Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Sleeping in a Cradle

"I love Thee, Lord Jesus;
Look down from the sky,
And stay by my cradle,
'Til morning is nigh."

A lot of us sing this during the #Christmas season. At first glance, it looks to be a lullaby for a child. Maybe at one time it was.

But we are grown-ups. We don't sleep in cradles. Isn't a little silly to sing this every year?

When we think of a child sleeping in a cradle, we think of the serene face and tiny, rhythmic breathing of a miniature person undisturbed by financial stress or current events or family conflicts. Mommy and Daddy are right there by the cradle, so, as far as that baby is concerned, all is right with the world.

We have no more needs than that baby does (if anything, we have less). But we are burdened by those needs much more than the child is.

Yet we are called to have the faith of children. Our Heavenly Father watches over us even in our sleep (Psalm 127).

I want to sleep in a cradle- not with my body, but with my soul. And I want to lay there undisturbed, knowing that since Daddy is there all is right with the world.


Tuesday, November 3, 2015


The Darwinian worldview leads to euthanasia, abortion, sterilization, and genocide. If we assume the truth of Darwinian evolution, that is the simple and logical conclusion; as Hitler's propoganda stated, no good animal breeder allows the unhealthy or inferior animals in his care to breed. If we, too, are just animals, somewhere between apes and supermen, then why would we not want to assist the progress of the species by cutting out those who obviously will not be helping us toward the latter?
The Christian worldview stands in stark opposition. The Author of life claims responsibility for making the deaf and the blind. (Ex. 4:11)
In the Christian worldview, there is no such thing as a "defective" person. The child with Down Syndrome, the cross-eyed man, the woman lame from birth, the deformed, the mute, these people were not rejects from the celestial assembly line.
Certainly, there are natural factors that God uses to bring such things about- some of which we are responsible for.
But the basic Christian assumption is that God made you how He wants you. 
We are responsible for what we do with what He gives us; we are responsible to invest our talents wisely. But He is the One Who gives the talents as He sees fit. (Matt. 25:14-30) 
Sterilizing the "inferior", as America did in the early 1900s, or committing mass acts of genocide, as the Nazi regime did, or murdering the unwanted in the womb like we are doing by the thousands and ten thousands today in this country- this all makes sense if we are the judge of what is "viable," what is "superior," if we can control the factors and predict the results- and if we are not accountable to God for what we do with His souls.
But if God makes people individually by His hand, then it doesn't matter what the child's pedigree is. If God wants him blind, He'll make him blind. If He doesn't want him blind, then the child will not be blind. If the child is blind, there is no blame or shame. That was God's perfect will. That is just as much a person, a life, a soul, in the words of Lewis a "self." And if that child is chosen by God, then he is just as much a member of the Church-Bride of Jesus Christ. God wove that human tapestry and signed it with His image and bought it with His blood. There is no higher pedigree than that which is held by the child of God.
Blind or not, "normal" or not, we do not have the right to determine that life inferior. We can only judge things which are under us. Human creations, human actions. Life is a creation of God. He has the right to tell us when- and why- we may take it from another. 
We did not give it. It is not ours to take unless the One Who gave it tells us to.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Time to be Shocked

We are the nation where little babies, alive and wriggling, have their faces scissored in half so their brains can be harvested.

I generally don't like the shock-value technique.  But it's far past time for us to be shocked.

Examinations of the underbelly of the Planned Parenthood​ monster keep showing more and more festering infection.  The heartless perversion- this just makes me shudder.  We need to see this.  We need to shudder.  We need to show it to others so they can shudder too.

And we need to *repent.*  The only way hell can prevail and belch forth such wickedness is if the Church of Jesus Christ has not rolled over the gates of hell with the Word of God.

God will not be mocked, and a nation that does this and does not repent is a nation that will be broken- soon and hard.



Friday, August 7, 2015

Wandering Hearts

Thinking about the dangers that the stereotypical workplace model present to marriage; a married man with a secretary who isn't his wife happily helping and serving him all day; a married woman helping a man who isn't her husband, and being appreciated, and seeing his big vision and hard work; this is a chemistry that God designed to create a powerful reaction, but unfortunately it is not often enjoyed in its proper context- marriage- today.

I'm very happy and blessed that my secretary is Mrs. Bethany Hudelson, and I can be unashamedly in love with her.

But also thinking... the proper Christian response to this and other areas of temptation is not "I love my wife so much that I would never fall prey to such a thing," but rather "I love my wife too much to trust myself with temptation, because I know I am a sinner."

(Not saying that such a situation is inherently sinful, by the way, but rather that it is something to be careful of.)

It is not a sign of loving Jesus more that we feel no need to flee temptation- it is a sign of thinking too highly of ourselves. The stronger we are as believers, the weaker we know ourselves to be.

It is only the grace of God that stands between us- between me- and every depravity of the flesh. I pray that God would be merciful to me, would hold me to Himself, would not leave me to discover just how weak I am without His grace and His Spirit.

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." - 1 Cor. 10:12

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)

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

She Said Yes

Tonight I asked a girl to marry me; a girl I don't deserve; a girl I can't begin to thank God enough for; a girl I cannot wait to share the rest of my life with.

What's more, she said yes.