Tuesday, June 30, 2015

All or Nothing

Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are irreconcilable positions.  It may sound romantic to be able to advocate "liberty" in areas like "sexual preference" and "choice" while still promoting small-government fiscal policies, but the social issues walk hand-in-hand with the fiscal ones.  The moment we forsake God's Word as the standard for ALL areas of life, we have forsaken God's Word as the standard for ANY area of life, and we are left to the chilling arbitrariness of humanism.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Kings of the Earth

Like on the side of a fighter jet, #SCOTUS marks another kill- but with a knife into the Constitution and a slap towards the face of God.

He Who sits in the heavens laughs.  Their slaps will only result in broken fingers.

God will not be mocked; our nation will continue her spiral into insignificance and final collapse until the people of God are faithful to stand on His Word.

That is the true travesty.  The only way that the kingdom of darkness can gain so much ground is if the Kingdom of Light forsakes it.  So long as we continue to apologize for the Word of God, we can expect these travesties of justice to continue.


Thursday, May 14, 2015

Mr. and Mx.

Watched a little segment on Fox tonight about how Amazon has removed the "Boys" and "Girls" filters from their toy searches and the Oxford English Dictionary is introducing Mx. as a gender-neutral alternative to Mr. or Ms.

He Who sits in the heavens laughs.  It really is quite funny to watch the gods of the politically-correct marketplace scramble to sandblast every remnant of reality off of the reality that surrounds them.  Predictably, like sweeping a dirt floor, it's not working very well.

Then one of the ladies on the segment talks about how the most we can say about whether there are real biological differences between boys and girls is that we don't really know.

So... let's run a few quick polls.

What does a doctor say when a baby is born?  "It's a _____"

Is the doctor right or wrong?  And if the terms "male" and "female" no longer refer to objective biological differences, then... what's the doctor supposed to say?  Do we need new terms that somehow can acknowledge an anatomical reality without acknowledging a spiritual one?  Or are we also questioning the anatomical reality?

Next poll:

Put a group of girls in an empty room.  Put a group of boys in an empty room.  Give each group maybe some sticks and rocks.  What are they going to do?

Next poll:

Ask your average girl what her ideal body would look like, and note the adjectives she uses.  Ask your average guy the same question.

Next poll (this one is fun):

What would be your initial reaction to a scene from, say, an Avenger movie, in which Black Widow is cradling Thor in her arms, carrying him away from a place of danger?

Now, reverse the roles.  Does your reaction change at all?

If so, are you a sexist?  Or are you just a normal person who has been wired by God to think in terms of reality?

Something to think about.  Oh, and I loved the other lady's comment at the end... "This just makes it harder to shop."

And thus is the world of political correctness.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Homosexuals Have Rights Too

OK... I'll admit it... under Biblical law, homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else.

It's Biblical.

I have the right to marry a woman.  The homosexual guy does too.

I don't have the right to marry a man.  Neither does a homosexual guy.

See?  Same rights.

The homosexual community is clamoring for equal rights in name, but special rights in reality.

If homosexuality is a sin and legally-outlawable crime (which it is, Biblically speaking- Leviticus 18:22) then no one has the right to practice it.  This goes for every sin and crime- murderers, thieves, adulterers, they all have the same rights as anyone else.  To seek a special right to steal, kill, or commit adultery- if we're going to do that, let's at least call it what it is: special permission for the violation of God's Word- not equal rights.

This is not an issue of denying the right of marriage to some and granting it to others; it's a matter of defining marriage Biblically- one man, one woman- acknowledging that right, and acknowledging the wrongness of anything else.


Monday, April 6, 2015

On Objectifying Women

On the objectification of women...

I recently read a blog post about how, in short and brutal summation, girls should feel free from the legalisms of the modesty movement and guys need to get their thoughts under control and stop blaming and objectifying women.

And I agree.  Sort of.

Guys, we do need to take responsibility for our eyes and our thoughts.  We don't have the freedom to blame Eve here.  Jesus didn't say "if any man looks at a woman to lust after her then she really should have put more clothes on."  The truth of the matter is, brothers, that a lustful heart and mind *will lust*.  Regardless of the attire (or lack thereof) of the object of lust, "the eyes of man are never satisfied." (Pr. 27:20)

Furthermore, we have no right to take our opinion and preach it as Gospel.  "Thou shalt not wear pants."  "Thou shalt not wear sleeveless shirts."  "She is wearing a skirt that reveals a fragment of her KNEECAP.  AAAAAAAAUUUUGHHH.  MY PURITY IS MELTING OUT OF MY EARS.  VILE SINNER!!!!11!!!1!"

Or something like that.

We may preach Biblical principle as doctrine... and that is all.  Principles of Scripture like gender distinctions (Deut. 22:5), modest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9- and this specifically has to do with ostentatiousness, not just the display of flesh), and the need to cover nakedness (Genesis 3, Leviticus 18) can- and should- all be applied.  And we can look, too, at practical examples given in Scripture- for example, the baring of the thigh is shameful  (Isaiah 47:2).

But girls should not feel burdened by the rules of man- only blessed by the rules of God.

That said... ladies... sisters... please hear me on this.  Just because a guy is prone to look at revealed female form and flesh doesn't mean that he is a woman-objectifying pervert.  It actually means he's normal.  God wired us that way.  (If he keeps looking, or starts thinking things he shouldn't, *then* he has stepped into sin.)

The female form is like a magnet to our eyes.  Even in the form of a pencil drawing or a poster.  And that is a beautiful, wonderful thing, within the context of marriage!

(And actually it's not entirely a guy thing- it's also a rules-of-art thing; my Mom did an experiment once where she showed a group of women two pictures- a professionally dressed woman in a skirt, and a professionally dressed woman in pants- and she asked the women what caught their eyes.  Even from a photographic composition standpoint, regardless of actual physical attraction, leading lines guide the eyes.)

So.  Guys are responsible for loving girls as people, looking at them as friends and embodied souls and not just bodies.  But girls... if you want a Godly guy to notice your face and personality and to talk to you as another person instead of spending the conversation trying... not... to look...

We appreciate the help.

Christian guys need to be told to take responsibility for their own thoughts.  But they do not need saddled with guilt for being wired like men, just like Christian girls don't need saddled with guilt for not following man-made legalisms.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Love Has No... Logic, Apparently.

The Ad Council has spoken.  Let the peoples bow at the sound of the zither and the trumpet unto the golden statue of LUVVVV.

But before we make haste to prostrate ourselves worshipfully in the dust, it might behoove us to ask ourselves- what exactly do we mean by love?

In the viral video "Love Has No Labels," we see people behind an x-ray wall showing affection to one another (kissing skeletons... yeah).  Presumably to illustrate that we are all the same on the inside... which is somewhat true, although if we're going to make that argument regarding the issue of homosexuality we must acknowledge that men and women actually aren't all the same on the inside.  There are significant anatomical and physiological differences.  (Amen somebody?!?)

Moving on; as the video progresses, the affectionate skeletons part and then appear on the outside of the wall- as real people.  Now we see who it was that was hugging, or kissing, or dancing behind the X-ray.  And here is where the logic behind this emotional plea begins to crumble.

The battle cry of the advertisement remains the same- love has no ____.

No gender- a homosexual couple.

No race- a bi-racial couple.

No age- an elderly couple, or two children hugging each other.

No disability- an autistic child playing with a friend.

No religion- "Christians," Jews, Muslims, Hindus shaking hands in ecumenical bliss.

But if we look carefully we will notice that "love" is being used in a few different ways here.

Frankly, everyone would agree with the statement at a foundational level.  Guys love guys and girls love girls all the time in a fully Biblical and healthy way- it's called friendship.  And under that definition of love- platonic friendship, or, in the words of Paul, "in all purity"- all the above statements are true (although each category and especially the category of religion must define love in such a way as not to exclude truth).

However, that is not what the advertisement is truly meaning to say; it is a plea for the acceptance of homosexuality and the elimination of distinctions, standards, and Truth.  And here is where the logic leaps the tracks, because the definition of "love" has been changed from platonic friendship to romantic and sexual passion- a love which has been designed by God and given to us as a precious, wonderful gift to be enjoyed only within the confines of covenant marriage- one-man, one-woman marriage.

Is this passionate and romantic love the love that this ad is talking about?

Well... sometimes.

To be blunt, everyone would be shocked and appalled if the six-year-old children were making out on stage.  But why?  I thought love had no age!

And this is the issue.  Love, and especially romantic love, does indeed have labels- it has categories- it has God-given definitions.  There are some "loves" that are inappropriate.  There are a thousand perversions I'd rather not name that do not deserve to be "tolerated" and are not worthy of the title "love."

So the bottom-line question is "who defines what kinds of love are OK?"  Who defines which behaviors and passions are appropriate and which are aberrant and abominable?

The Ad Council has decided that homosexual romantic love is OK, but I doubt they would feel the same about bestial romantic love, or romantic love between children, or a child and an adult, or siblings, or... the list goes on.

They are not OK with it for now, that is.  Give it time.

Scripture is clear (Lev. 18:22, Heb. 13:4).  Romantic love belongs only within the context of covenant.  Marriage.  One man, one woman, 'til death do them part.  God has spoken.

So the bottom-line question is this- will we submit to the standards of the Ad Council, or to those of The Creator of the universe?

Thursday, February 19, 2015

In Response to Rob Bell

In response to Rob Bell: the mainstream American church may indeed soon embrace same-sex marriage. But the mainstream American church is not synonymous with Biblical Christianity. Scripture is clear, and the failure of those who claim the Name of Jesus to live by His Words does not change the Truth of His Words. Homosexuality is a sin. A forgivable sin. A sin like many other sins. But a sin. And it is not loving to hide people from the Truth. (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1)