Matt Postiff's Blog

Here is a question I received a few months ago from a young parent. How should we address the problem of evil with young children, specifically the evil associated with Halloween? It is so very present and surrounds us everywhere we go these days, and naturally our daughter is asking a lot of questions. I often state that it is bad and evil and just "not good." But I don’t know how to present to her Scripturally "why" besides that it is scary and that it is not kind, or that it is not good things to think about, and God wants us to think about good things. She often asks "why do they have those things?" Or "why is it bad?" Another young mom friend I know is struggling with the same thing with her toddler. How can I explain our disagreement with Halloween in general?

This is a very good question, and very timely when it was asked in October (I know, I'm late posting this to my blog...hopefully it will help someone in 2025 and beyond!). Here are some thoughts for you.

1. It is ok to say it is bad, but as you have sensed, you need to be able to say why.

2. Many of the holidays that we celebrate, and indeed all of them that we should celebrate, exist to honor God in some way. They are Godward in their focus. Consider Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, even our birthdays (because God gave us life). Even holidays like Memorial day and independence day and Veterans day should have a Godward focus because it is the sovereign God who provided these blessings to us and the sacrifices that they represent point us to a greater sacrifice. In fact, the word itself, holiday, is derived from "holy day."

3. But Halloween is not celebrated to honor God nor to uplift holiness.

4. Halloween focuses on celebrating the dead. But our focus is not to be on the dead.

5. Halloween focuses on things like skeletons, ghosts, witches, all the realm of death and the Devil, again not about God. It has a tendency to stimulate interest in death, which is not a healthy subject for young people to dwell on. Similar things are done with young people in secular schools today, trying to stimulate interest in sexuality, gender transition, etc. This "holiday" also desensitizes young people to the demonic realm. We do not want them to treat that lightly.

6. Today Halloween is also about having fun. There is nothing wrong with having some fun and giving away and enjoying candy (in moderation) but modern culture has turned it into a huge commercial holiday about money and candy and costumes. This is not necessary for us.

7. Conservative Christians want to avoid the pagan association of practicing Halloween: "Halloween's origins can be traced back to the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain, which was held on November 1 in contemporary calendars. It was believed that on that day, the souls of the dead returned to their homes, so people dressed in costumes and lit bonfires to ward off spirits." (Britannica online encyclopedia) There were other very abominable acts such as sacrifices and immorality. This is very incorrect theology and we cannot be associated with it. The celebration of evil, death, and demonic activity is not befitting a Christian. These things are coordinate with pagan "theology."

8. Christian parents should not ignore Halloween. But they are not required to do something in place of it. It may be instructive and helpful to not do something in place of it “just to make my child feel included.” Feeling included is not a spiritual virtue that we need to teach about dark holidays. But you could do something in place of it, like a harvest remembrance, as long as it is more a “holy day” than a “secular day.” We can thankfully welcome the fall harvest of God’s provision.

9. You have given good answers about the kinds of things we should fill our minds with. Fear and violence and boundary-pushing costumes are antithetical to the Christian faith and ought not be the subjects of our meditation, much less our money which belongs to God. Things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy should fill our minds.

10. Christians are to be children of life and light, not death and darkness.

11. Things like fortune-telling, seances, etc. are forbidden in the Law of Moses and we see no instruction in the New Testament that makes those things now permissible (Deut. 18).

12. Halloween brings to the surface some of the spiritual battle in which we are engaged. Things sometimes "under the table" through the year are brought to the surface. Daniel 10:13.

13. In short, Halloween is closely associated with spiritual darkness instead of spiritual light. We are to be all about light.

14. Watch the slippery slope for yourself, and the generational slope that you can create for your children. Instead, set them on level spiritual ground, a stable position which they can move forward on into the next generation. It is likely that cultural practices will only become more edgy and debauched as time goes on.

15. Is there a redeeming value to Halloween? No.

16. Is celebration of Halloween necessary? No.

17. See this article by Phil Cecil.

Over the years I have heard professing Christians excuse their lax stance on abortion or even their vote for pro-abortion candidates by saying that there is nothing that is going to be done about abortion, so their stance or vote does not matter. No change is possible, abortion is fixed in law, so conservatives should "give it up."

This thought pattern became the philosophical underpinning that excused votes for godless candidates who were supposedly less personally objectionable or who had more experience, or were more "statesman-like," or who were more "compassionate," or who supported desirable entitlement programs.

In contrast, we always believed that our stance against abortion and vote against pro-abort candidates does matter to God, even if no change in abortion law seemed possible, so the whole way of lax thinking was flawed from the beginning.

In early May 2022 with the leak of a draft decision by the court that would flip Roe v. Wade, it seemed that something could be done about it. And now that the Supreme Court decision has come out (June 24, 2022), and something has been done about it, the wrongheadedness of those professing Christians is all the more clear. They were wrong that nothing could be done about abortion. For the voter, what could be done was to vote for a pro-life president and senators and state legislators and governors. These men and women could stand for the unborn to give them a voice and provide some level of protection to their lives. They did this through passing state laws, defending those laws in court, appointing pro-life justices, and confirming them to the court.

As an example of the effect that better abortion law can have, note the story from NPR that abortions were reduced from 5,400 in August 2021 to 2,200 in September 2021. This is a reduction of 60%. If all those moms stayed in Texas and did not travel to neighboring states to murder their children, approximately three-thousand two hundred lives were saved that otherwise would have been aborted. This is a lot of lives saved in a single month—more than died in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks (2,996).

If, on the other hand, some of those moms decided to be more careful and use birth control—or demand their men to use birth control—then some pregnancies were avoided. That is OK too, particularly if those potential parents were unwed, because little baby's lives were not murdered.

Beloved, righteousness always makes a difference, even if you think it will not. If you previously thought the way I describe above, please repent.

For those of you who are angry today because a precious right was taken away, recognize this please: God never thought you had a right to kill unborn children. The support for the right in the U.S. Constitution was very weak, because it did not really exist there either. And recognize too that all the SCOTUS decision does is to push the decision back to the people in their states and through their representatives. There is no reason to go berserk about this. In many states there will be little true change. For us Christians, that is a tragedy, because every womb with a baby in it should be a safe space for that baby.

Today's question from a church attender:

What are your thoughts about how we are to think scripturally about our second amendment rights?

First, let us start by understanding the second amendment text:

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 phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a ground or reason clause. It would be equivalent to saying this: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to security of a free State", then the following right has to be maintained.

That right is that the people, who must be ready to defend the security of the free State, also necessarily must be able to keep and bear arms. These arms are firearms, in short, and of a sort that can be effective to defend the security of the State. To keep means to own or possess, a necessity for security. To bear means to carry and transport with and/or on their person, again, to be able at a moment's notice to defend the security of the free State. The security of the State starts with the security of individuals within the State, so that it can be rightly said that individual self defense is at the core of the second amendment.

To hobble the type of firearm to be ineffective in comparison to what would be used against the citizen, or to prohibit gun or other similar weapon ownership, or to make it illegal to carry the weapon where it may be needed to provide security—all three of these restrictions are not permitted to the State. The constitution restricts the ability of the State in these areas. These would all be forms of infringement on the right of the people to defend the security of their persons and property.

The limitation in the constitution also serves to limit the power of the State against its citizens. History shows very clearly that when a people is disarmed, they are then often subject to horrific abuses of power and death at the hands of the State. The limitation on power imposed by the second amendment is very useful because people are depraved (a basic Christian teaching), and groups of people gathered into governmental agencies are also depraved. Their power needs to be limited to limit the damage of their depravity.

It should be rather obvious that this right is to be protected for individuals, not just corporate militias. Since militias are not even common these days, a militia-only interpretation would gut the amendment of its practical protections for the rights of the people. The point is that the people had to keep and bear arms so that they could join together in their militias to protect the security of the state.

Now, how is the Christian to think about this? Does this accord with Scriptural teaching?

The right of a person to defend himself or herself is present in Scripture. Consider the following:

Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

The homeowner is permitted to defend the security of his family, even by taking the life of a night-time intruder. The assumption is that a threat to personal safety justifies even homicide. The homeowner would not be guilty of murder in that case.

The astute reader will notice verse 3:

Exodus 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

The difference is the daylight. If a thief comes during the day to steal property, then taking his life is not justified, and the homeowner would be guilty of bloodshed. However, if at night, the intentions of the intruder are not well understood, and in the confusion of the situation, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. This mirrors advice that I heard from a police officer once. He said when people break into a home at night, they do not have good things planned for the residents there. This justifies using deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the occupants.

On the other hand, if a homeowner has daylight enough to see a thief carrying away his big screen TV, the homeowner is not justified to shoot the thief. That would certainly land the homeowner in jail, because the response was disproportionate to the crime. Only when death or great bodily harm is likely can deadly force be justified. Property crimes do not merit or justify the death penalty. The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery should have learned this fact long before they committed their heinous act against a man who they (wrongly) believed to be guilty of a property crime. Now they are justly jailed because of what they did.

One would be safe to assume that if the home invader comes in armed with an instrument of death, the homeowner should be able to "keep and bear" an arm of equal or greater firepower to defend his life. Thus the second amendment is not at all out of accord with Biblical teaching.

Guns did not exist during Bible times. However, another deadly weapon—the sword—did exist. Listen to the words of Jesus:

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Here the Lord expressly tells His disciples to acquire a sword. Does that sound strange coming from the lips of Jesus? Not if you understand that He is speaking of the "new normal" for the disciples. Previously, (see v. 35) He had sent them out with special divine provision. They would be cared for by a special divine providence. But now, He is sending them out again, after He will be gone, and they will be going out as sheep among wolves. This is the new normal. While they will try to be as harmless as doves, this does not mean that they cannot defend themselves from robbers or murderers. This is what the sword is for. It is not for offensive use, forcing conversions or enforcing a "Christian law" upon the places where we live. It is for defensive use. It is most obviously not for show. Like the Roman police, we do not "bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13:4). If it is carried, it is meant to be used in those situations where it is needed.

What are some objections to this?

I heard a very well-known evangelical preacher say that he would not use a gun against an intruder, for the criminal presumably needs eternal life, and the preacher already has it. If the preacher shoots the invader, then the invader goes to Hell. If the criminal shoots the preacher, the preacher goes to heaven, so he does not have anything to worry about in the end.

I respond to that objection this way: I have more than myself to "worry" about. I have a family—wife, children, and perhaps house guests, some of whom may not be going to heaven yet. I am charged with their safety, like Lot who welcomed two angels into his home instead of letting them stay overnight in the dangerous city square (Genesis 19:2-3, 8). Also, I feel that I have a moral duty to not only help when I see a person in need where it is safe to help them, but also, if necessary, to assist in the task of restraining evil where it pops up its ugly head. I certainly would rather not have to do that, and hope never to have to do so. But if it comes down to a question of "me or him" I know which I will lean toward. The innocent homeowner must not feel guilty if he defends himself. It is the criminal intruder who was in the wrong the entire time.

I take it then that the Lord could equivalently say, "he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy one." There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and Christians can support it and defend it thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with guns of all sorts and sizes.

In this day and age, however, there is increasingly something wrong with people who have access to guns. Witness the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, or the many other gun, knife, or bomb crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals around our land and throughout the world. Making new restrictive laws does not solve those problems, it only shifts them around. What we find most often, as in the Uvalde case, is a cascade of errors that resulted in a tragedy. The young man should never have had access to weapons because he was deeply disturbed. He was mentally incompetent to be responsible with a firearm.

One other point. Let us suppose that the elected officials in this land change the law to ban guns or certain kinds of guns. Or suppose that the second amendment were repealed. Would that justify an uprising of the gun-owning public? From a Christian standpoint, no, it would not justify revolution. It would be very undesirable to the ongoing of a free people, and it would be bad, and it would be out of accord with the founding spirit of our country, but if passed lawfully, it would be the new law of the land, and that law should be obeyed (1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1-2).

A website visitor asked the following:

I would like to know if slavery was ordained by God and tehreby existed in the Old and New Testament to reflect God's order (like marriage)? Or, was slavery man-made, and, thus, more of a reflection of culture and man-made traditions? Which is it?

I prepared a brief answer that I shared last Sunday evening. Basically, this is it: Slavery was not created by God to reflect creation order. It is therefore unlike marriage. God did not "institute" slavery in the way that most westerners understand slavery. It came about as a result of the sin of man. Slavery was therefore man-made.

However, everything that comes to pass is ordained/permitted by God, so we would have to say that in some sense, God did ordain slavery, just like he did all other sins. I understand slavery to be unlike marriage, but more like divorce in that slavery and divorce were not instituted by God but God permitted and regulated them because of the sinfulness of the human heart.

The Law which God gave through Moses did make provision for a kind of slavery that we could call debt-servitude. It was used instead of what we have—modern bankruptcy—and to avoid imprisonment for petty thieves. Instead, they had to work off their restitution if they could not pay it up front.

Probably the most important passage on the subject—at least for a modern westerner—is this: Exodus 21:16. In that section, God outlaws man-stealing. The entire slave trade in early American history was based on this method of obtaining and selling and buying slaves. It was an abominable enterprise from start to finish—and God made it clear by assigning it the death penalty.

Here are the messages I preached on this subject in 2016:

The Bible and Slavery, Part 1

The Bible and Slavery, Part 2

The Bible and Slavery, Part 3

Another brief but helpful resource.

Round 4 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021.

1. The conscience may in fact be misinformed, but it is still dangerous and not consistent with Christian principles to violate it. Since this is the case, it is cause for patient education, not governmental mandate. Why? Mere fiat cannot change a person's conscience, and they must live with that conscience whereas the governing authorities do not have to live with a violated conscience.
2. Historical factors can weigh on the conscience of later generations. For example: The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male permanently destroyed the trust of many of our fellow citizens in the CDC and other government departments involved in health research. How can one trust a group of humans who would run Nazi-like experiments on their own countrymen? (Note that I hesitate to use the full title of the study because of the second-to-last word; yet it seems important to include that fact for best understanding.) The COVID-19 vaccine may not in fact be a population-wide research project, but after such an awful 40-year experiment, it will be difficult to convince some.
3. Some people simply will never be convinced. It is the Christian viewpoint that withholding from those people the means of support of a job or food or medical care is immoral. The willingness of some pro-vaccine-mandaters to treat non-vaccine-takers as sub-human and not worthy of the right to life or work is very disturbing to the religious conscience—even to those who have taken the vaccine. Think of it: if the vaccine mandates were carried out universally in New York, objectors would be prohibited from working; prohibited from eating in restaurants; prohibited from social activity; and eventually probably prohibited from living in certain locations. That kind of death penalty has no place in a civilized society and is an unjust form of punishment for the "crime" of not wanting a certain vaccine.
4. Also bothersome to the conscience is the fact that no religious exemption requests have thus far been approved by the U.S. Navy. This appears to be a complete denial of religious free expression, which makes the conscience of some feel "put upon" and pushes such people to take an even stronger stand in an attempt to exercise what seems to be dying religious liberty in our land. To many, that liberty is an important part of their conscience as well, because the religious principle of separation of church and state is integral to our life and worship.

Round 3 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021.

1. The conscience can be "forced into a corner" by difficult dilemmas. "If you say you believe in Jesus, I will shoot you in the head;" or "If you do not take this vaccine, you will lose your job." Those dilemmas should be avoided by authorities if possible. Reasonable accommodation must be offered to avoid impingement on free religious exercise.
2. The reasons for conscience objections to the COVID vaccine are varied. Some are: (1) The vaccine is made and/or tested with fetal cell lines resulting from abortion, and abortion is an abominable act that is clearly rejected in Christian teaching; (2) The vaccine is mandated with severe economic penalties such as loss of livelihood, inability to purchase food at restaurants, etc., which set precedent for future Christian and Jewish persecution predicted in the Bible. Not that the vaccine is exactly this, but here is the idea: "No one can buy or sell unless he has the vaccine," which sounds eerily similar to the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17). It sets precedent for that future terrible event. (3) The vaccine is mandated, which runs counter to God-given natural rights which are recognized the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. (4) There are health risks to the vaccine which, if experienced, may impact one's ability to live productively and serve God. (5) The vaccine is an artificial chemical to which some Christians object because they prefer to trust God's design of the body to fight infection. (6) If one has been naturally immunized by a prior COVID infection, the unnecessary additional risks of taking a vaccine (such as myocarditis) are simply too costly to outweigh the vanishingly small incremental benefit (if any) that might be obtained over natural immunity. The religious principle in this case has to do with stewardship of one’s body: Christians are taught not to do things to their bodies which may reduce their ability to live for and serve God. (7) Children are at extremely low risk of complications from COVID-19, therefore giving them a vaccine that has potentially long-lasting side effects even in a small percentage of cases seems to be putting the Lord to the test. That is too much for the conscience of some. (8) The risk of becoming ill and dying prematurely pushes the conscience of others to really desire the vaccine to reduce their own human suffering. (9) The risk of spreading illness to others encourages the conscience of some to take the vaccine to provide whatever protection is available, even if imperfect.
3. Importantly, remember that the conscience is not informed only by "purely" religious factors. All information—even scientific—has some religious connection because of the information itself, where it comes from, the motivations behind it, the manner in which it is conveyed, etc. It is the view of many Christians that science is a discipline under the dominion of God, not man. Inasmuch as it has ignored God, it has run amok.
4. A person’s conscience may be fully convinced that if God permitted her to be infected with COVID and survive, He has provided through His creative design all the natural immunity that is required going forward, and in fact that immunity is very likely far better than artificial immunity from a vaccine. This weighs in decision-making regarding the risks-versus-benefits of the vaccine. The risks are entirely unnecessary in this case, and subjecting oneself to the vaccine would be putting God to the test.

I offer further background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted a couple of days ago.

1. Stated from the perspective of the church and its leadership, conscience decisions are often not uniform within a single church or denomination. In the non-religious community and even in the religious community, it is commonly thought that a particular church or denomination either has or does not have a conscientious objection to vaccines, or certain medical procedures like blood transfusion, or to war, or other such matters. While this sometimes may be the case, it is not always so. The Bible teaches explicitly that there may be within a single church some who conscientiously object to a certain practice while others do not. Two individuals who differ on a particular matter can still be members of the same church and in good fellowship with one another. From the church's perspective, these are matters of indifference that should not divide the community of Christians.
2. There are some issues which do not fall into the "matter of conscience" bucket at all. "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, pay taxes," etc. are not matters where conscience exemptions can be claimed. Vaccines are in the conscience category.
3. One’s conscience can choose differently at a later time if it receives new information that impacts how it adjudicates the matter at hand. Therefore, if information comes to light in the future, a person's decision about some matters may change, without there being any validity to a charge of inconsistency. The frequency of such conscience objections can be reduced by the authorities giving good, objective, full disclosure, rather than merely making pronouncements from on high. A mandate itself grates against the consciences of some (see Part 3), and to some is evidence that the thing mandated cannot stand on its own merits.
4. The conscience can be troubled by inconsistent information. For example, the COVID vaccine was said unequivocally to be effective. Yet we now know that it was only partially effective for a short period of time, approximately 6 months. This inconsistency is a significant input to the conscience decisions of religious citizens. Another example: general masking of the population was known for decades to be largely ineffective against airborne viruses like the influenza; so at the start of the pandemic masks were not needed according to Dr. Fauci; then masks were mandated; now on CNN we hear that cloth masks—the type most people are wearing—are not appropriate for an airborne virus. Which is it? The inconsistency throws the conscience into a confused state and weighs against a clean-conscience decision in any direction.

I offer the following thoughts in support of the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted yesterday.

1. Conscience operates on a case-by-case basis. It does not operate on a class or category basis. That is, if a person took some vaccines but not others, he could not necessarily be charged with inconsistency. For example, an individual’s conscience might be fine with some vaccine given that it is satisfied with the information about it, its risks to life and ability to serve God, side-effects, efficacy and longevity of efficacy, testing, length of usage, etc. But another vaccine may not be satisfactory to that individual’s conscience because of shortcomings of that particular vaccine in the aforementioned categories.
2. Conscience operates freely and fully at a mature age. A person may have received vaccination as a child when his sincerely held religious beliefs were not yet fully formulated nor freely exercised. This does not undercut a present conscience objection to a particular vaccine.
3. Conscience operates in such a way that a person must be fully convinced. Romans 14:5 teaches that each person must fully convinced in his own mind about his choice in which there are differences between people. The example given in the Bible is that some may choose to eat certain foods; others may not. Those choices are up to individual discretion in accordance with the conscience.
4. Conscience operates on a person-by-person basis. Two people in the same Christian church may disagree on a particular issue, both parties being fully sincere in their beliefs. This idea is itself a Christian teaching and recognizing it is part of our free religious exercise. To reiterate: this idea—that not every person in a church has to share the same view on matters of conscience—is a matter of doctrinal importance in the Christian faith. To demand that my views line up exactly with that of my church or denomination is an impingement on my free exercise of religion. The fact that I cannot “find” a church that agrees with all my views or will support an exemption based on those views does not mean that my views are unworthy of conscience protections. It may simply be that I have different views than the church, or that the churches I have asked to help with an exemption do not want to put their names “out there” as supporting an exemption because of potential persecution by authorities.

December 29, 2021

Re: COVID-19 Vaccine Religious Exemption

To Whom it may Concern,

As a follower of Jesus Christ and one who sincerely adheres to His teachings, I believe that following my conscience is integral to my free religious exercise—not only as respects the United States Constitution, but as required by God, who is the highest authority.

Christianity teaches that the conscience is part of the make-up of every human being; that God endowed it with certain basic moral knowledge; that it guides the individual in deciding what he should do when something bothers his conscience; that the conscience is informed by religious teaching and study; that it is influenced by information of all sorts that the individual encounters; and that it cannot be safely violated because purposeful violation of the conscience damages its future healthy function and constitutes disobedience to God.

Christian teaching about the conscience importantly includes that each person must be fully convinced in his own mind before taking a course of action (Romans 14:5). The Bible warns against taking an action that violates the conscience. It also warns against violating the principle that "whatever is not of faith is sin."

There is no such thing as a denominational or church-wide conscience. The operation of the conscience is necessarily an individual matter because the conscience is influenced by each person’s own experiences, culture, knowledge, etc. It cannot rightly nor practically be dictated in all details by any religious organization. In our own church, we have people of different views about many matters, including that of vaccination in general and the COVID-19 vaccination specifically. Neither the pastor nor the church doctrine dictates such matters. In sum, my convictions are my own and not necessarily represented by others identifying as Christians. I am personally responsible to God my judge for my own actions (Rom 14:4).

In accordance with my sincerely held religious belief, my conscience is not clear about taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, I claim a religious exemption at this time from the requirement to be vaccinated.

Sincerely,

Your Name

Today's question from an email:

Are elements of race/ethnicity etc. a result of sin?

It is an important question today. I will give you a quick outline of what I see Scripture to teach on this matter.

1. There is a single human race, not multiple races (Acts 17:26). We all descend from Adam and Eve.

2. There are different nationalities, ethnicities, people groups, cultures, etc. The Scripture uses the phrase tribe, tongue, people, nation to refer to this concept (Revelation 5:9, 13:7, 14:6). Other words are used, such as clan and families (Gen. 12:3).

3. Two main points of Babel: a) it was the event that brought different languages into the world; b) God designed it to induce the people to spread out and fill the earth. They had stuck together generally and were not obedient to God's command. So God scattered them (Gen. 11:9).

4. Babel is not firstly about the creation of different ethnicities. However, as people with the same language congregated into small groups and then scattered over the face of the earth and became isolated from one another, they began to become specialized in not only language, but culture and appearance as they intrabred mainly with those in the same group. Thus we have different people groups, and within each group common characteristics like skin color, shape of face and eyes, etc. Cultural differences developed at the same time.

5. God designed this variation into the human DNA from the beginning so that there would be a glorious variety among the human race, even as there are among the various kinds of creatures--so many dogs and cats and fish and horses and so on. Among humans, this variety would have come out without Babel--and even without the fall of Adam and Eve--but it would not have then been found in such pronounced groupings as the language barriers have helped to create. Without sin, the world would be full of all people living together with no negative thought associated with their wide variation in appearance.

Two parents have a child and the child looks similar to them but also different than each one. A child may have blue eyes but have two brown-eyed parents (like in my case, due to recessive genes from the grandparent generation). Even today, a single set of parents can have a white baby and a black baby. See here and here for examples.

6. As for the "Ham curse" as some call it, I wrote about that several years ago. Let me be clear that it is unsupportable from Scripture to suggest that dark skin color is a curse from God. See also this post from Answers in Genesis that touches on the same topic.

7. Bottom line: elements of race/ethnicity etc are NOT a result of sin. They ARE a result of God's creative design of the human race. How humans use those things, and twist them, and criticize them, and exalt them, and so on, THAT is a result of sin in the heart of mankind.

Here is a short "Bible Literacy" video about abortion and capital punishment.

Many people who are in favor of capital punishment are opposed to abortion, including a good number of Christian people. But, isn’t this inconsistent? It is about the same as someone being for abortion but against capital punishment! Those who are opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, or who are in favor of both, seem more consistent from the standpoint of preserving life.

But our interest is not in who is more or less consistent on the basis of a single metric—that is too limited of a view. We are trying to increase our basic Bible literacy by understanding what the Bible teaches about these matters.

We turn to Exodus 21:22-23, where a matter of case law is given in which a pregnant woman is struck by someone. If she gives birth prematurely but the baby lives, it is a civil infraction with a monetary penalty. But if the baby dies, the Law of God in the Jewish theocracy stated that it was to be punished by the lex talionis, “life for life.” The law stated that if the baby died, the perpetrator was to be punished with death. That is how seriously God takes human life. It is precious in His sight, even in the mother’s womb. Abortion is just a “decorated” word for what amounts to exactly the same thing—murder of an innocent human.

The reason that some people take the “inconsistent” position for capital punishment and against abortion is that the Scripture teaches so. Consistency comes to view when you look at the issue through the lens of justice—it is unjust for an innocent baby to be killed, but it is perfectly just for a murderer to forfeit his life. The opposite view—that capital punishment is wrong and abortion is OK is actually inconsistent from this justice perspective—why does an innocent baby deserve to die, but a criminal guilty of a horrific crime deserve to live? Abortion basically is capital punishment…done to an innocent child.

I was reading this morning:

2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

In the last few years, it has become a "thing" that people are busybodies (meddlers) through social media. Some—maybe you?—spend tremendous amounts of time browsing and commenting and liking and hash-tagging and sharing and so on. They want to know all the news. Meanwhile, their life work goes undone. The house is unkempt, the outdoor work is undone, the job is not done faithfully, sleep patterns become irregular, church is not attended much less served, and so on. It is very easy to fall into this kind of laziness. Fight against the tendency and pick up your other tasks.

I may be writing with a little bit of hyperbole, but you get the point. Be challenged by this word if you need to be, and get your body busy about what God has called you to do. Spend a whole lot less time on Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and whatever other similar platforms are out there.

Following are some definitions of terms that I have been hearing a lot lately. I thought I should do some research to learn more about them so as to be able to describe them better in conversation and preaching. These definitions are somewhat objective, but my values do peek through. For that, I am not apologetic!

Anti-racism on the surface seems to be as one definition suggests, "the policy or practice of opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance" [Oxford Languages via Google]. However, policy or belief is not enough. If you are not actively involved in dismantling racist systems, then you are not anti-racist, according to the modern adaptation of the definition. "Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably." This definition makes a sudden shift from race to power. Notice that they say that systems and policies and attitudes are changed—not to remove racism but with the goal to redistribute power. In this view, racism and power are integrally tied together. Practically, this means reducing the power of the white majority race and increasing the power of minority races.

Cancel culture is defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive". It is normally associated with a company or individual being swamped by critical social media posts on Twitter and Facebook. A targeted person of this technique may end up losing their job as a punishment or offering of atonement for whatever objectionable sin was done. It is a technique used to enforce political correctness and to ridicule unpopular opinions.

Communism is a political philosophy which promotes class war as a means to remove private ownership and capitalist economics. In addition, communism is directly opposed to religious freedom, Christianity, and freedom of thought in general. See socialism.

Critical Race Theory According to a paper by Nicholas Hartlep, Critical Race Theory: An Examination of its Past, Present, and Future Implications, "There are five major components or tenets of CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational; (2) the idea of an interest convergence; (3) the social construction of race; (4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation." Interest convergence is the idea that where the interests of whites are improved by working on racial progress, they will participate. Beyond that, they will not, since their interests and the interests of the minorities diverge after that point. The above definition misses a key component of CRT, however, because CRT emphasizes the concepts of race, law, and power. Whites, it is supposed, have constructed law in such a way as to maintain their power. Structures of society are responsible for causing race problems (not individuals); therefore structures must be changed.

The Cultural revolution was, historically, the movement under Mao Zedong to expand Communism by removing capitalist and traditional elements from society. In this philosophy, rebellion was justified. Many Chinese people died. There is a modern movement afoot in the west to accomplish a very similar outcome. It advertises as "progressive" and is socialist and communist in ideology.

Identity Politics was the idea that groups that share certain characteristics like race, religion, social class, etc. gather into alliances to protect their interests. However, the phrase is presently used to denote an approach to politics, particularly by the Democratic Party, that emphasizes constituent groups based on certain characteristics, usually race or social status (black, poor, Hispanic, oppressed, LGBTQ, transgender, illegal aliens, etc.). The grievances of each group are the central focus of political activity. This is contrasted to an approach that wishes to see the constituency as one large group (citizens, American, the melting pot idea, etc.)

Intersectionality An explanation of how various social categorizations overlap or combine to create advantage or disadvantage. For example, it is supposed that generally, a white person has privilege over other categories. A white male has an even higher privilege level because of the intersection of the two traits. A black LGBTQ female is very disadvantaged because of the intersection of three social categories that are each disadvantaged. The idea of proponents is to eliminate advantage and elevate the disadvantaged. It seems that no distinction is made between immutable characteristics (white, black, male, female) and mutable characteristics (LGBTQ, illegal alien).

Micro-aggression is "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority" [Oxford Languages via Google]. The word "aggression" is important to note, as such behavior is seen by some proponents as being a form of violence. It sometimes is meant in an aggressive way, and other situations it is not at all aggressive. In the case of an unintentional or even completely innocent statement, there seems to be an oversensitivity and refusal to overlook what might otherwise be a harmless statement. Perhaps the statement is not entirely harmless, but it arises from baked-in cultural factors that are hard to eliminate. That is looking at the "receiving" side. On the "giver's" side, micro-aggression is a term to explain insensitive and unloving statements/actions/etc. Christians on both the receiving and giving sides are taught by God to lovingly address such matters ("let love cover a multitude of sins," or "if you brother offends you, go to him,"), come to a better understanding, offer apology, grant forgiveness, and move ahead.

Neo-marxism An extension of "regular old Marxism" with new philosophies such as critical theory. A philosophy of governance and culture that uses social justice, racism, and other issues defined in this glossary as levers to gain power.

Oppressor vs. oppressed The philosophies described in this glossary are obsessed with the notion that society is made up of oppressors and the oppressed. For justice to prevail, the oppressed must throw off the oppressor (or, the oppressor must voluntarily step down). This is often advocated by any means that are available, including actual physical violence and thievery. This is connected to the cultural revolution as a way to right the oppressed categories, but will inevitably put another group into the oppressed category.

Socialism is a political and economic structure where the means of production and distribution are owned and regulated by the community, not privately. Socialism is typically one step away from full-fledged communism.

Social Justice A type of justice that is concerned not with crime or moral right and wrong, but rather with the distribution of wealth, privilege, opportunities, power, and the like.

SJW = Social Justice Warrior A person who actively promotes social justice (progressive) views.

Woke Adjective describing someone who is alert to injustice in society, especially racism [Oxford Languages via Google]. Someone who is naive to such issues would not be "woke." Someone who knows about such issues but does not actively campaign for the progressive agenda is also considered to be un-woke.

1619 Project "The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative."

One comment: the rapid change of language by addition of new phrases indicates that rapid cultural change is happening. The language is adapting to express new ways of thinking. Media and academic institutions, especial high schools and colleges, are at the forefront of this effort to change the culture.

Update: Answers in Genesis just wrote a helpful article on Critical Race Theory, which also comes some of the other terms defined above.

In our area in the past few years, it has become a thing for schools to promote "mindfulness." Immediately upon hearing what the students do during their "mindfulness" times in class, it sounded suspect. I was disturbed by the thinly veiled attempt to get a religious position into the secular classroom while the school system rejects Christianity and makes every attempt to get God out of the schools.

One of our deacons helped me by writing the following after he read a book by a Buddhist monk on the topic.

Mindfulness is a new word for meditation that was invented to help get meditation accepted in more places. It is a less religious, hippy sounding word.

Even though mindfulness is claimed to be non-religious, it smells a lot of Buddhism, and not surprisingly, Buddhists tend to be the topic experts on it.

The main idea of mindfulness is to become aware of your own thoughts. On the surface this idea of self awareness looks similar to the truth of introspection. This similarity to a good mental exercise sweetens the underlying poison of mindfulness. The Bible talks about introspection: 2 Corinthians 13:5—"examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith," Psalm 19:12—believers want to be aware of secret faults, Ephesians 5:15 speaks about walking circumspectly, which includes turning our eyes on ourselves, Prov 4:23—"keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life," and 1 Peter 1:13—"be sober minded."

However, mindfulness differs fundamentally from biblical introspection in that it is non-judgmental, detached, and OK with all thoughts, whether good or bad. The mindfulness book likens meditation to sitting beside a road and watching cars drive by, where the cars are your thoughts. You let the cars go by (the good and the bad ones) and don't try to chase the good ones or stop the bad ones. You just sit and watch your thoughts and study them to become more aware of them. Over time, the busy traffic gets less busy and you enjoy more peace and quiet. Eventually there are times when no cars drive by.

Mindfulness claims there exists an underlying peace and joy that is always present for us to enjoy. We just have to clear our thoughts to find it. Mindfulness thereby replaces the idea of ultimate peace and joy that comes from our relationship with God.

By claiming that thoughts and feelings are autonomous, mindfulness excuses guilt, and convolutes the idea of identity and personhood (similar to the way atheism does by denying free will).

Mindfulness strives to create a perception that things are OK, whether they are good or bad or nothing at all. This sounds a lot like the Buddhist effort to numb the fear of death and to numb the craving for meaning in life. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity in our heart, yet no one can find out the work of God from beginning to end. In other words, God has put in our hearts a yearning for eternity and meaningfulness. Buddhism deceives by numbing that yearning in the heart.

I'm writing for pastors especially, but the general Christian audience is welcome to read as well.

My title perhaps evoked in your mind various government edicts that presently prohibit churches from worshiping due to the COVID-19 scare. But that is not my point.

In the State of Michigan, each of the several governor's orders have carefully side-stepped a prohibition against corporate worship, while making clear the government's desire that churches not gather for safety reasons. This built-in vagueness is due to the recognition that the first amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Michigan constitution protect the rights of individuals to worship as they see fit. I appreciate this recognition in Michigan. Governor Whitmer even took flak from the far left for making an "unconstitutional exemption for churches." But governors of other states are a little less sharp on this issue and felt that they could infringe churches' rights.

Almost all churches gladly complied with the government's wishes for the first 6 weeks or so of the pandemic, including ours. But these wishes were never a command and, properly understood, should not have bound the consciences of church members nor of their pastors. The most recent order (ending May 28) is less vague. A lawsuit brought by a number of churches forced the governor to add language to make it clear that not only are church "owners" and "places of worship" exempt from penalty, but also individuals who choose to travel and worship at those places. The executive order (2020-77) is still clear that the desire of the government is that there be no group gatherings, but desire is not a legally enforceable command.

Some Christians feel that this is more than clear enough to go back to worship. After all, a law with no penalty attached is no different than advice. For these Christians, the advice given ("don't gather") has now become unnecessarily restrictive of their right and desire to worship God together. Further, the legal wrangling at the state level causes these ones to have legitimate questions about whether the governor has extended orders beyond her authority.

Others are waiting for explicit permission to gather once again. The "spirit" of the executive order is to avoid all gatherings, and these folks want to obey the spirit of the order.

I am in the first group; I have never asked nor awaited permission from secular governing authorities to worship God, and I am not about to set that precedent now. We exist in a distinct "authority regime" -- distinct but not totally separate -- than the secular government. And, I believe we will be waiting a long time for explicit permission from the governor to worship.

The difference between these two camps has the ring of a matter of indifference in Romans 14. I shared with our church family that there will be a wide variety of opinions as to the "right" time to open the church. There will be strongly-held opinions about wearing masks and taking temperatures and how to do children's ministries and a dozen other issues. Speaking generally, worship is clearly not a matter of indifference. It is commanded. But the particular question about whether to open on May 17 or May 31 or June 7 or August 16 is more like a Romans 14 kind of thing. You have to be fully convinced that what you are doing is right. And I have to be fully convinced that what I am doing is right. Each of us will stand before God for our decisions. It is not my place to criticize another pastor for doing what he thinks is right; and it is not your place to criticize other pastors for doing what they think is right.

At some point, you are going to have to open your church. And when you do, this matter of differences of opinion will filter down to your church members. They will have to make a discerning judgment as to whether it is right for them to attend worship. You will be in fact pushing that decision downward to them--a decision which you took from them earlier in the pandemic when you decided to close the church for the preservation of life. Your approach made it easy for the church because they had nothing to decide. They were stuck with your decision. But when you reopen, they will have the burden to decide: Do they have an underlying health condition? Do they have a family member in the home or for whom they care who has such an issue? Are they fearful? Are they listening too much to the fear-mongering left-wing media and consuming doomsday statistics about the virus? Are they coming to worship for the right reason, not just to "stick it to the authorities"?

I do not have all the data to make those decisions for all the church members simultaneously. Only they are in possession of that information, and since they are servants of Another, I am not going to get into the business of judging them on this matter. One week or another is not going to make a difference in the eternal scheme of things. Granted, if someone makes excuse that they cannot attend worship until January of 2021 or until there is a vaccine (which may never come to be), I will speak to them and question their motives and wisdom, and try to help inform their consciences. But I do not believe today is the point in time to fight that battle with anyone.

Similarly, I am not in possession of the information to pontificate about what church X or Y should do. Maybe it is a small church; maybe they will have multiple services; maybe they will hold outdoor services; maybe they have lots of people with tender consciences. What do I know? Nothing. I am not in their shoes. I trust God to work with those pastors and Christian leaders to make wise decisions. A few will not, and many will. That's how it goes.

So, while trying myself to avoid such pontification, may I exhort you to consider another side of the equation? My concern: pastors and church boards, because of division or fear, may keep the church closed while many of their members long to worship God. They desire, like David, to come to the house of God and express His beauty in worship. They want to see other believers for fellowship. They want to be instructed corporately--directly--in the Word. They want to participate in the Lord's Table, and they have missed it for two months already. Pastors should not be in the place of prohibiting the worship of God's people. Individual hang-ups sometimes have to be set aside in order to avoid unnecessarily hurting a subset of the church by not permitting them to worship corporately as God commands. Their consciences are important too--not just the pastors or leaders or members with a tender-conscience.

Early on in the crisis, the "fog of war" was upon us. Lack of information, panic, and a dreadfully high curve faced us. It was appropriate to take steps to preserve life in the face of many unknowns. That time is past. The curve has been flattened. In general, hospitals are well under capacity. We know more about the virus, we know how to mitigate. Are we past all risk? Never. But things are different now than two months ago. It is time for churches to plan reopening whether the government likes it or not. God's people need corporate gatherings and worship. God deserves our corporate worship once again.

The earth has been strangely quiet toward God for the last two months. Not silent, to be sure, but quiet. Let us not prohibit God's people from making the trek to their houses of worship and lifting their praises to the true and living God, the King of the Universe. May He be praised in all true houses of worship very soon.

Update 7/24/2020: Pastor John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Community Church in California have written an excellent open letter defending the opening of churches despite government orders to stay closed.

Update 7/25/2020: Jonathan Leeman at 9Marks has written a critical response to MacArthur and the elders of grace Community Church.

Some Christians have become enamored with the ideas of socialism and even communism. I think this is attributable to four reasons: First, when the terms are left undefined, they seem to describe "kind" and "benevolent" economic systems that will help the poor and raise people out of poverty. They seem equivalent to the good "social programs" in our republic. Second, there is a seeming connection with the early church as described in Acts 2:44-45 which legitimizes these systems in the minds of some Christians. Third, ignorance of the actual, practical results of these economic systems fosters uncritical acceptance. Fourth, these systems are based on a non-Christian view of the nature of humanity which simply will not work in the harsh realities of the real world which is filled with sinners. When these factors are exposed and honestly examined, most true Christians would forcefully reject both economic theories.

Let us begin with some definitions.

socialism, via Merriam-Webster 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

Going to Google and searching "define socialism" returns this from the "Google" dictionary:

socialism 1: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. 2: policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. 3: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Google's definition of communism is as follows:

communism a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

In contrast:

capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Common ownership is not just theoretical. It is actual. This would look like the government owning and running all utilities like electrical generation, natural gas, etc. It would entail government ownership of all hospitals, schools, factories, etc.

But this is not like what is described in the Bible. Under the theocracy and then monarchy in Israel, for hundreds of years there was private property ownership. This is proven by the fact that there is a command "do not steal." This presupposes private property ownership. The limited taxation through tithing is another proof. There was definitely not common ownership of property or means of production. Even the distribution of land indicates private ownership; the Israelite tribes had perpetual ownership of the sections of land that were their inheritance. Deeds were held; property was bought and sold, etc.

In the New Testament era, the same kind of situation is evident. The apostle Paul tells the Corinthians to give voluntarily to support the poor, and he tells the Roman Christians to pay their taxes. These imply a private property ownership scenario. Support for the poor is praiseworthy because it is optional and carried out by loving Christians. It is not obligatory, for if it were, there would be no reward in it.

Of this fact we can be certain: by the above definitions, socialism and communism are not economic systems that were practiced in the Bible. As for the other three reasons I outlined above, they will have to wait for future articles.

For sake of clarity, let me state up front that I am very strongly opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Consequently, I am not personally tolerant to the practice of abortion, and I don't look favorably upon those who practice it or promote it. I'm concerned for their eternal souls, for they too will be raised from the dead and face the judgment of God. Therefore, although I can't find abortion tolerable, I have a compassion for those who think it is OK, and those who promote it as a positive good, because their thoughts are darkened. They are not thinking right, and I hope they won't find that out at the judgment seat of God—when it is too late.

But putting that all aside for the moment, let us think about our society. It is, on the whole, tolerant of abortion. It allows babies to be killed, and increasingly so, even up to the moment of birth, or even after birth, as recent news has shown.

I would argue that since the society is tolerant of abortion, which has the irreversible effect of stopping the beating heart of a creature of the homo sapiens species, that logically our society should be willing to tolerate a number of other things. The most liberal among our society, since they tolerate the ending of the life of a baby, should be able to easily tolerate lesser things like:

• Christians preaching the gospel;
• Christians refusing to support gay marriage;
• Christians refusing to support transgender practice;
• Christians refusing to use state-mandated language such as certain pronouns, lest they face jailtime;
• So-called victimless crimes like drug possession and use;
• Churches and other religious organizations refusing to hire those who don't agree with them;
• Constitutional carry of guns;
• Harvesting of sea turtle eggs;
• Killing of deer to reduce herd population;
• Having a Bible in the public school library;
• Inviting a Christian pastor to talk about his job and beliefs in a public school;
• Public schools sending children to the Ark Encounter in and Creation Museum in Kentucky;
• Unlicensed hairdressers;
• Home schooling;
• Circumcision;
• Families who want to live in a patriarchal arrangement;
• Skepticism about vaccinations or refusal to do some vaccinations (what's the worst that can happen?);
• Racist speech;
• Preaching against other religions and sexual sins (such as homosexuality, heterosexual or homosexual lust, fornication, pornography, pedophilia, and bestiality).

I could go through this list and tell you some things I'm for and other things I'm very much against, and yet others that I'm a little on the fence about. My views on these issues flow from a different presuppositional foundation than that of the liberal--a high degree of respect for life, among other things. But that's not my point here. The point is that someone who supports abortion should be fine with all the the above things which have far lesser consequences than the ending of a human life. Otherwise, he (or she!) is morally and logically inconsistent.

You may have read in history how various cultures have handled "unwanted" babies. One common technique was to use exposure in the elements to kill a baby. Cold, dehydration, or hunger were used to kill the baby, probably out of sight and the sound of the cries of the little one. How cruel and barbaric such murder was.

Human society has not progressed at all over the centuries. I woke up this morning to learn that the New York State Senate passed the so-called reproductive health act that provides for abortion up to the last minute of a pregnancy, abortion by lethal injection, abortion by non-physicians, adding abortion to the NY constitution, and repeal of protection for babies who survive abortions. Murderers cannot be punished by lethal injection in New York, but babies can be?!

The representatives in the senate were clapping after passage of the bill in celebration. Governor Cuomo had the World Trade Center spire lit in pink color to celebrate this abomination. Wasn't that building built after the previous version was destroyed and thousands died on 9/11/2001? So now it is used as a monument to celebrate more death? My fellow Christians, the heart of man is desperately wicked. We knew that, of course, but it is not encouraging to see how brazen they are in their evil.

Once the left started glorifying abortion as a sacred right there was only one place this could end up. Now everyone can see how dark hearted and twisted their thinking is. People who hold back in condemning this to avoid conflict or discomfort are copping out. There’s no excuse. —David Limbaugh, January 23, 2019 Tweet

Yes, Christians condemn infanticide. We condemn abortion. If that condemnation brings conflict, so be it.

In better news, new Ohio governor Mike DeWine said that he would sign the heartbeat bill, which will prohibit abortions from about 6 weeks after conception. That's still not perfect, but much better.

I was reading in Acts 13 this morning, and came across this:

But Elymas the sorcerer...withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith (Acts 13:8).

Bad idea. The apostle Paul had to remove that barrier to the gospel, and he had supernatural abilities to do so. Elymas ended up being blind for an undetermined length of time.

This brought to my attention how seriously God takes it when someone attempts to keep others from the Christian faith. God hates that. And He will punish it.

Some other examples: Matthew 11:12, 19:13-14, 23:13; Acts 13:45; 1 Thessalonians 2:16.

So, all of you out there in society who are inclined to meddle in the faith-business of others--whether you are atheist or communist or whatever--please mind your own business. This advice is for your own good. If you are trying to keep children from learning the Christian faith so that they can make up their own mind, you are doing an awful disservice to them. Be aware that God takes note.

Maybe you are a parent and you don't want your kids to get "too involved" in Christianity. Maybe you want them to have a nice career instead of going into ministry or missions. Take care what you are doing!

I was speaking with an elderly Christian lady on Sunday afternoon. She is more than 90 years old. When we spoke about a certain person's Christian salvation story, she expressed the idea using "coming out" language. This person "really came out for the Lord." This struck me as a bit curious given the baggage of that phrase today, but I said nothing about it to her in our conversation.

Afterward, I pondered some more. Obviously, she comes from a generation where "coming out" had nothing to do with the sexual revolution that is going on in the most recent generation. Today, the phrase "come out" refers to an act or time in a person's life where they express that they do not conform to the "assumed" (hetero-) sexual behavior or (birth) gender.

My elderly friend used "coming out" language to refer to someone turning from sin and living for Christ, with even the implication of "coming out" to the church instead of keeping a distance from the church. The connotation was that someone really took a stand for Christ, and became an outspoken Christian.

The LGBTQ movement has borrowed this terminology to express the conversion or change that they feel as they express their behavior and preferences to the world outside of themselves. It is a religious experience for them.

I wondered further if this has implications for "conversion therapy" that has become a hot-button issue these days. If someone "comes out" gay, then should they not also be able to "come out" from their prior "coming out"? In other words, I would think that they should be able to come out as a Christian, and thus leave behind their conformity to the gay or trans lifestyle. Maybe we should call it "deconversion" therapy.

No doubt, some will argue that "coming out" as gay or transgender is simply making a statement as to what the person always has been, so it is not as much a conversion as it is a realization or open expression. I understand the difference. Christian "coming out" is not "expressing what I always have been," for no one starts out life as a true Christian. Christian conversion is miraculous; it is deeply transformative. It is very different than "coming out" as it is used today.

The Christian teaching of submission is very difficult for most people to swallow—even Christians. This is especially so when it has to do with the relationship of wives to their husbands. I recently thought of a way to explain submission that may help you see if you want to follow the Lord in this matter, or if you are not a believer and want to understand better the idea of Christian submission. It is not the Neanderthal, patriarchal thing that you think it is!

In Scripture, the idea is not that an outside person causes you to submit. Instead, the idea is that you subordinate yourself—and gladly so—in obedience to God’s instruction. Submission to an authority figure is an act of obedience to God, which shows love for God and, in turn, appreciation for the authority figure and his/her office. Insubordination is a sin against God, and shows no appreciation for the authority.

It is this way for citizens and their government, or children and their parents and teachers. Those cases are in a sense “easy” because they have to do with relationships where the power distribution is lopsided. The government can put you in jail, and your parents and teachers are, at least early on, much bigger than you are!

But what about situations where the submitting party and the authority party are, roughly speaking, peers—like two adults in the workplace or in marriage?

Let’s think about the example of a workplace. Let us suppose that a conscientious woman employee has a boss who is a nice man. Notice how her submission operates. He asks her to do X, Y, and Z, and she happily jumps into working on those tasks. She doesn’t complain all day about it. She completes the tasks, and then asks for more!

Now, you may object that she doesn’t have much choice because he holds the power of the paycheck over her head. True…except that she can quit and, in many cases in a good economy, get another job without much trouble. But let’s assume further that she is not working just for the money. She is more principled than that, and her work situation is a happy one.

She cheerfully submits herself to her boss. She wants to be helpful, and indeed likes the feeling of being helpful. It makes her feel useful and fulfilled when she submits to her boss. She does so for the good of the company, so that the company can succeed and grow and be even better than it was before she came. She may work to exhaustion many hours per week to carry out this submission fully.

But let us also assume that this same woman has some marital problems at home, though her husband is generally a nice guy. What’s different at 5pm when she goes home? What happened on the commute home that changed her cheerful and fulfilled-by-submission disposition to one that is hard and implacable? Does her happy submission stop because “it’s just her husband” that is asking her to do X, Y, or Z? Does she happily submit to his requests or directives? If not, what’s the difference between work and home? Why can she submit at work, but cannot seem to bring herself to do so at home?

Why is it that wives don’t want to submit to their husbands, but they will submit to their female or male boss every day of the week? They sometimes even do so when the boss has requests that are unreasonable or a waste of time or doesn’t provide the best tools for the job, or whatever other non-ideal circumstances you can think of (kind of like an imperfect husband would be).

I have a partial answer. The flesh and its allies, the world and Satan, have some clever tricks up their sleeves. They can deceive us into being happily submissive to earn the paycheck at work, in a job that we could quit anytime. But they turn around and try to destroy our marriage by making us insubordinate at home in a relationship that we promised (with “vows”) to uphold with all of our might at the wedding ceremony. The important relationship—marriage—is subject to destruction, and the optional relationship—work—is upheld as sacrosanct.

Dear friends, beware of the rebellious spirit in your heart that causes this strange situation.

Today I received a couple of questions about pastors talking about politics in the pulpit. The questioners' native tongue is Spanish, so I reproduce some of their questions here in the original language:

Que opina que los pastores expresen públicamente su preferencia política? Mi pregunta es si es lícito que un pastor manifiesta públicamente su intención de voto. Te enfocarias en los temas valoricos solamente? Es decir, fijarse sólo en los temas de valores como aborto, matrimonio, etc. Cómo enseñas eso? Diciendo en qué fijarse para votar?

Translation: What is your opinion of pastors who publicly express their political preference? My question is whether it is permissible for a pastor to publicly state his intention to vote. Would you focus on the value issues only? That is, to look only at issues of values ??such as abortion, marriage, etc. How do you teach that? By saying which way to vote?

My short answer is this: A pastor should not speak about his political preferences from the pulpit.

Obviously the question demands a longer answer. First, note that I answered the question about political preferences. Those have no place in the pulpit if all they are is personal preferences, that is, matters of indifference to God. The pastor's preferences are no more valid than the next church member's preferences. The pastor should be occupied with preaching God's word, not man's word.

Second, we must recognize that the Christian faith touches on every area of life, and that includes those areas also touched by politics. Let me say that again, in more modern terms: the Gospel of Jesus Christ affects how we vote. It affects how we think about all kinds of issues. It is not just the good news that Jesus died for our sins. It also expresses the bad news that there are sins--things that are wrong to do or be involved in--and we must repent of doing them!

There are many issues that are not preferences. That is, God cares about these issues because they touch some moral principle. Upon these matters, we can and must preach the whole counsel of God in order to give guidance to God's people in the church. The people need leadership, lest they be like sheep without a shepherd. And yes, they will go off in every direction if they are not taught.

Third, in the United States at least, we are not permitted to preach or campaign for a particular candidate. To do so would be a violation of our non-profit tax exempt status. This situation was created by the so-called "Johnson amendment" which has the effect of limiting the influence of religious non-profits in the political process. But while candidate advocacy is limited, issue advocacy is strongly supported and upheld in our political system.

So, fourth, we should have an influential voice in the political process, by being strong advocates for righteousness in the public square. For example, pastors should preach against abortion, and against supporting those who support it. We should preach against gay marriage and transgenderism because those are rebellion against God. And we should call those who support it to repent and believe in Christ. We should preach against lawlessness, and in favor of the rule of law so that God's purposes for government will be carried out instead of frustrated (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:12-14).

We should preach against the endless accumulation of debt because it ignores important principles in God's word, namely that we must live humbly within our means, and know that the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). If we are in a society that has property slavery, as we had in the United States in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we should preach against such slavery, based as it is on man-stealing (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) and vile treatment of fellow humans created in God's image (Acts 17:26). We should preach against political and financial corruption in society and government.

Here is another example: we should preach against divorce and sexual immorality. John the Baptist did just that, and it cost him his life (Matthew 14:3-12).

Fifth, we can encourage our people to get out to vote. That is part of their responsibility as good citizens of the secular state.

Christians and others in society can be influenced by the preaching and teaching of pastors. We should make use of every opportunity to preach the righteousness of God, and the need for salvation in light of the evils of the society. We must also preach the glorious kingdom of Christ, which will clean out all the evil of our present societies and set up a perfect culture in which righteousness reigns.

On a lighter note...I need some nice soil for my garden, so I did a quick Google search for where I could buy dirt in my neighborhood. Here is what came up:

Meijer is a good possibility for bagged topsoil, but I need a larger quantity. Check out the second and third options. Avon is not dirt, but it's not even close to what I'm looking for. As for the third option, need I say more?

In a recent New York Times editorial piece, Mark Sameth claims that gender in the Hebrew Bible is a fluid concept, and that God is the He/She.

The first two paragraphs about the Bible are these:

I'm a rabbi, and so I'm particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as "he." In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to "her" tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a "young man." And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as them.

Surprising, I know. And there are many other, even more vivid examples: In Esther 2:7, Mordecai is pictured as nursing his niece Esther. In a similar way, in Isaiah 49:23, the future kings of Israel are prophesied to be nursing kings.

These claims are totally false. Mr. Sameth is one rabbi who does not know Hebrew very well; or perhaps better stated, he has allowed his presuppositions about gender to color his vision of the text so that he cannot read it plainly. Gen 3:12 refers to Eve by the Hebrew pronoun "she." Gen 9:21 does not say Noah "repaired to her tent;" it says "he became uncovered (third person masculine singular verb) in his tent." There may be a slight manuscript variance in the pronominal suffix on the word tent, but the meaning is clearly Noah's (his) tent.

Gen 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a young woman (maiden, a virgin, not known by a man), and there is no question that she was a woman given her remarkable beauty. Finally, Genesis 1:27 is where Sameth is closest to the truth, but even that is misconstrued. He doesn't say that "Adam" is the generic use of the word, which refers not to the first man created by God, but rather refers to humankind generally (see NIV). NKJV has a very literal translation:

So God created man (Adam=generic use, humankind) in His own image; in the image of God He created him (him is masculine singular); male and female He created them (yes, it is "them" but obviously referring collectively to humankind). (Gen 1:27 NKJ)

Esther 2:7 does not picture Mordecai is breast-feeding his niece. The vocabulary there refers to Mordecai virtually adopting her (end of the verse) and bringing her up and being her attendant, "nourishing" her in the sense of providing for her. Similarly with the kings of Isaiah 49:23: the second phrase of that verse talks about the queens being nursing mothers; the kings will provide for the nation. The idea of provision and care is all that is implied. There is no gender confusion, mixing, or "well-expressed gender fluidity."

Finally, his argument about the name of God is simply an example of the logical fallacy of special pleading. He should go back and study Exodus 3:14 and see the derivation of the tetragrammaton name of God. God is not the He/She; God is the self-existent eternal ruler of the universe. God is identified as Father to creation and to believers. To be sure, God is sometimes gentle as a mother, but that doesn't warrant us to call Him a Father/Mother. He is also going to judge like a lion, but we shouldn't perceive God as a Human/Lion combination. These are obviously figures of speech describing characteristics of the infinite, non-corporeal God.

God's Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is the perfect representation of God (Hebrews 1:2-3). He was and is still to this day incarnate as a human male. There is no lack of clarity on that point.

A few days ago, I received the following question:

Where does the Bible condemn someone surgically becoming another gender?

The question arises because there is no Biblical text that clearly says "thou shalt not" to gender reassignment. But it would be a woefully inadequate argument to use that fact in favor of reassignment, for there are many particular behaviors that are not specifically called out by the Bible as sin which are in fact sin. It is obvious to genuine Christians that certain behaviors are outside of the realm of righteousness. The works of the sinful nature of man are obvious (Galatians 5:19-21).

For instance, ingesting cocaine is not forbidden specifically by the Bible. But the fact that it is illegal in our country, coupled with the witness of Scripture to not be under the control of some substance, makes it unacceptable (Romans 13:1, 1 Cor. 6:12, Ephesians 5:18).

So why no gender reassignment according to the Bible?

1. Gender reassignment rejects the created order. God created basically all species of animals with male and female counterparts, according to their kind, with ability to reproduce in pairs. Don't hold me to scientific specificity here; I know about inter-sex and morphs and asexual reproduction in microscopic living things and hermaphrodites and the like. My point is that God created humans as male and female (Genesis 1:27, 5:2). There are therefore only two sexes.

2. Gender reassignment violates the principle of not mutilating the human body. Leviticus 19:28 prohibits cuttings and tattoos (see also Leviticus 21:5, Deut. 14:1). Such activities were associated with pagan idolatrous religious practices, including mourning rituals (1 Kings 18:28). Admittedly, these are all Old Testament references. Elsewhere I have written on the issue of the applicability of the Mosaic Law to modern issues. The reason for this is that the body is a gift from God and is to be respected as such. The body is made in the image of God and that conveys dignity to it.

3. Gender reassignment rejects God's choice for the individual's sex and gender. To change gender is to effectively thumb your nose at God, rejecting His authority over your life. Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9-10); that means He is the boss. It is not your will, but God's will that carries the day. Related to this is the Bible's teaching on how we should be content and not dissatisfied. Gender reassignment indicates a deep-seated discontentment with God's choice of one's sex/gender (Hebrews 13:5, 1 Timothy 6:8, Philippians 4:11, Luke 3:14).

4. Gender reassignment "did not come into God's mind" in the sense of Jeremiah 32:35. It is a thing so outside of the realm of right and proper that it is an abomination to God. It was not considered by human societies until the twentieth century when medical technology had advanced to a point where such things could be done.

5. Finally, an argument from lesser to greater. The Scriptures prohibit cross-dressing. See Deuteronomy 22:5:

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NKJV)

Since Scripture prohibits the lesser—putting on of the clothing of the opposite gender—it is very reasonable to assume that God prohibits permanently changing from a man to a woman or the reverse (if that were actually possible).

6. Gender follows sex. There are, as with everything in this world, things that can break from this simple and normative pattern. Christians are not surprised at the confusion about gender and sex that exists in our society. That confusion is just another evidence of how deeply the fall of mankind into sin has affected our minds and bodies (Ephesians 4:18, Romans 1:21-28).

And now, why does gender reassignment go awry according to science and reason?

7. Gender reassignment is not the same as fixing a birth defect. If a person is born as a boy, that is a gift from God, not a birth defect or a deviation from the proper gender of the child. Any feelings of deviation in gender are that--feelings--and can be helped by acknowledging the Biblical truth of God's creation, sin, the fall, and redemption. A birth defect such as club feet or fused fingers or hypoplastic left heart syndrome are deviations from the normal and correct anatomy. To fix them is to alleviate pain and suffering. To reassign gender is to fix a problem that is not a problem. It takes the normal and makes it abnormal.

8. Gender reassignment is not the same as cosmetic surgery. A facelift or tummy tuck or fixing varicose veins is like fixing a birth defect: it is fixing something that has deviated from its normal or proper design. Changing a person's external and internal sexual organs from their normal anatomy to something abnormal is a totally different kind of thing.

9. You cannot change your X and Y chromosomes. They are replicated in every one of the 37.2 trillion cells in your body, if you are average size. Well, except for your red blood cells which have no nucleus, or your sperm or eggs which only have the 23 chromosomes instead of the full complement of 46. The point is that the same genetic material is replicated trillions of times throughout your body, although only parts of it are active in certain cells depending on their type. A few cosmetic changes and hormonal treatments will not change the fact that trillions of cells contain either XX or XY, and those remain the same throughout the person's lifetime. While the external appearance may be made to look like the opposite sex, every cell in the body cries out the birth sex of the person.

Please don't bother with the worn out argument that I hate you if you have had a reassignment surgery, or are pondering one, or are of an opposite view than I am. I am telling you what the BIBLE says about gender reassignment. And I believe the Bible is right because it comes from God. But I am not a hater. For more on that, read here.

References

An Article on Hermaphrodites

I spoke on this topic on April 3, 2016