Lessons From September 11

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.  And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?  I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.  Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?  I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
~Luke 13:1-5

Today thousands in the nation take time out of their busy schedules to commemorate and remember those who lost their lives in the horrible tragedy which occurred the morning of this day eleven years ago.  Many of us remember how that day changed the way we thought about the country, our loved ones, and even our lives.  Many still are struggling with what they have seen, or with those they have lost in the tragedy.  Some lives may never be the same again.  While not belittling the victims of the tragedy, I want to look at what those who are still living can learn from this event.

The days following the 9/11 attacks brought several questions.  Several of these questions concerned God and His role in the event.  People struggled with trying to grasp any reasons God may have allowed or permitted this to happen.  Some wondered if the people who went for what they thought would have been a normal day at work deserved to play the victims of such a horrible scenario.

Clearly God was in control of that day and is still in control of our world today.  Scripture tells us that God works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).  Through Amos God communicates, If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6) and Jesus says that a sparrow does not fall to the ground apart from your Father (Matthew 10:29).  Even Satan himself is under the sovereignty of God.  Jesus acknowledged to Peter that Satan could not test the disciples' faith without God's allowance.  Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat (Luke 22:31).  Likewise, Satan could not tamper with Job without God's permission and He set clear boundaries where Satan would not be able to trend.  In the first meeting with Satan, God agreed to let him test Job but would not allow him to put forth your hand on him (Job 1:12) and the second time God gave Job into his control but would not permit him to kill His righteous servant.  Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life (Job 2:6).  This is a very comforting truth.  Our lives may seem like they are spirling out of control, but the truth is that we are still in God's hands and He is working to bring things to His ultimate purpose.  You may be down at your lowest, but we have hope that God IS in control and causing all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).  Even in the worst of times, we have comfort knowing there is a loving and good God in control who has a purpose in the suffering.  God was there that day on 9/11 and, even amist the sorrow, several testimonies to His goodness have been proclaimed.  His sovereign hand never left the situation!

The second major question the World Trade Center attacks spawned is one which is a common response to every huge natural disaster or catastrophe:  "What did this group do to deserve this?"  This was seen after the tsunami in India as well as New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina.  In fact, Jesus was asked a similar question about 2000 years ago.  While speaking to a large crowd, a group informs Jesus about an atrocity which Pilate had committed.  The exact situation is unknown to us today but we can infer that it had something to do with a slaughter of Jews during their sacrifices.  Not only was this a terrible occurrence, but it took place during worship which made it even more horrendous.  Jesus realized right away the question that they had concerning this issue.  They thought that this plight was the result of them being greater sinners than all others.  However, Jesus sought to turn their perspective completely around.

Instead of agreeing with their assumption, Jesus took the focus off the victims and placed it on the questioners.  The reason this group was slaughtered was not because they were greater sinners.  The ones who were killed were no more sinners than the ones commenting concerning them.  (Note: This does not necessarily mean that the events God permits to occur are punishment for specific sins.  John 9 makes it clear that, while a result of the curse of sin, not all infirmities and incidents are due to specific sins.)  Those who died in the tsunami, in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and with Hurricane Katrina were no more sinners than those of you reading this note as well as the one writing it.  We deserved the same!  I will never forget a powerful sermon my pastor preached right after the tsunami a few years ago.  He told us that the question is not "why them?" but should be "why not us?"  We didn't deserve God's mercy to not have the tsunami happen in America, or to not have been in the Pentagon or World Trade Center on that day, as well as having the hurricane wreck havoc on the NorthEast or MidWest.  As Scripture tells us, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  We get so used to God's mercy we have problems when He shows us His wrath.

Jesus actually warns the crowd of an even greater fate, much worse than what happened with Pilate and the later example of the falling of the tower of Siloam.  Unless they repent of their sins, they will perish (Luke 13:3,5).  This is Jesus' urgent plea to those who are lost in sin.  Repentance means a turning from sin.  It is the flip side of faith.  One turns from sin in repentance and then turns toward Christ by placing their faith in Him.  The likewise may refer to the sudden and unexpected death of those in the Temple and at Siloam.  Those who went to the Temple that day to offer their sacrifices did not realize that they would not be returning home.  The possibility of the tower falling on the group in Siloam probably never occurred to them.  Likewise, if the crowd does not turn from their sins and turn to Christ they will suddenly and unexpectedly (to them) experience the punishment for their sins.  The author of Hebrews tells us that it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

No one is guaranteed of their next heartbeat or breath.  If we should learn something from modern headlines, it is that death is no respecter of age.  If you have not turned from your sins and placed your faith in the Lord Jesus, then Jesus' plea for repentance is for you.  Like those in the Temple and at Siloam, you do not know when the day will come and it will be too late.   Many who left for work that morning of 9/11 did not know that they would not leave the building.  Several wives did not know that they would not see their husbands again.  I am not attempting to scare anyone, I just want to point out reality.   For us who are Christians, this is a reminder that life is too short to waste!  Let us give out Jesus' plea to those who need to hear it in our families, schools, and at our places of employment!

Praying for those involved with the attacks in any way as well as us who can learn from God's mercy,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!

The Crazy Chick-Fil-A Controversy

I have to admit that I have been following all of the hoopla over the controversy that has erupted concerning the recent statements made by the president of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, with amazement. Much of what I have read and heard have just been unbelievable. Coming from my background in philosophy (part of my major in my undergraduate studies), seeing so many logical fallacies in public debate is just abhorrent. Though I do believe that much of the reaction to Mr. Cathy's statements supporting the biblical definition (and thereby God's definition since Scripture is His Word) of marriage does reveal much of how the pro-homosexual agenda operates. This controversy has been telling in more ways than one.

Manipulation
What began as an innocent statement of the values of the president of a successful restaurant chain have escalated into an all out war with people siding in favor of Chick-Fil-A (those going to eat there today for "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day") and those opposing by boycotting the company (either by refusing to eat there again or choosing to no longer provide toys for their kids meals). Much manipulation was used by the pro-homosexual agenda to get to this point. First of all, how surprising is it that Mr. Cathy, a professing Christian of one of the few restaurants that are closed on Sundays to articulate a Christian view that the Bible unambiguously teaches and in which the Christian church has held for 2000 years? What else would one expect? (But then again I am constantly amazed when couples planning for marriage meet with me in my office to ask me to conduct their wedding and appear surprised when I address the issue of them living together to be a sin according to Scripture.) That in itself technically is not controversial. I actually find it more controversial when a professing Christian who claims to take the Bible as God's Word supports so-called same-sex marriage despite God's clear definition of marriage given in Genesis 2:24 and affirmed all throughout the Bible, and by Jesus Himself (Matthew 19:4-6)!

Also, how did we go from a statement that Chick-Fil-A "are very much supportive of the family unit-the biblical definition of the family unit" and pointing out how a movement to redefine God's institution of marriage basically is man raising his fist to God in rebellion and claiming that he knows better than God (a claim I myself have made several times) to Mr. Cathy hates homosexuals and Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gays and lesbians? Mr. Cathy never said anything about homosexuals in any of the statements in which I have read. He actually spoke on what constitutes a marriage and a family. It appears to me that what we have here is deliberate manipulation to promote an agenda. Mr. Cathy's statements on marriage would not create such a firestorm but if the American public could be convinced that homosexuals are once again a victim of unfair treatment, more attention and sympathy may be gained to their cause. A similar tactic can be noticed by the pro-homosexual agenda in regards to their claim that they are the new "civil rights" movement of the 1960s; comparing themselves to the unjustifiable unfair treatment of African Americans. (Dr. Voddie Baucham reveals how erroneous and manipulative such a claim is here in his very well written article.) Such manipulation appears common by many in this group pushing for the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and a redefinition of marriage to suit their carnal desires. The facts of Mr. Cathy's statement probably would not have generated as much buzz nor aided their cause as well.

A New Definition of Tolerance and A Double Standard
Not only does this controversy show some of the manipulative strategies that many in the pro-homosexual lobbying groups are willing to use, it also reveals what they really mean by tolerance. This group over and over again preaches tolerance. "You must tolerate my lifestyle even if you don't agree with it." To promote their cause they have redefined the historic understanding of the term tolerance. Erwin Lutzer explains this well: "This word [tolerance], which at one time meant that people should be free to believe whatever they wished, now meant that they could do whatever they wished, and it was improper to judge their conduct. Tolerance now demands an affirmation of virtually all behavior, no matter how immoral, unnatural, and bizarre" (20; emphasis in original). However, the kind of tolerance that this group demands is not the same kind of tolerance we are witnessing them give. Many within the pro-homosexual lobby certainly are not tolerant of Mr. Cathy's perspective concerning the family (and for that matter much of America at this point, including almost all of the US presidents with Mr. Obama being the most notable exception). Two leaders in Chicago, Proco Moreno and Mayor Rahm Emmanuel do not seem to be espousing such a tolerance but threatening to deny Chick-Fil-A a permit to establish restaurants in the respective area they serve over. So much for acceptance of that in which one disagrees. It almost makes one wonder if much of the redefinition and talk of tolerance serves more as rhetoric to promote their agenda.

This is not the only example of a double standard that we see in this squabble. The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, stated that "Chick-Fil-A doesn't belong in Boston" because "We're an open city. We're a city at the forefront of inclusion." Interestingly enough, by saying that "Chick-Fil-A" does not belong in an "open city . . . at the forefront of inclusion" actually shows that such a city is "closed" to this restaurant and desires to "exclude" it because of its views. As I have noticed in the denomination in which I serve, "openness" and "inclusion" serve as buzz wards to promote this pro-homosexual agenda. Those who use them seldom are "open" and "inclusive" to those who disagree with them. The current Chick-Fil-A incident stands as a case in point.

Now I won't be joining the many who decide to support Chick-Fil-A today by having my lunch or dinner there. I personally am not a huge fan of the food at the restaurant and prefer unhealthy burgers over the chickens (Sorry cows, I know you tell me to 'eat mor chikin'!) and McDonalds and Taco Bell are cheaper. However, I can't help but point out some of the common methodology used by the pro-homosexual agenda that we notice in an example like this. They do have an agenda and are working relentlessly to push it. I don't think that this is an agenda that we should try to stop by using similar tactics. But we must be aware of it. The question for us believers is: Are we just as dedicated in sharing the gospel, with both heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners alike? The way to combat this sin, as with all sins, is with the faithful proclamation of the gospel. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16).

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Works Cited
Lutzer, Erwin w. The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Things You Must Know About What's Really At Stake. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010.

The President, So-Called Same-Sex Marriage, and the Bible

Last night Barack Obama made history as the first sitting president to publicly proclaim support for so-called same-sex marriage. This itself comes as no shock or surprise. The President has been hinting at making such announcements since running for office four years ago. Everyone knew that it was just a matter of time before he came out and made his statement yesterday. What is surprising though is the reasoning he gave for the "evolution" of his position. He states that "[Michelle and I] we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president." Alongside experience (he also referred to homosexuals who work for him and how they conducted themselves in relationships with other homosexuals as well as some same-sex couple "parents" of friends of his children), he uses the Bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, to justify the practice of so-called same-sex marriage.

The President claims that this apparently "new" position stems from Jesus' teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" concerning what has been labeled the "Golden Rule." In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12). This certainly is a principle given by the Lord that one should live by. However, Jesus never intended it to serve as a rationale for something that would go against His Father's grand and perfect design. In using this verse to support so-called same-sex marriage, the President ignores Jesus' explicit teaching on marriage itself. When dealing with a question concerning divorce, Jesus affirms God's intention of marriage by quoting the definition that God Himself gave in Genesis 2:24. And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5). There can be no denying here that God distinctly created the two genders (male and female) to compliment one another and that marriage is instituted as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. See here for my response to Newsweek a few years ago concerning the Bible's clear and consistent definition of marriage.

The President did to Jesus what is far too often done to him by the news media and his critics. He took one statement of Jesus and ignored other things that He taught. This is the equivalent of how one will take part of what the President said in a speech and criticize it without paying attention to what he said in the rest of the speech or what he has said in other speeches. In a sense, he did to Jesus what others have done to him.

The way that Mr. Obama used that principle taught by Jesus could be used similarly to justify other redactions of God's institution of marriage. One could say the same regarding polygamy. Why not grant those who desire to marry two or more women at one time the ability to do so legally if they love both or all of them since we would want others to allow us to marry who we desire? What about pedophilia and grown men marrying very young girls? Many pedophiles claim that they are born with such desires and that such attraction feels "natural" to them. Once one redefines marriage to suit one group what is to stop it from being redefined for another group?

Marriage is no trifling matter. The Creator established it and we as His creatures have no right to change it to suit our carnal desires. Furthermore, marriage serves as a visible picture to us of Christ's relationship with His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Any tinkering with the roles of manhood and womanhood within marriage or with what constitutes a marriage itself affects that picture.

The issue here is not so much that the President officially announced his support for so-called same-sex marriage but that he misquotes Jesus to back his position. That is what is frankly inexcusable.

In Christ,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!

The Death of Osama bin Laden

The news and the internet have been a buzz the past few days after the announcement from the president that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. SEALs in Pakistan. People right away took to their Facebook pages to update their status with a victorious salute to the armed forces and the president or shared a quote that condemned rejoicing in an enemy falling or any kind of violence. Several around the Washington D.C. and New York City areas went out into the streets, waving flags and chanting "USA, USA, USA!" However, several feel conflicted as to what the appropriate response should be for the death of someone who was responsible for the death of thousands. Should we rejoice that this terrorist was killed or instead be mourning and grieving? This certainly is a difficult question to wrestle with and one that does not have a simple answer. The following are some things that I have been thinking about as I have been pondering what an appropriate (in other words, "biblical") response to this event should be.

Osama's Death Was Carried Out By the Appropriate Means
Paul tells us in Romans that God has given the government authority to punish evildoers. He describes the government as an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:4). This is actually a means of God's grace because if man's wickedness had nothing to physically restrain it, then human society itself would collapse as only chaos could ensue. Part of this wrath that the government can carry out would include the death penalty as he does not bare the sword in vain. In fact, the Greek word here for sword, machaira, is often connected to killing someone or someone being killed, in some cases judicially (Luke 21:24; Acts 12:2; 16:27; Romans 8:35; Hebrews 11:34,37; Revelation 13:10). Osama bin Laden did indeed deserve the death penalty as he shed many of a man's blood. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man (Genesis 9:6; personal translation). Thus, bin Laden deserved death and the appropriate authority carried the death penalty out. However, Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary makes a good point that we were robbed of the satisfaction of seeing full human justice occurring through an arrest and a trial.

Now it is true that Paul instructs in just a previous chapter for us to If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:18-21). And Jesus preached in the "sermon on the mount" that You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:43-45). However, it is important to notice that Paul here is referring to individual Christians and that Jesus is addressing individual disciples and not the institution of the government. We must always be careful not to apply a passage of Scripture to something to which it does not apply. It is the God appointed governing ruler or official that bears the sword, not an individual acting outside of the government. Had Osama been killed by an individual acting for the purpose of revenge, it would not have been appropriate. In this case, we have those who were acting as part of the government bringing about the death that Osama deserved for his murder of so many.

I Grieve That Bin Laden Has Began An Eternity Apart From God's Grace
While I recognize that Osama bin Laden did deserve death and that it was carried out by the appropriate means, I find myself grieving over his death. Here was a man who lived his entire life without ever turning to the Lord through repentance and faith. The judgment that he faced on earth is nothing compared to the judgment that he now experiences. it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). He now has started an eternal sentence of everlasting conscious torture in Hell apart from the grace of God. This is a scary picture. Even the most ardent atheist (including bin Laden when he was alive on the earth) experiences the grace of God. For He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45). God blesses those on the earth even who do not acknowledge and worship Him as He deserves with good things. In Hell, however, there are no such blessings. For the unrepentant who do not turn from their sins, this life really is their "best life now." With Osama's death, I grieve that he gained the world but lost his soul.

I Rejoice in God's Justice Being Done
At the same time that I grieve, I also rejoice. I don't rejoice in Osama's death itself but the very fact that God's justice is being carried out. In both bin Laden's execution and the beginning of his experiencing God's full wrath in Hell, God is glorifying Himself by displaying His justice. God is glorified in both displaying His mercy and His justice (Romans 9:21-24). He is glorified in displaying His mercy to those whom He intends to save (the vessels of mercy in v. 23) and in displaying His justice to those whom do not turn from their way to Him (the vessels of wrath in v. 22). If we truly are concerned with glorifying God, we must glorify Him not only for His grace and mercy but also His justice and wrath.

So I am left both grieving Osama's death, knowing where he is now and will be for all eternity and also rejoicing in God displaying His justice. Now you won't find me dancing in the streets for this, but instead coming to God in prayer.

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!

A Biblical Perspective on the Earthquake in Japan

The following is a revised version of my original post about a little over a year ago: "A Biblical Perspective on Haiti." Much of the same questions and comments we saw over the current situation in Japan resemble those formerly discussed with Haiti.

Everyone is aware of the tragic earthquake that has ravished the nation of Japan and left mass amounts of destruction in its wake. The number of losses are still coming in. Several agencies and organizations have already begun to send aid to the country. The responses to the news of the disaster have varied. As with every major catastrophe witnessed, various questions have emerged with endless answers given. As with the tsunami in India, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and the earthquake in Haiti a little over a year ago, many question God's role in this situation and His purpose if any. Some are tempted to claim this as a sign of God's judgment. Others do not believe that God was even in control of the earthquake at all. How should we understand the massive event that occurred just a few days ago? Following are some things I believe we would be wise to avoid in forming our perspective of the earthquake and its aftermath.

We must be careful not to err by failing to recognize God's sovereignty in the event.
The Bible cannot be clearer that God is fully sovereign and in complete control over all things, including natural disasters such as earthquakes. Paul tells us that God works all things after the counsel of His will. This all things would include the earthquake that devastated Japan. In fact, Amos points out that If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6). This is part of a series of questions posed to get the people of Israel to see that God's judgment was certain. Just as no calamity or natural disaster can occur in a city without God doing it, God will not promise judgment without bringing it about as Amos has proclaimed (v 2). To say that God was not in control of the earthquake would be unbiblical. It would mean that the earthquake exerted power over God and He could not stop it. Instead, God is described as actively in control of all nature. He is the one who rained hail down upon Israel's enemies in Joshua's battle at Gibeon (Joshua 10:11-12) and has the power to both give and withhold rain (1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Matthew 5:45). God is in control of all the weather and orchestrates it as He sees fit. A single rebellious molecule cannot be found in existence.

We must be careful not to err by declaring a purpose that God has not explicitly revealed.
One of the first things that many people do when such a natural disaster strikes as what we are witnessing in Japan is to declare it to be God's judgment. We saw this with Haiti when Pat Robertson claimed that the earthquake was God punishing the nation for a "pact with the devil" that they had made. While it is true that God does judge both individuals and nations, both in ways currently as well as ultimately in the future, we need to be careful in being presumptuous in regard to this recent disaster. This could be God's wrath upon the nation of Japan for their sins but He also could have other purposes for the turmoil. Ultimately, we do not know for certain God's plans in bringing about this disaster as well as how He intends to reveal Himself in the earthquake's aftermath. After all, God states through Isaiah that "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, / Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, / So are My ways higher than your ways / And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Scripture counsels use to be careful in proclaiming something that God has not explicitly revealed. The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29). God clearly brought the earthquake about for His intended purpose, whether that be for judgment or other wise reasons. We cannot say with certainty God's purpose without a direct word from Him and God has not specified the reason for this specific occasion in His revealed Word.

We must be careful not to err by failing to recognize that we deserved this calamity just as much as the people of Japan.
The major question asked in the wake of this earthquake has been "Why Japan?" A similar question was asked pertaining to Hurricane Katrina in regard to the people of New Orleans as well as India with the tsunami and just last year with the people of Haiti. What did they do that deserved such a disaster? In fact, Jesus was asked a similar question about 2000 years ago recorded in Luke 13:1-5. While speaking to a large crowd, a group informs Jesus about an atrocity which Pilate had committed. The exact situation is unknown to us today but we can infer that it had something to do with a slaughter of Jews during their sacrifices. Not only was this a terrible occurrence, but it took place during worship which made it even more horrendous. Jesus realized right away the question that they had concerning this issue. They thought that this plight was the result of them being greater sinners than all others. However, Jesus sought to turn their perspective completely around.

Instead of agreeing with their assumption, Jesus took the focus off the victims and placed it on the questioners. The reason this group was slaughtered was not because they were greater sinners. The ones who were killed were no more sinners than the ones commenting concerning them. (Note: This does not necessarily mean that the events God permits or causes to occur are always punishment for specific sins. John 9 makes it clear that, while a result of the curse of sin, not all infirmities and incidents are due to specific sins.) Those who died in the tsunami, in Hurricane Katrina, as a result of the earthquake in Haiti, and now those in Japan were no more sinners than those of you reading this note as well as the one writing it. We deserved the same! I will never forget a powerful sermon my pastor preached right after the tsunami a few years ago. He told us that the question is not "why them?" but should be "why not us?" We didn't deserve God's mercy to not have the tsunami happen in America, or not have a massive earthquake wreck havoc on the West coast. As Scripture tells us, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We get so used to God's mercy we have problems when He shows us His wrath.

Jesus actually warns the crowd of an even greater fate, much worse than what happened with Pilate and the latter example of the falling of the tower of Siloam. Unless they repent of their sins, they will perish (Luke 13:3,5). This is Jesus' urgent plea to those who are lost in sin. Repentance means a turning from sin. It is the flip side of faith. One turns from sin in repentance and then turns toward Christ by placing their faith in Him due to the work of God's grace. The likewise may refer to the sudden and unexpected death of those in the Temple and at Siloam. Those who went to the Temple that day to offer their sacrifices did not realize that they would not be returning home. The possibility of the tower falling on the group in Siloam probably never occurred to them. Likewise, if the crowd does not turn from their sins and turn to Christ they will suddenly and unexpectedly (to them) experience the punishment for their sins. The author of Hebrews tells us that it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). We must not focus more on Japan's sins and forget the many sins that plague our nation but even more importantly, our individual lives. We deserve God's wrath just as much as Japan and anyone else.

We must be careful not to err by failing to pray for all those involved and affected by the devastation that occurred in Japan and helping them out in any way possible.
Even if this is God's judgment upon the nation of Japan (and we have no way of knowing this apart from a direct word from Him) we must not neglect to help them in their time of need. The Bible does call us to love your neighbor as you love yourself (Leviticus 19:18). In fact, it is referred to as the second greatest commandment, next to you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind (Luke 10:27). Jesus describes His true sheep as the ones who "fed," "clothed," "cared for the sick," and "visited those in prison" (Matthew 25:31-46). While none of these actions saved these He will gather to His right, they do show evidence of His saving work in their hearts. I praise God at the amount of aid that is currently being sent to Japan right now and pray that God will provide them with enough if it be His will. Of course, the most loving thing that can be given to the people of Japan who have been granted the privilege to survive this earthquake is the blessed good news of salvation found only in Christ. Many of those who were spared death would have wound up in Hell because of their sins and failure to embrace the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The greater need is spiritual and while God can and often does use the means of meeting physical needs to show people their greater spiritual need, the spiritual need must not be neglected. Otherwise, it would be like I heard a pastor once describe it as "giving cough drops to someone with tuberculosis." They are only dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself. I pray that God would use this earthquake to reveal Himself to many and bring them to a recognizance of their sins and need of a Savior. May He open their eyes to Who the Savior is and move them to turn from their sin and embrace Him.

May we not err in any of these ways in our own continual evaluation of Japan but instead remember that God is sovereign and in control, has a purpose we may not understand nor be sure of, reminds us that we deserved His wrath just as much, and go out and minister to the people of Japan in any way the Lord may give opportunity. May God use this disaster to show His glory and accomplish His purpose!

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!

What Happened To Christ in "Christ"ianity?

I was reading the opening chapter in Michael Horton's book entitled "Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church," when a statistic he cited took me by surprise. George Barna, the popular Christian pollster, claimed that 86% of Americans identified themselves as Christians. This amazes me as the evidence for the statistic seems to be lacking by my own observation of the many I have come into contact and rubbed shoulders with, both inside and outside the church. I don't see 86% of Americans portraying fruit that would indicate a genuine conversion. Instead, I view what Paul described the rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers (Titus 1:10) that Titus ministered to in Crete as being. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed (Titus 1:16).

Many professing Christians and churches today see Jesus more as their mascot instead of their Lord. He is regulated to an example of how to live a moral life with no mention of the very purpose for which He came. Some view Jesus as a flag to wave in their "war" against war and poverty. However, these caricatures fall short of the description of Christ in the Bible. Jesus stated that For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10) and For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Jesus did not come merely to serve as an example but to give up His life in the place of those who would put their faith in Him in order to appease God's wrath on their sins. How many churches today still proclaim the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ unashamedly?

I have been very disheartened in evaluating several profiles of churches in my quest to discover the church that God has prepared me to minister to. A majority of these churches are very "man-centered." They clearly are concerned with what God can give them or how He can best benefit them instead of seeking to glorify Him whether He brings the sunshine or the rain, laughter or the pain. So many churches today seem to paint God as their servant who worships them instead of recognizing that God created them for the very purpose of worshiping and glorifying Him! Many appear to forget that He is the potter and we are the clay. Through several humanitarian and environmental deeds, man is once again building his own tower of Babel to make a name for ourselves (Genesis 11:4). This is contra to making a name for God by spreading His fame through the preaching of the Gospel where He is glorified. Life is not and cannot be about us but must revolve around Him. One cannot read the Bible without seeing how every event, purpose, and plan all center around God.

Christ has not been the only casualty lost in Christianity today. Along with Christ being forgotten and recrafted, the Bible also has been shelved and reworded. Often the Bible is viewed as another "self-help" book that can aid one in living their "best life now." It is treated as being on par with the advice that Dr. Phil and Oprah would give. When one approaches a section in Scripture that makes them feel uncomfortable or reveals a certain sin in their life, instead of asking God for help to change their life, they either dismiss or seek to change the Scriptures. Much of the controversial debates over homosexuality and the like in the church today really are debates over the authority of the Bible. In fact, for some churches it appears that the Bible might be for decoration only since they do not seem to take it seriously or abide by what it says.

This erosion of Christ and God's Word that I am discussing is not limited to one particular denomination or a specific group of individuals. It is not a liberal or conservative issue. In fact, much of this can be seen within the camp of "evangelicalism" as well. Also, as I write this, I am confronted by the fact that I have been guilty of several of these very things I mention certain times in my own Christian life!

I confess that I have painted a very pessimistic view of the current state of the church and most who know me would describe me as an eternal optimist. However, I cannot deny the sad state the church has found itself in. In many ways, the church resembles the world so much that one can scarce view a difference! As a pastor whom God has called to devote his life to preaching and teaching His Word, I am heartbroken at what I observe. Though, praise God there is always hope with Him!

What Can We Do About This?

I think the best way to handle this ongoing problem with a church who has forgotten Whom Christ really is and that often fails to take Him seriously, is the same remedy that Paul prescribed for Titus in Crete. After describing the false teachers in Crete (Titus 1:10-16), Paul instructs: But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). The only way to address churches that speak of a Christ but not necessarily the Christ of the gospels is to faithfully teach God's Word. Part of the reason Christ has been drifting out of "Christ"ianity is due to the fact that people have not been taught about Who He really is and the work of redemption He accomplished on the cross. Biblical illiteracy has been increasing at an alarming rate in this country. I don't think that it is a coincidence that this occurs at the same time Christ becomes viewed as more of a great moral teacher instead of the Savior and Lord that He is. We need to get back to the Bible and study Who God is and what He has done. We need to be taught again from God's Word what the gospel really is and the necessity of conversion. This will not be easy as the absolute truths of Scripture have become very unpopular in today's culture. Of course, Jesus' message of being the only way to God and the call to repentance were not popular in His culture so we should not be surprised that things have not changed today. Let's be like Paul and not be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16) but boldly proclaim it for the glory of God! Let's focus on theology once again as the reason many lives are messed up right now is due to their theology being messed up. Without a proper view of God, one cannot know how to live a proper life that glorifies Him. May God, using the means of the faithful preaching and teaching of His Word, place and keep Christ in "Christ"ianity!

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!
Solus Christus!

The Bible on Homosexuality

DISCLAIMER: I am always open to comments on any of my public work that seek to complement or criticize, especially if one believes that I have erred in my exegesis or exposition. However, with this being such a heated topic that typically spawns emotionally charged and harsh responses, I ask that if you desire to criticize, please adhere to the following considerations:
1) I ask that your response be limited to what the Bible teaches concerning the topic. As stated in my introduction, I am primarily interested in what the Bible says about homosexuality as for me this settles the issue.
2) I ask that your response be respectful of me as well as anyone else who has taken the time to comment on this post. Please only comment with the attitude and words that would glorify God. If you are truly seeking to glorify God in your response, you will be sure to answer in a loving and respectful way. Too many unloving words have been said with this issue and I in no way want to be responsible for anymore. Such attacks on people are not a biblical way of handling disputes and do not honor God.

One of today's current hot button topics is the issue of homosexuality. Just the mention of the word generates debate. The issue cannot be avoided as references to it are found in almost every newspaper and in several television shows and movies. States are wrestling over whether a homosexual relationship constitutes a marriage with all the rights and privileges that one entails. The people of California decided that it doesn't while the legislature of Washington D.C. recently stated that it does. The debate is also occurring in the church. Two popular Christian recording artists (Ray Boltz and Jennifer Knapp) have both recently admitted to being in a homosexual relationship while trying to reconcile it with their faith. Several denominations question whether the lifestyle even is a sin and thus whether it should effect the role one plays in the leadership of the church. Most recently, a branch of the Episcopal Church has ordained their second openly gay bishop. My own beloved denomination, the Church of the Brethren, is currently waffling on the issue and after acknowledging that the denomination is not "of one mind" concerning this, have agreed to a two year study period. The mind that is needed on this issue, as well as every issue that we face in life, is that of the Bible's. The question that everyone should be asking is not "what is your position?" but instead "what is the Bible's position on this matter?"

My sole goal in this article is to understand Scripture's teaching on the topic of homosexuality. I am not concerned with the perspective of psychology or sociology. Being convicted that the Bible serves as the Word of God that should form people's worldview, govern their lives, and is sufficient for every topic that they need to know pertaining to their life, I view what it says concerning the issue as settling the debate. This understanding has been known since the Reformation as sola Scriptura. Anyone who follows the common presuppositions that guide my approach to God's Word should come out to the same place. These presuppositions are: the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures. What I mean by inspiration is that though the words of Scripture were written by men, these men were moved by the Holy Spirit in such a way not to compromise their style or personality in writing and yet record God's very words (2 Peter 1:21). This is why Paul can describe Scripture as God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), because it is God's very words communicated through the medium of man. Due to this point, Scripture may also be described as being without any errors (inerrant) and also cannot fail in bringing about its intended purpose (infallible). However, this inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility would be limited to the original autographs of the Scriptures themselves and not necessarily to the copies and translations of them. For the reasons why I hold to these presuppositions, please see my earlier blog entry, "Why I Believe the Bible." These presuppositions led me to view Scripture to be God's objective and authoritative Word. Our goal as students of Scripture then is to seek to understand the meaning that He has inspired the original author to write. The best way to do this is the analyze the historical and literary context of what is written as well as the grammar and parts of speech used. Such an approach is often referred to as a "literal, grammatical, historical" hermeneutic (a fancy name for the science of interpretation). This will be the approach used in the evaluation of the selected texts in hopes of understanding the meaning that God has intended to communicate. Much of the passages cited are my personal translation from the original Hebrew and Greek.

You will notice that I also refer to homosexuality as a lifestyle. This is due to my understanding that it is not something one is born with but a choice that participants are often forced into by certain circumstances or events in their lives. Many people have wound up in a homosexual lifestyle after being molested at a young age by a male relative, going without a strong father figure, or for ladies after several failed relationships with men. (This of course does not mean that anyone who has ever experienced any of these issues will become a homosexual just as the fact that one who has had an alcoholic or abusive father does not necessarily indicate that they will turn out to be such themselves. However, many homosexuals can identify similar instances to those mentioned here in their past.) No medical evidence has been sufficient to substantiate the claim that homosexuality is genetic and a condition one may be born with. Furthermore, as will be seen with this study, Scripture appears to identify homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle and not a sexual orientation originating from birth.

I do not intend to upset or diminish anyone who currently is or who knows someone involved in a homosexual lifestyle or who may be struggling with homosexual desires. I have had friends who are homosexual and have appreciated their personalities and character. Just as a mother loves her child who is addicted to drugs but cannot affirm his addiction because of how much she knows it harms him, I could show compassion to them but could not and cannot affirm their lifestyle. While you will see why I understand the lifestyle to be a sin, I recognize that I am no less of a sinner in my own life. I confess that the church has not always dealt with the issue appropriately and seek to make no excuses or justification for the times that the church has failed to speak the truth in love in confronting the issue. I only desire to communicate the plain truth of Scripture.

Homosexuality in the Old Testament

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 defines what God constitutes as a marriage. Notice you have a man being joined to his wife. One man and one woman both rules out polygamy and so-called "same-sex marriage" (I refer to it as "so-called" because according to God such a union does not constitute a marriage in any means. His definition of marriage is found here in this verse). The heterosexual union that God defines is part of His plan to aid in the man's role to serve and glorify Him. In v. 18, God states that it is not good for man to be alone. This observation leads God to seek to make a helper corresponding to him. After bringing the animals to the man, none of them could be found to be such a helper (vv. 19-20). So God puts the first man, Adam, to sleep and crafts a woman out of his rib (vv. 21-22). Both Adam's declaration that this one is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (v. 23) and God's establishment of the close union between the two (v. 24) indicate that the woman served as the help corresponding to him that God decided was necessary for the man. God did not take Adam's rib and make another man but a woman to be this helper that corresponds to him. God's intention for a marriage commitment clearly is that between one man and one woman. Furthermore, one of the responsibilities that God gives to this couple are to Be fruitful and multiply (1:28), an impossibility for a homosexual couple to carry out for obvious reasons.

I did a blog previously arguing and articulating how this definition of marriage can be found consistently throughout Scripture. This was in response to a popular Newsweek article that claimed to provide the religous case for gay marriage. The issue over "so-called" same-sex marriage is not one over homosexual rights. In fact, homosexuals have the same rights pertaining to marriage as anyone else in America. I have the right to marry any woman of my own choosing within the confines of what defines a marriage. I cannot choose to marry my cat because that does not constitute a marriage. Likewise, I cannot choose to marry a child or two women. What homosexual activists are fighting for with "so-called" same-sex marriage is not marriage at all but something different. God has established and defined marriage as recorded here in Genesis and man has no right to change that.

They had not yet lied down when the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every end, and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them." And Lot went out to them at the doorway and shut the door behind him. And he said, "Please my brothers, do not do evil. Now behold I have two daughters who have not known a man. Please let me bring these to you and do to them what is good in your eyes, only to these men do nothing in the matter because they have come under the shadow of my roof." And they said, "Stand aside." They said, "this one came as a sojourner and he is acting like a judge; now we will do more evil to you than them." And they pushed against the man, against Lot, hard and came near to breaking the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot to them into the house and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great and they wearied to find the doorway. Genesis 19:4-11

Genesis 19:1-29 describes the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. While not the only sin of the cities, a major one was homosexuality as witnessed in the narrative itself. The men of the city came with the intention to have sex with the two angels who must have appeared as men. They called out to Lot and asked, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them (v. 5). The Hebrew word for "know" often is used to connote sexual relations as can be seen in its use in Genesis 4:1 when Adam "knowing" Eve resulted in the birth of Cain. Clearly, Adam had to do more than just know who Eve was or be cognate of her existence for her to conceive. The same verb is used in v. 8 here when Lot describes his two daughters as having not known a man. This has to have a sexual connotation because it would not make sense for these two to have gone through their lives without ever meeting a man, especially since they might have been engaged (v. 14)1 These men wanted to have sex with the angels. Lot described their intended actions as evil (v. 7). They were so perverse that they even bypassed the offer of Lot's two virgin daughters (which was discrediting to Lot who obviously desired to protect the angels more than his own daughters) (vv. 8-9). The angels had to strike the men blind to make them stop their attempt to barge into the door to get them (vv. 10-11). The wickedness of the city was so great that God decided to destroy it (vv. 12-13). Ezekiel 16:49-50 points out some of the wicked sins of the city: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed an abomination before Me. Though homosexuality is not mentioned in this list of atrocities, Jude in the New Testament clearly identifies it as one. In listing the judgment that all those faced who had apostatized (a complete falling away from the faith and outright rejection of it) throughout biblical history, the author includes the angels who left their domain just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these [the angels] indulged in gross immorality and went after different flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 7). I am not completely sure what the event with the angels mentioned here is referring to. Some try to connect it with the incident of the Sons of God marrying the daughters of man in Genesis 6 but that doesn't fit the context of that chapter. However, it does seem clear that whatever these angels did, the people of Sodom were similar by participating in gross immorality and going after different flesh. This would make sense to be referring to homosexuality which would have men going after different flesh than normal and would be immoral as the other Scriptures dealing with homosexuality show. Furthermore, the common terms, "sodomy" and "sodomite," used to refer to homosexual activity or one who performs such activity, originate from the name of the city of Sodom.

Leviticus 18:22 simply states as part of the Law the prohibition that You shall not lie in bed with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 also condemns the practice of homosexuality and prescribes death as the punishment for such a sin: And a man who lies with a male in bed as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. The author emphasizes the fact that this act is detestable to God in 20:13 by highlighting the word, abomination, in the original Hebrew. The standard in the Hebrew language is to place the verb before the subject and then to have the direct object after the subject (contra our English style to always place the subject directly before the verb). Here the direct object, abomination, precedes the verb, to do or make, drawing attention to God's hatred of this practice.

The main point of Leviticus can be summarized by God's statement, For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy (Leviticus 11:45). All of the dietary, ritual, and purity laws and prohibitions serve the very purpose of the people separating themselves from the sinful practices of the other nations to be "set apart" (the basic meaning of "holy") for service to God. For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy (Leviticus 11:44). This is the explicit reason given for the list of sexual prohibitions in chapter 18 of which homosexuality is a part. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled (Leviticus 18:24). The verb translated as defile literally means to be or become unclean. A holy God cannot have an unholy people. (This point established in this book has wonderful implications for the necessity of a perfect sacrifice needed for God's people to be viewed as holy in the eyes of such a holy God.)

The main issue pertaining to these verses concern their application to the church today. We no longer follow the prohibitions of men shaving their beards, women leaving the city during their period, and the strict dietary instructions of what should be eaten and what should not. Jesus stated that He did not come to abolish the Law but instead to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He even declared all foods clean as Mark points out upon His declaration that it is what comes out of one's mouth that makes him unclean and not what goes in (Mark 7:19). However, Jesus never addressed any of the sexual sins mentioned in both chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus as not making one unclean. Perhaps the reason that these practices make one unclean is due to the fact that they are a sin against God's standard of proper sexual relationships. The purpose of the Law was to set the standard and reveal man's sins as he fell short of God's standard due to his depraved nature (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7-8). While we are not described as still being under the Law and all of those rituals, the underlying principles that God based His Law on have not changed from the very beginning. Murder was a sin before God established the Law as is seen with God's confronting of Cain due to his slaying of Abel (Genesis 4:6-12). Likewise, lying and adultery are still considered sins even though we are not under the Law. In Hebrews 13:4, notice that the author does not say that defiling the marriage bed is wrong because it is one of the "Ten Commandments" but because it is an offense to God who will judge those who go against this principle. While homosexuality, as well as many of the other sins commanded against in the Law, may no longer result in stoning due to us not being under the Law (praise God for His grace shown at the cross!) I see no evidence that God no longer considers such a relationship as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), especially when it is explicitly referred to in the New Testament as a sin. In fact, almost all of the other sexual sins listed in the context of the two verses referenced would still be regarded as a sin and disgraceful in God's eyes. Certainly, no one would try to argue that incest (18:6-18; 20:10-12, 17, 19-21), adultery (18:20), and bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16) are now viewed as appropriate in God's sight and thus affirmed. Yet, to be consistent, to claim that homosexuality is now acceptable contra to these statements, one would also have to say that incest, adultery, and bestiality are as well. According to God, all of these are sins and should not be practiced.

While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house that we may know him." Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No my fellows, please do not do evil; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do the good in your eyes. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man." But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they raped her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn. As the day began to dawn, the woman came and fell down at the doorway of the man's house where her master was, until full daylight.
Judges 19:22-26

Judges 19:22-30 describes a scene very similar to that which occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah although with a much more gruesome ending. An old man takes in a Levite for the night and during their evening feast, the men of the city come to the house demanding for the guest to come out so that they can have sex with him. Bring out the man who came into your house that we may know him (v. 22). The owner of the house even described the action they desired as evil and an act of folly (v. 23). Here the Hebrew verb for know must again carry a sexual connotation. Having a desire to become acquainted with this man surely would not be described as evil or an act of folly. The word for folly literally means senselessness and is used especially to refer to disgraceful sins. Just as Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of his city, this man gave his daughter and the concubine of the guest to the wicked ones of this city. Unfortunately, their sexual appetite was so strong that they went ahead and raped the concubine all night and all morning (v. 25), eventually leading to her death (vv. 27-28). This is a very gruesome picture along with many others throughout the book of judges where everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). In fact, the author introduces this narrative with the reminder that Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel (Judges 19:1). The homosexual desire led to rape when the people could not get their way.

While many may dismiss these as being in the Old Testament, this in no way invalidates them as God's principles have not changed in any way with the cross and the dawning of the church age. The New Testament also has several clear statements concerning the issue. All of which unambiguously identify homosexuality as a sin.

Homosexuality in the New Testament

Because of this God gave them over into disgraceful passions, for their females exchanged the natural relation into that which is against nature, and in the same way also males abandoned the natural relation of the female, they were inflamed in their desire for one another, male with male doing the shameless deed and receiving from in themselves the penalty that was due of their error.
Romans 1:26-27

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul describes the wrath of God being against the ungodly who suppress the truth of what God has made known to them about Himself through creation (vv. 18-20). Though they know of God's existence due to the evidence of His fingerprints in what He has created, they failed to glorify Him or give Him thanks (v. 21). They chose to worship created images instead (vv. 22-23). Paul here is referring to the sinful practices of the Gentiles as he makes his case that all have sinned and thus are under God's righteous wrath. He later points out to the Jews that they practice the same things and are also sinners deserving of God's judgment (2:1-11). As a result of worshiping something in place of God, Paul says three times that God gave them over to various sins (vv. 24, 26, 28). The term in Greek for to give over often is used in legal matters to describe someone turning another in to the authorities or to a judge. Paul uses it for the divine justice demonstrated in the practice of church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20. God's judgment upon this group is to allow them to revel in their sins to their own degradation. In a sense, God abandons them because they have abandoned Him.2 One of these sins God hands them over to appears to be homosexuality.

Verse 24 seems to introduce the topic of homosexuality in this passage with vv. 26-27 expanding on it. The impurity their hearts are given over to for the purpose of the dishonoring of their bodies would fit a description of homosexuality, especially if Paul would have the impurities of the holiness code of Leviticus in mind. After reiterating the point that this judgment originates in their sin of worshiping created things rather than the God who created them (v. 25), Paul elaborates on what God has given the people over to. In vv. 26-27 we find an inescapable reference to homosexuality.

Paul describes women as switching a natural relation in for an unnatural one. While the relation may not be explicitly defined in v. 26, the connection and explanation given for the men who in the same way abandon the natural relation of the woman in v. 27 indicates the reference being a sexual one. Men instead of having the proper relation with women are described as being inflamed in their desire for one another, male with male. The fact that Paul mentions lesbianism coupled alongside of the male homosexual relationship means that he did not intend to limit the latter case to pederasity, an erotic relationship between an older man and a young boy common in ancient Greek practice. This situation could certainly be included but Paul appears to indicate a more general male-male relationship. Interestingly, Paul in these verses uses the less common Greek words of thleis (female) and arseues (male) instead of the usual gune (woman or wife) and andros (man or husband). Typically, the apostle uses the latter two to refer to the different gender relations throughout his writings.3 The only other case where he uses thleis and arseues is in Galatians 3:28. By choosing these two words over the other two, he might intend to point back to Genesis 1:27 where it states male and female He created them. In fact, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) uses these two words to translate the Hebrew words for male and female. In such a connection, Paul indicates that this type of relationship is against God's created order.

Paul's description of this relationship as against nature may indicate that homosexuality is not something one is born with. If it was, then it could be described as natural for that person. The passions and desire must then develop in another matter. This does not necessarily mean that the practice may not feel natural for the person involved as any habit may begin to feel as part of one's nature over time.4 The desire to drink does not feel strange to an alcoholic as the habit has become a part of his nature. The same could be said with a smoker as well pertaining to cigarettes.

The penalty mentioned that those who practice this relationship receive is not specified. It could refer to the practice itself as divine punishment for the original rejection of God. The error could refer back to this suppression of truth and exchange of the glory of God for the glory of man. Another possibility would be that the penalty refers to the spread of sexual diseases such as AIDS that plague the homosexual community with the error then being the homosexual relationships God gave them over to. While the referent may be unclear, Paul's characterization of homosexuality is not. He views it as a sinful passion that is unnatural and a shameless deed.5

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor greedy, no drunkards, no revilers, no swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And these were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Homosexuality is also mentioned in a list of vices Paul gives in I Corinthians 6:9-10 of characteristics of the unrighteous who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The apostle is chastising the church for taking each other to the secular courts to settle their issues instead of working them out among themselves. Does any of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? (v. 1). Paul tells them of the foolishness of having those who are unsaved evaluate their disagreements (vv. 2-6). As part of this point of how foolish going to the secular courts to be judged by unbelievers are, Paul reminds them of what characterizes such a group and how such things prevent this group from entering God's kingdom. This should not be whom they would want to go to in order to settle their disputes. Two words in this list may pertain to the current discussion on homosexuality but they are not without much dispute concerning their meaning. The two words in Greek are malakos (translated as effeminate in NASB) and apsenokoites (translated as homosexuals in NASB).

The term malakos literally means soft and carries this connotation in its other three New Testament occurrences.6 The gospel writers use it to describe the clothing of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25. However, here in 1 Corinthians it does not refer to clothing but a sinful practice that characterizes one's life. The major question then concerns how Paul uses the term. Unfortunately, Paul never uses the term again in any of the letters that we possess for us to have any point of comparison in other contexts. The identification of the word next to apsenokoites which will be discussed shortly has led many translators to render the term as effeminate. The idea then would be that it refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. While this is a possibility, it is not conclusive without any other evidence to back up the claim. It could be just as easily connected to the word that precedes it (aduterers) or stand on its own like several of the other characteristics in the list. However, apsenokoites definitely appears to refer to homosexuality.

One lexicon translates apsenokoites as one who has intercourse with a man as with a woman.7 What makes this word puzzling is the fact that no record of the word exists prior to its use here in 1 Corinthians and later in 1 Timothy 1:10. Scholars have not found it used anywhere before these letters, even in works outside of Scripture. This may indicate that Paul created this word to describe a specific group. The word is a compound word consisting of the two words apsenos (male) and koiten (bed). Just as English has often taken two separate words and combined them into one (such as airport, backhand, and sunshine), Paul might have done the same with the two words mentioned. These two words are both used in the Septuagint's translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that were examined earlier.8 In fact, the two words are used side by side in 20:13 (kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos, And whomever lies with a male in bed as with a woman). Paul might have taken the two words and decided to combine them to refer to the males who lie in bed as with a woman as Leviticus prohibited. If this is the case, then homosexuals are clearly referred to in this list.

There are two things to notice concerning the place of this word in this list and with reference to the following verse. While homosexuality (arsenokoites) is identified as a characteristic of the unrighteous, it is not singled out as a greater sin than adultery or drunkenness or idolatry. It is given just as much weight as the other sins. In God's eyes, sin is sin, regardless of what specific sin it may be. While certain sins may have graver consequences than others, no sin itself is identified as greater, with maybe the possible exception of the unpardonable sin of Matthew 12:31-32. Also, Christ has the power to change people who are characterized by such things mentioned in this list. In v. 11, Paul mentions that and these were some of you, referring to the believers he is addressing, recognizing that many of them used to have been characterized by such sins. But the power of Christ changed that as He has washed them, sanctified them, and justified them. In the original Greek, each of these verbs are coupled with a but that might indicate the contrast of the present state of the Christians from the unrighteous they once resembled. All of these verbs are salvific terms. Through Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, God has the power to save and change any sinner, whether they be an adulterer, idolater, homosexual, or frequent liar.

This is one of my favorite verses to use when discussing the Bible's teaching on homosexuality because it not only shows that it is a sin of equal weight to others but also because it shows that God has the power to deliver someone from this sin as He does all other sins. Far too often the church has been guilty of forgetting about communicating this important truth, especially to the homosexuals that may pay a visit on Sunday morning or whom we encounter throughout the week. The good news of the gospel is the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ and should be told to all regardless of their sins.

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 1:8-11

Here in 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul gives another vice list. This time the list serves to illustrate the purpose of the Law. After warning Timothy about those who desire to be teachers of the Law but who do not have a proper understanding of it (vv. 6-7), he explains the purpose of the Law to possibly combat this group's wayward teaching on the subject. This group might have been following the popular error of the Judaizers who insisted that the Gentile converts had to become circumcised according to the prescription of the Law and also live according to its rules and regulations. He reminds Timothy that the Law was given for the sake of revealing man's sin and unrighteousness (Romans 7:7-13) by listing several groups of sins that mirror the ten commandments. It was not made for a righteous person but those in this list that the Law shows are unrighteous because they fall short of God's standards. One of the sins in this list is the exact same noun previously examined in the list in 1 Corinthians, arsenokoites, identifying homosexuality as referred in the holiness code in Leviticus.9 Also, like the passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul does not leave the vice list without providing hope afterwards. He shares how God saved him although he once was a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor (vv. 12-13). Furthermore, he gives the trustworthy statement that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost (v. 15). Praise God that He has the power to save sinners through Jesus' death on the cross!

Jesus and Homosexuality

A major claim by proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality is Jesus' silence on the issue. It is true that Jesus never explicitly condemns homosexuality or homosexual behavior. However, that does not necessarily mean that He condones it. In fact, Jesus also never mentioned bestiality and pedophilia and that certainly does not indicate that He believed them to be okay. Such a claim is an argument of silence and does not carry any weight. While Jesus may never have spoken directly to the subject of homosexuality, He clearly affirms a heterosexual relationship as the norm and purpose of a marriage relationship. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus is asked a question pertaining to divorce. The Pharisees wanted to trap him by getting him to take one of the sides in the current debate at the time over what Deuteronomy 24:1 meant with the statement, he has found some indecency in her as a reason for divorce. Instead of taking a side with one of the rabbis, He affirmed God's original intention for marriage. By quoting Genesis 1:27 (v. 4) and 2:24 (v. 5), He supported a union between one man and one woman. Jesus did not amend these two statements of Scripture or alter them in any way. In fact, the statements are basically word for word identical to that of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). The evidence that we have for Jesus in relation to homosexuality is that He supported a heterosexual union in marriage and agreed with the Old Testament condemnation of sexual sin (Matthew 5:27-30).

Conclusion

The Bible's position on the matter of homosexuality is clear and consistent. Solid exegesis of Scripture reveals homosexuality to be a sin that veers from God's intended fulfilling relationship between a man and a woman. One has to work hard to dismiss or get around several of the passages examined in this article. For the denominations that are debating this issue of homosexuality, the real issue lies in the authority of Scripture and whether the denomination will take a stand with God's Word or seek to affirm what He has not. Instead of spending so much time, energy, and resources on debating what God has already decided and communicated, we would do better to discuss how best we can reach out to those in the homosexual community and share the love of Christ with them and the good news of the gospel. People need to hear what God's Word says on the issue and as a dear brother of mine whom God has delivered from homosexuality put it, let them know that "the grass is greener on the other side."

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Note

1 It is unclear whether the Hebrew participle in v. 14 for take should be translated with a present or future tense. So these sons in law might either refer to the fiances of these daughters or be the husbands of other daughters of Lot.

2 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005) 1508.

3 Granted, the reason for Paul's numerous usage of gune (woman/wife) and andros (man/husband) in his writings stems from their occurrences in his discussions of marriage relationships since the two terms both can refer to the respective position of wife and husband. However, it still is significant that he does not use these two terms to refer to man and woman here in this passage as they can be used to convey a more general sense but instead uses two terms which are limited to refer to male and female.

4 Brethren Revival Fellowship, God Speaks About the Homosexual Issue (Ephrata, PA: Brethren Revival Fellowship, 2010) 10.

5 The Greek word used for passion in v. 26 is always used by Paul to describe a sinful passion (Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:5).

6 F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983) 121.

7 Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) (New York: Scribner's, 1900) 1.253.

8 Leviticus 18:20: kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos; Leviticus 20:13: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos; Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004) 216.

9 On a side note: The fact that the only two occurrences of this Greek word are found in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy with the evidence suggesting that Paul coined the term, more support is lent to the traditional understanding of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles in light of the denial by many modern critical scholars.

A Conversation Between a Pastor and a Postmodern

The following conversation is completely fictional but is based on several claims that someone with a postmodern worldview typically holds (not necessarily everyone who accepts the label "postmodern"). The intent of the following is twofold. With this dialogue I hope to show the weaknesses of the postmodern mindset as well as how to answer someone who espouses such claims. Many times we are confronted with these arguments and fail to know how to respond. The following is just one example of how one may respond in a similar situation.

Postmodern: Pastor, I regret to inform you that I am leaving your church.

Pastor: Why? You are an important part of the congregation. What has prompted you to leave? Is it one of the other members? Is it me?

Postmodern: Don't get me wrong, pastor. You are a nice guy and you really care about your flock but I just get so tired of your absolute statements in your sermons. It is like you consider no other position as valid with the exception of your own.

Pastor: What do you mean? Do you feel that I am too dogmatic on certain problem passages or controversial doctrines?

Postmodern: No. It is more than that. You speak as if the Bible is the only truth and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. You don't even consider the other views and how they might also be true. You are very intolerant!

Pastor: During my time in college I was on a quest to discover the truth and God has opened my eyes to see that the Bible is true. I have weighed out all the evidence and thoroughly examined it and have yet to find it false. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit has convicted me of its truth.

Postmodern: I have no problem that you believe the Bible to be true. My issue lies with your claim that Muslims are wrong in their understanding of the Koran as truth and that everyone is wrong who does not believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation. What right do you have to make these claims?

Pastor: Well if the Bible is true, as I am convinced it is, then it must be God's Word as it claims. This means that God is the one who makes these claims and He clearly has the right to determine what is right and wrong. The Bible explicitly states and affirms Jesus as saying that He is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to God but through Him. Therefore, God has declared that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Postmodern: Based on the presupposition that the Bible is true, that is correct. But my issue is the validity of that presupposition itself. Why can't there be many ways to heaven instead of just one?

Pastor: Do you realize that every religion claims to be right? Islam claims the Koran is the only holy book without any perversions and thus is fully true. Islam views Jesus as not being the Son of God and never having died which are complete contradictions to the Bible. The Bible's teaching and those of the Koran cannot both be true. Jesus either is the Son of God or He is not. Is Jesus the only way as the Bible states or the Five Pillars of Islam according to the Koran? They both cannot be the only way as they each claim. One is either right or they both are wrong. They both cannot be right because they contradict. In fact, every religion presents their set way as the only way. Buddhism has the Eightfold Path to Enlightenment and Hinduism has several rituals and washings. Even the Roman Catholics have historically held to the position that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. They each have their own and only way to heaven and apart from that way, no one may enter their conception of heaven (which also is contradictory of each other). So, basically all religions are intolerant of each other. The question boils down to which one of these ways are the true one since they all cannot be.

Postmodern: I understand your point but I can't understand how anyone can be sure of the truth. I don't believe anyone can be certain of anything.

Pastor: So then how can you be so certain of the impossibility of knowing the truth?

Postmodern: What do you mean?

Pastor: You seem awfully certain that you cannot be certain of anything.

Postmodern: I believe that truth is relevant. There is no absolute truth. Each individual decides what is true for him or herself but it is not absolute.

Pastor: Here is another problem with this thinking. For your statement that "there is no absolute truth" to be valid, it would have to be an absolute truth which would then invalidate such a claim. I also don't think you fully believe what you say.

Postmodern: What makes you say that?

Pastor: You claim that everyone determines their own truth so that it is true only for the individual, right?

Postmodern: That is correct.

Pastor: So, in your perspective, there is no universal morality all men subscribe to?

Postmodern: No. What they believe to be morally right or wrong is relevant only to them.

Pastor: So does that mean that a man could take your wife out tonight and do whatever he desires with her?

Postmodern: Absolutely not! That would be a violation of . . .

Pastor: But what if he viewed that as right in his own eyes? You certainly could not tell him it was wrong. After all, it was deemed right to him.

Postmodern: I have to admit Pastor, you are pretty good with logic. It becomes wrong with one imposes his or her beliefs or understandings onto someone else. This would be wrong because he would be imposing his belief (not necessarily a wrong belief for him) on me when I don't agree with his perspective. This in essence is my problem with your teaching and preaching.

Pastor: So you do not hold to any kind of objective, authoritative, universal standard such as the Bible?

Postmodern: Nope. I believe what matters is that one sincerely believes in something, whether that would be Jesus or Buddha or that no such higher being exists, and that he or she does not impose that belief onto anyone else.

Pastor: But to sincerely believe in something does not necessarily make it true. If I sincerely believed that I could fly and I in turn jumped off the roof of an 18 story building, it does not change the fact that I am not able to fly, does it? Even if I believed with all my heart that I had the ability to fly it would not alter the laws of gravity and my inability.

Postmodern: You've got a point. But we all know the truth that one cannot fly because of the experience of the laws of gravity and any attempts to fly. How have we experienced the truth of God?

Pastor: Oh you have seen His handiwork but still failed to recognize Him! The Bible says that God has revealed His power, characteristics, and divine nature through the creation. You cannot sit through a thunderstorm without witnessing this power or gaze upon a sunset without being in awe of His majesty. You just don't acknowledge the Creator behind the creation. In fact, the Bible points out that one day all of us will stand before God in judgment. It has been "appointed a man once to die and then the judgment." Because of the evidence of Who God is in the works that He has created, you will have no excuse for your rebellion against glorifying and praising Him. However, creation does not tell the whole story of who God is and His great work of redemption that is necessary because of the sin that currently separates you from God. He has specifically revealed all of this in His written Word, the Bible.

Postmodern: Alright Pastor. You have made some powerful points but you have yet to convince me of the truth of Scripture. I will continue to study the Bible and come to you with any further questions I may have.

Pastor: Postmodern, I would never be able to convince you the truth of the Bible being God's Word because only God's Holy Spirit can do that. However, I strongly encourage you to consider what I have said, both in this current conversation as well as what I have taught from God's Word on Wednesdays and Sundays. I will continue to be praying for you that God will open your eyes to the truth and draw you into a relationship with Him. Thank you for the conversation.

Postmodern: No. Thank you Pastor!

A Biblical Perspective on Haiti

Everyone is aware of the tragic earthquake that has ravished the nation of Haiti and left mass amounts of destruction in its wake. Many are mourning the losses that have occurred and dozens have been sending help to the several left in need. The responses to the news of the disaster have varied. As with every major catastrophe witnessed, various questions have emerged with endless answers given. As with the tsunami in India and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, many question God's role in this situation and His purpose if any. Some have claimed that this was a sign of God's judgment. Others do not believe that God was even in control of the earthquake at all. How should we understand the massive event that occurred just under two weeks ago? Following are some things I believe we would be wise to avoid in forming our perspective of the earthquake and its aftermath.

We must be careful not to err by failing to recognize God's sovereignty in the event.
The Bible cannot be clearer that God is fully sovereign and in complete control over all things, including natural disasters such as earthquakes. Paul tells us that God works all things after the counsel of His will. This all things would include the earthquake that devastated Haiti. In fact, Amos points out that If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6). This is part of a series of questions posed to get the people of Israel to see that God's judgment was certain. Just as no calamity or natural disaster can occur in a city without God doing it, God will not promise judgment without bringing it about as Amos has proclaimed (v 2). To say that God was not in control of the earthquake would be unbiblical. It would mean that the earthquake exerted power over God and He could not stop it. Instead, God is described as actively in control of all nature. He is the one who rained hail down upon Israel's enemies in Joshua's battle at Gibeon (Joshua 10:11-12) and has the power to both give and withhold rain (1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Matthew 5:45). God is in control of all the weather and orchestrates it as He sees fit. A single rebellious molecule cannot be found in existence.

We must be careful not to err by declaring a purpose that God has not explicitly revealed.
Many have concluded that the earthquake serves as God's judgment upon the nation of Haiti. While it is true that God does judge both individuals and nations, both in ways currently as well as ultimately in the future, we need to be careful in being presumptuous in regard to this recent disaster. This could be God's wrath upon the nation of Haiti for their sins but He also could have other purposes for the turmoil. Ultimately, we do not know for certain God's plans in bringing about this disaster as well as how He intends to reveal Himself in the earthquake's aftermath. After all, God states through Isaiah that "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, / Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, / So are My ways higher than your ways / And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Scripture counsels use to be careful in proclaiming something that God has not explicitly revealed. The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29). God clearly brought the earthquake about for His intended purpose, whether that be solely for judgment or includes other wise reasons we cannot say with certainty without a direct word from Him and God has not specified the reason for this specific occasion in His revealed Word.

We must be careful not to err by failing to recognize that we deserved this calamity just as much as the people of Haiti.
The major question asked in the wake of this earthquake has been "Why Haiti?" A similar question was asked pertaining to Hurricane Katrina in regard to the people of New Orleans as well as India with the tsunami. What did they do that deserved this expression of God's wrath for whatever reason that He decided to show it? In fact, Jesus was asked a similar question about 2000 years ago recorded in Luke 13:1-5. While speaking to a large crowd, a group informs Jesus about an atrocity which Pilate had committed. The exact situation is unknown to us today but we can infer that it had something to do with a slaughter of Jews during their sacrifices. Not only was this a terrible occurrence, but it took place during worship which made it even more horrendous. Jesus realized right away the question that they had concerning this issue. They thought that this plight was the result of them being greater sinners than all others. However, Jesus sought to turn their perspective completely around.

Instead of agreeing with their assumption, Jesus took the focus off the victims and placed it on the questioners. The reason this group was slaughtered was not because they were greater sinners. The ones who were killed were no more sinners than the ones commenting concerning them. (Note: This does not necessarily mean that the events God permits or causes to occur are punishment for specific sins. John 9 makes it clear that, while a result of the curse of sin, not all infirmities and incidents are due to specific sins.) Those who died in the tsunami, in Hurricane Katrina, and as a result of the earthquake in Haiti were no more sinners than those of you reading this note as well as the one writing it. We deserved the same! I will never forget a powerful sermon my pastor preached right after the tsunami a few years ago. He told us that the question is not "why them?" but should be "why not us?" We didn't deserve God's mercy to not have the tsunami happen in America, or not have a massive earthquake wreck havoc on the West coast. As Scripture tells us, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We get so used to God's mercy we have problems when He shows us His wrath.

Jesus actually warns the crowd of an even greater fate, much worse than what happened with Pilate and the later example of the falling of the tower of Siloam. Unless they repent of their sins, they will perish (Luke 13:3,5). This is Jesus' urgent plea to those who are lost in sin. Repentance means a turning from sin. It is the flip side of faith. One turns from sin in repentance and then turns toward Christ by placing their faith in Him. The likewise may refer to the sudden and unexpected death of those in the Temple and at Siloam. Those who went to the Temple that day to offer their sacrifices did not realize that they would not be returning home. The possibility of the tower falling on the group in Siloam probably never occurred to them. Likewise, if the crowd does not turn from their sins and turn to Christ they will suddenly and unexpectedly (to them) experience the punishment for their sins. The author of Hebrews tells us that it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). We must not focus more on Haiti's sins and forget the many sins that plague our nation but even more importantly, our individual lives. We deserve God's wrath just as much as Haiti and anyone else.

We must be careful not to err by failing to pray for all those involved and affected by the devastation that occurred in Haiti and helping them out in any way possible.
Even if this is God's judgment upon the nation of Haiti we must not neglect to help them in their time of need. The Bible does call us to love your neighbor as you love yourself (Leviticus 19:18). In fact, it is referred to as the second greatest commandment, next to you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind (Luke 10:27). Jesus describes His true sheep as the ones who "fed," "clothed," "cared for the sick," and "visited those in prison" (Matthew 25:31-46). While none of these actions saved these He will gather to His right, they do show evidence of His saving work in their hearts. I praise God at the amount of aid that is currently being sent to Haiti right now and pray that God will provide them with enough if it be His will. Of course, the most loving thing that can be given to the people of Haiti who have been granted the privilege to survive this earthquake is the blessed good news of salvation found only in Christ. Many of those who were spared death would have wound up in Hell because of their sins and failure to embrace the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The greater need is spiritual and while God can and often does use the means of meeting physical needs to show people their greater spiritual need, the spiritual need must not be neglected. Otherwise, it would be like I heard a pastor once describe it as "giving cough drops to someone with tuberculosis." They are only dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself. I pray that God would use this earthquake to reveal Himself to many and bring them to a recognition of their sins and need of a Savior. May He open their eyes to Who the Savior is and move them to turn from their sin and embrace Him.

May we not err in any of these ways in our own continual evaluation of Haiti but instead remember that God is sovereign and in control, has a purpose we may not understand nor be sure of, reminds us that we deserved His wrath just as much, and go out and minister to the people of Haiti in any way the Lord may give opportunity. May God use this disaster to show His glory and accomplish His purpose!

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!