice. One is either pro-life or pro-choice. Recent years has seen a transition in the nomenclature. Now one can be either anti-choice or pro-death. The terminology changes according to the rhetorical needs of the speaker or writer.

The problem, however, is bigger than the choice of language. It goes beyond pro-life or pro-choice. The issue also extends further than simply asking whether abortion is murder (or infanticide or genocide). The root of the debate reaches deeper than determining the moment of conception. Those questions and a multitude of others just like them are important. Moreover, I contend that the Bible answers them in favor of those who believe that abortion itself must be put to death. Yet, in the end, many Christians fail to count the theological costs that come with abortion.

Humans are created in the image of God. Animals don’t have it. Plants don’t have it. Even individual human cells and organs don’t have it. Only man as a whole, as God created him, possesses the image of God.

Of the image of God, John Calvin said,

[T]he likeness of God extends to the whole excellence by which man’s nature towers over all the kinds of living creatures.  Accordingly, the integrity with which Adam was endowed is expressed by this word, when he had full possession of right understanding, when he had his affections kept within the bounds of reason, all his senses tempered in right order, and he truly referred his excellence to exceptional gifts bestowed upon him by his Maker.  And although the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its powers, yet there was no part of man, not even the body itself, in which some sparks did not glow.

Though man has fallen through Adam’s sin, the image of God still exists, though distorted, in all human beings. Abortion results in the extinguishing of that those sparks, that exceptional gift that God gave only to mankind.

Later theologians echoed Calvin’s sentiment. Puritan William Ames added, “The excellency of man was fixed chiefly in this, he bore the image of God.” Thus, the death of an unborn child is more than the removal of an unwanted mass of cells. It is a denial of the excellency of a human being.

The relationship of man and the imago dei (the image of God) reaches still further than simply an acknowledgment of human value. According to Jonathan Edwards, the endowment of humanity with the image of God was more about God than man. He said,

The special end for which God made mankind, is something very diverse and very superior to those ends for which he mand any parts of the inferior creation. Because God has made man very different from them; he has vastly distinguished him, in the nature that he has given him, and faculties with which he has endowed him, and the place he has set him in the creation.

That is, every human, by reason of the image of God in him or her, has been created for a special purpose. That purpose extends beyond the parents’ desire to procreate and enjoy familial blessings. God created man for Himself. To that end, God gifted man with His image so that man could relate to and glorify God. Edwards added,

‘Tis evident, that man was made to behold and be delighted with the excellency of God in his works, or in short, to be made happy by beholding God’s excellency; as it has been shown that intelligent beings, the consciousness of the creation, must be. But if man was made to delight in God’s excellency, he was made to love God; and God being infinitely excellent, he ought to love [God] incomparably … .

God has created man for a great end: the enjoyment and worship of God. When we take the life of a human, born or unborn, we deny them them opportunity to fulfill that creative purpose. The death of a human life denies God another worshiper who might “love him incomparably.” Abortion denies God His rightful praise.

So, the abortion debate is practical. What is life and when does it begin? The abortion debate is biblical. Is the taking of an unborn life the taking of life at all? But, we must remember, the abortion is also doxological. It’s about worship. Those who take the life of another human being deny God the glory due Him through those who image or reflect Him. All other issues aside, the Bible is clear on this. Denying God His proper worship is a sin. End of the debate.