Wednesday, April 24, 2013

"Will He find faith?"

I own a small fishing boat and I like to go fishing. However, I happen to be a terrible fisherman. By that I mean that I rarely catch anything substantial. I can’t tell you how many times I have ventured out even as far as 36 miles off shore and out of sight of land (home), just to return home empty-handed. And, every time this happens someone on the boat inevitably says, “Well, that’s why they call it fishing.” If you have never heard that quote before, allow me to explain. Technically, fishing is the practice of attempting to catch fish. If you attempt but don’t catch fish, you are still fishing. Said another way, “Well, that’s why they don’t call it catching.”

In fishing, I am a novice. But, as a novice, I know enough to appreciate its benefits. There are many reasons to fish. The obvious reason is to catch fish. However, there is so much more to the adventure than just that. The whole experience is a quest of sorts. What lies before the fisherman is a conquest that sometimes is rather dangerous and almost always promises bonding with your fishing mates. In fact, the main reason that I fish is to spend time with my son on the frontier of open water seeking trophies worthy of memories that photos can’t fully capture. And, as it is with fishing, so it is with Faith.

It is not mere coincidence that Jesus chose as his first disciples, fishermen. And, He bridged them from their occupations to their destiny in Matthew 4:19 with the call, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Jesus introduced the entire world to faith in Him through humble fishermen. And, to these first disciples He characterized our faith as fishing, but for men. The chief passion of our King is to build His Kingdom. It consumes His efforts. And, so it should consume ours. Building His Kingdom through our fishing of men is the greatest of manly adventures. It will cost us our lives as we venture out of sight of home. And as we journey together we will bond as in no other experience. We will sometimes be blessed with a catch that, unlike elusive fish, is eternal. And then many times we may not catch any. But, fish we must.

Like fishing with my son, this is an adventure that I gain inspiration from my own earthly father with whom I spent many hours on boats fishing. It was he who also introduced me to the Father and King. It was he who showed me how to live in faith. It was he who risked almost everything to raise four sons who call Jesus, Lord. And, even today, in his mid-70s, he is still fishing and catching men for the King. It seems that every other time that we talk on the phone, he tells me of another adventure where he led people back to the Father.

In a culture consumed with social justice, the greatest social justice is to reconcile fallen men back to the Heavenly Father. What greater social justice is there than that? Is there any cause known to man of greater importance? More to the point, is there any cause known to God of greater importance? No! God loves us all so much that He came to suffer and die in order to erase everything that will ever separate us from Him. And, He freely offers reconciliation with Him with no strings attached. Unlike the fish that we catch that end up eaten, men caught by the Father receive adoption, favor, love and eternal royalty. And, fishing for men is what our King loves to do more than anything else alongside His children. In addition, like all fishermen, fishing for men is God’s favorite topic of conversation especially with His children. It is in prayer that He wants us to discuss with Him how we might fish for men together. It is in prayer that He wants us to ask Him for the things that He also wants, a catch.

These notions of prayer and social justice remind me of Jesus’ parable of the Persistent Widow found in Luke 18. In this parable, a widow pleads daily to a ruthless judge for justice against her adversary. Eventually, worn out from her unceasing requests, the judge grants her wish. Jesus then bridges this analogy to us by saying, “And will not God bring about justice for His chosen ones, who cry out to Him day and night?” Later on, Jesus closes out this lesson with a curious question, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” In this context, Jesus is painting a picture of faith with the actions of the Persistent Widow. He is revealing to His disciples that a true marker of faith is persistent, even obstinate prayer. In fact, this parable opened up in verse 1 by Luke explaining why Jesus shared it, “Then Jesus told His disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.” And, this is less a picture about quantity or duration of prayer and more about endurance of praying. Every time I fish, I ask God for a catch. Even though my attempts far exceed my catches, I will never stop asking for it. And, so it should be with fishing for men.

There are also some pretty heavy prophetic implications by Jesus asking if He will find faith upon His return. What would inspire Jesus to ask this, given that He already knows exactly what He will find when He returns? Pondering this can be discouraging. How bad can it get before Jesus returns, for Him to ask such a prophetic question? And, keep in mind the characterization of faith that Jesus is making. When He returns, will He find followers who pray to Him day and night regardless of how long it takes to see justice? When He returns, will His followers still be building His Kingdom by fishing for men and praying for a catch? When He returns, will His followers be praying day and night for the souls of men that He so longs for? Will He return to find us praying? This is the faith that our King will seek when He returns. He will seek out faith of those who pray day and night for the things that He cares for, the souls of men. He will seek out faith of those who will keep on praying even to their final breath. He will seek out fishermen who keep fishing no matter how many times it takes to catch just one. He will seek out faith of those who believe even without seeing results, because the opposite is not faith.

Faith would be easy if we simply asked for something and immediately got it. But, the Persistent Widow asked day and night in spite of her hopeless circumstances. And, persistent prayer is the marker of faith that our King seeks even until He returns. If we are not praying day and night, do we truly believe in the God that we can’t see? Prayer is a barometer of what we truly believe. And fishing is the barometer of the love we should have for others. Fishing for men is an adventure that we daily embark upon regardless of whether we catch. That’s why they call it fishing. And, we must have faith that we can pray those we fish for into a relationship with the Father and King. The Persistent Widow is the picture of enduring faith in the unseen God. Is this your daily faith? If so, then in the words of I Thessalonians 5:17, “pray without ceasing.” Day and night, let us bring to the Master Fisherman the names of those we earnestly fish for. Let us do so until they are caught by His beautiful grace no matter how long it takes. Remember that He loves them more than you ever will.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Lip-Smacking Proof of Evolution?

On April 8th of this year the science journal, Current Biology, published a study conducted by Dr. Thore Bergman of the University of Michigan. The study concluded that gelada monkeys make lip-smacking vocalizations that are surprisingly similar to human speech. Dr. Bergman was quoted, “Our finding provides support for the lip-smacking origins of speech because it shows that this evolutionary pathway is at least plausible.” He further stated, “It demonstrates that nonhuman primates can vocalize while lip-smacking to produce speech-like sounds.” Other researchers quickly echoed through news outlets that "these findings show that lip-smacking could have been an important step in the evolution of human speech." What do you think?
Many nonhuman primates smack their lips. What is unusual about the gelada is that when it does so, it makes sounds known as “wobbles” that sound a little like a human hum. And, Bergman analyzed recordings of the gelada’s wobbles and found that the rhythm of their wobbles resembled that of a human hum. Accordingly, the scientific community is apparently convinced that this is further proof supporting evolution of humans from nonhuman primates. Are you convinced?
I read the study’s summary and its conclusions. In addition, I also watched videos of the gelada wobbles and paid careful attention to the sounds. And, characterizing this study as evidence for the stated claims is an insult to even a child’s intelligence. First of all, the wobbles sound similar to only one human sound. But, humans make hundreds of speech sounds. And, humming is not "speech" since it is a closed-mouth sound. Further, if we have found the origin of one human sound from one nonhuman primate, where in primates can we find more of the other hundreds of predecessors to human sounds? Is this the only human-like sound we can find in nonhuman primates? Did the other primates capable of other human sounds all die off to extinction? If so, since they were not strong enough to survive, how did they survive long enough to perpetuate the evolution of humans? Are we to believe that none of them could survive such that we have only one primate surviving that makes only one human sound? Isn’t it more logical that this is just a mere coincidence rather than evidence of a loose-knit theory for which all other evidence unknowingly disappeared?
Second, while these wobbles resemble only one human sound, there are many animals in the rest of the animal kingdom that make many more human sounds that are ignored in this discussion since they are not claimed to be ancestors to humans. I have heard certain dogs routinely make open-mouthed sounds much more closely resembling humans. Extending Bergman's logic, does that mean dogs are also our ancestors? In addition, there are several bird species, including parrots, that can actually speak exactly like humans and mimic whole sentences of human speech. So, parrots are also human ancestors? And, we are supposed to ignore all of that and accept a gelada’s closed-mouth humming sound as more relevant and convincing?
Third, what the study and news outlets failed to address is that the gelada monkey is found only in one small part of the world. They are exclusively found in a small mountain range in central Ethiopia at thousands of feet above sea level. They don’t exist anywhere else in the world. So, how does that even fit the narrative of human ancestry when their existence is concentrated in a small mountain range at elevations where “early humans” are not even claimed to have lived? Maybe that is why the gelada has never been depicted in any human ancestral diagrams.
Despite all of the obvious evidence to the contrary, Bergman’s study is heralded in the journals and news networks as breakthrough science. In a world that lacks so much evidence, evolutionists are apparently reduced to heralding as breakthrough something that is about as novel as someone tomorrow claiming the discovery of peanut butter. This is desperate, ridiculous and fraudulent deception. You have to do a whole lot better than “lip-smacking” and a “hum” to confirm ancestry or claim this to be consistent with ancestry. This is a display of amazingly foolish faith!
What is truly ironic is that through this, the researchers and news outlets have personally displayed something presently in common with gelada monkeys … senseless lip-smacking.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Abortion - The Slippery Slope of Our Time

Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom HaShoah) 2013 began on April 7. This annual observance is in remembrance of the atrocities that were committed against the Jewish people during World War II. This Memorial reminds me of the heroic story of Oskar Schindler, who saved over 1,000 Polish-Jewish refugees during that era. His story was later told in the acclaimed 1993 movie, "Schindler's List." I will never forget the ending of that movie which depicted Schindler agonizing over not saving more Jews by selling his possessions. Those he saved were with him in the scene and they proceeded to surround him, console him, thank him, and impress upon him the magnitude of his heroism.

It is estimated that the number of Jews killed in those atrocities were in excess of 6 million. While that number is staggering and worthy of dedicated remembrance, it is difficult to realize that it pales in comparison to the number of defenseless human beings brutally killed in abortions in the this country, alone, during the modern era.

By way of background, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its landmark decision in the case famously known as “Roe v. Wade.” Since that decision, over 50 million unborn children have been brutally killed under the sanction of the American people by virtue of our misinterpreted Constitution. While this is breathtaking, we need to still discuss it, spiritually fight and pray with every breath that we might have left. Far too many people today don’t even realize the actual nature of the original 1973 ruling and how far we have come since. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to the right for a woman to decide to have an abortion. However, the court originally legalized abortion only during the first trimester (first three months) of pregnancy. Since then, how far have we slipped?

There is a form of informal logical fallacy most commonly referred to as The Slippery Slope Fallacy. A Slippery Slope argument exaggerates that a relatively small first step leads to a chain (or “Domino Effect”) of events culminating in some disastrous result all of which could be critiqued as unrelated. By the same token, it is also a fallacy to judge all reasonable predictions as guilty of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. In many cases there are unintended significant consequences that can be reasonably predicted. For example, while I was only five years old when Roe v. Wade was handed down, I grew up during the entire modern era of abortions in America. I recall numerous debates where those advocating for life were silenced by accusations of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. However, below is just a sample of the predictions that were then dismissed as "slippery":
  • “This will lead to millions of abortions per year.”
  • “This will lead to abortions in the second and third trimesters.”
  • “This will lead to the killing of born and viable babies outside the womb.”
  • “This will lead to abortion as a means of birth control above all other means.”
  • “This will lead to taxpayers being forced to pay for abortions against their wills.” 
Those arguments may have resembled the Slippery Slope Fallacy at the time they were made. But, those predictions were reasonable and correlative, which is well supported by hindsight. We now live in a morally confused country where all of those predictions have become reality within merely a few decades. Today, abortions exceed 1 million every year. And, we are not only killing children in the third trimester, but up until 2003, we went as far as committing partial-birth abortions in some states. In certain parts of the country, we even have considered laws that permit the killing, outside of the womb, of children who survive abortions. While abortion’s defenders hide behind instances of rape, incest and endangerment of the mother, those instances only represent 4% of abortions according to the Centers for Disease Control. That leaves roughly 96% that are primarily abortions-on-demand, which is code for birth control. In January, 2009, President Barack Obama, in his first two days in office, quietly and privately rescinded the Mexico City Policy. This Policy required all non-governmental organizations outside the USA that receive US federal funding, to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning. In other words, due to Obama’s rescinding that policy, today our tax dollars are knowingly being spent on abortions around the world. If that were not enough, in March 2010, Obama signed into law the infamous Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) which also requires taxpayer funding of abortions here at home. And, in the subsequent 2012 election, the Democratic Party platform explicitly endorsed taxpayer funded abortions.

Since all of those “slippery” predictions have in fact come true in my short lifetime, apparently they weren’t so unreasonable. And, there seems to be no end in sight. We have devolved as a nation from arguing that someone else’s abortion is none of our business to now arguing that everyone else has to pay for it. Well, isn’t it more logical that if it is 100% none of my business that it should be 0% of my financial responsibility? If a woman’s privacy permits abortion, doesn’t reaching into my wallet breach that privacy? It is bad enough to sanction the killing of innocent and defenseless children. It adds injury to injury to force objectors to pay for it with no say in the matter.

And, sadly, abortions are not only bad for the baby, but they are pretty bad for the mother as well. In fact, mothers birthing their unwanted children fare psychologically and physically much better than those aborting them. The British Journal of Psychology recently published a study of the largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion, synthesizing the results of 22 studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions. The study found women who had an abortion experienced risk of:
  • Mental health problems increased by 81%.
  • Suicidal thoughts increased by 59%.
  • Alcohol misuse increased by 261%.
  • Alcohol dependence increased by 142%.
  • Drug misuse increased by 313%.
  • Drug dependence increased by 287%.
  • Any substance use disorder increased by 280%.
What is also sad is that 96% of abortions could probably more easily be banned if it were not for the discussion being monopolized by only two positions characterized as "all" or "nothing." All it takes is legislation banning all abortions except for the cases of rape, incest and endangerment of the mother. But, this option never gets heard over the noise. The truth is that the vast majority of all wars are won in a series of battles. Very few wars are won in a single battle. We can save up to 96% of children unnecessarily sentenced to death, while we fight for the rest. According to recent Gallup polling, support and opposition of Roe v. Wade is almost evenly split. But, in the same Gallup polls, 85% of the population support abortion in the case of life endangerment of the mother and 76% support it in the cases of rape and incest. When those instances are stripped away, only 32% support abortion when the woman does not want the child for any reason. Further only 24% support abortion in the second trimester and only 10% support abortion in the third trimester. If you ask Americans if they support abortion as a means of birth control, it receives very little support. In contrast, there is obvious support for the ban excluding rape, incest, and endangerment. And, this would ban the vast majority of abortions being executed today. If we can heroically accomplish this, we may not save all, but, like Schindler, we will have saved so many. Alternatively, we can just wait for Roe v. Wade to probably never be overturned. John 10:10 says that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” It is the “thief” that keeps us divided for killing sake. And, the longer we are divided, the further we slip down the slope and more children are killed.

In conclusion, Christians have two obligations on this issue. The first is to stand up and defend the defenseless in a manner consistent with the mission and love of Jesus Christ. This is common sense and beyond debate. While it may seem that the battle is lost, true heroes never stop spiritually fighting for the lives of others, especially children. Our second obligation is to extend God’s love, forgiveness and healing to those women who have been deceived by our culture into having abortions. They have been blinded by the thief and desperately need true love and reconciliation that the Father freely gives. This too is beyond debate.

We are certainly on a legitimate slippery slope. The facts are undeniable. And, it is reasonable to predict that there is still further distance that we might morally slip. Like Schindler, we must keep up the good fight because children’s lives are at stake. And, like the Holocaust, one day we will look back and remember the atrocities of our era. I pray we can see that day on this side of eternity. In this spiritual war, may God help us all!

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Marriage - A Matter of Faith and Flesh

On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States began hearing oral arguments regarding the Constitutionality of “Proposition 8,” which is effectively a voter-induced ban on “gay marriage” in California. As a result of this and other current events over the past year or so, I have seen many Christians join the fight in favor of “gay marriage” or “marriage equality.” Many friends whom I call brothers and sisters have taken various steps towards advancing this movement. I thought it would be helpful to address several questions on this issue that can help others when wrestling with similar conflicts within the culture in which we find ourselves. At the end of this post I will share a directly relevant model displayed by Jesus Himself on how to handle ourselves in such matters.

Who determines what is right and what is wrong? It should not be our emotions, not the US Constitution, and certainly not a panel of fallen human judges appointed by fallen human Presidents. Rather, it is God and God alone. Some Christians are attempting to approach this issue strictly from a secular “separation of Church and State” perspective. While a secular approach is respectable to some degree, most if not all of these arguments are still generally laced with moral sentiments and rebukes, using words like “right,” “wrong,” “hate,” “love,” and “human rights violation.” It is one thing to argue without a plea to morality, but we have yet to see that on this issue from any sides. The truth is that it is almost impossible to articulate a meaningful opinion on it without employing morality of some kind. But, invoking morality in the midst of attempting a “secular” argument is self-refuting. Morality refutes “secular” and vice versa. And, if instead you are attempting a moral argument in favor of “gay marriage,” are you arguing against God Himself, the One who solely defines both morality and marriage? That would be foolish. On a secular note, the stated desired financial and visitation outcomes of this movement can more easily be achieved through populist legislative initiatives without redefining marriage. The lack of discussion around such solutions is disturbing.

What determines our human rights? Again, it is not anything that comes from man. Human rights are inalienable, which means they are granted by God and God alone, the Creator of all humans.

Who speaks for God? God does, alone. Every human, especially Christians, should stop presuming that they speak for God since God has already spoken for Himself in the Bible, and eloquently so.

How does a Christian express love towards homosexuals? God, who is love and the author of human love, and the Creator of all human beings, determines that, alone. And, love is best humanly expressed through His Gospel. Enabling the legal ability to marry is not an act of love. The attempt to reduce “love” to this level or to inflate acts of opposition to the level of hatred, is a perversion of what love truly is. God is Love. Therefore, He defined love, He is the source of all love, He determined what is and is not love, and He did so alone. God actually is the sole Definer of all things. And, love has nothing to do with positions on “gay marriage” and everything to do with reconciling men to God. Further enabling any sin works against that goal. And, perverting God’s opinions with flesh-centered motives can never result in love. The deepest expression of love is to earnestly and lovingly reconcile people to God, not promote activity that further separates the two. In fact, enabling separation from God is more the opposite of love. For all sides of the issue I Corinthians 13 spells out precisely how to love each other. And this issue is not exempted. That book of the Bible commands, among other things, that we be patient, kind, not boastful, not arrogant, not rude, not insist on our own way, not be irritable, not be resentful, not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoice with the truth. All Christians on all sides of this issue would be well-served to meditate on these words daily and modify our actions accordingly.

As we determine that our own efforts are virtuous in our own eyes, who is it that truly determines virtue? Again, that is God alone. As fleshly initiatives are allowed to invade the Church with human notions of virtue, remember that the religious leaders thought the same about the temple money changers and their intentions before Jesus kicked them out with a whip. After all, they were helping Jews honor God by assisting them in making sacrifices in God’s temple with Hebrew coins and not forbidden Roman coins. But their “virtue” offended God by using His house for sin-laden agendas other than prayer. Likewise, would God look kindly today upon the Church being targeted for sin-laden political agendas by Christians? Regarding viewing our actions as virtuous, Isaiah 64:6 says, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” God is the sole source of all virtue.

Whose opinions last? That again would be God’s alone. And, God does not think highly of the temporal opinions of men or their carnal emotions. God only values of highest opinion His own opinion. We can choose to fight for something spun from political correctness, but God is not subject to human spinning or political correctness. We will never fully understand God. Therefore, we will never fully understand His opinions. Faith, by definition means full surrender of our opinions and emotions. Faith, therefore, means adopting God’s opinions even if our flesh does not understand them and/or disagrees with them. It is the opposite of faith to reject God’s opinions in honor of our own fallen minds (flesh). It is idolatry to conclude that God’s opinions don’t measure up to the man-vaulted glories of political correctness. This is walking by human sight, not by faith in God. We should rather desire to be aligned with God even if reviled by the world instead of the other way around.

With those questions answered, I will share a few declarative statements to spur thinking. God-fearing believers should Biblically evaluate these declarations as truth, unless it can be proven otherwise –

If you are a Christian you believe that:
  • God invented marriage before the world began and created all humans.
  • God determines all right and wrong.
  • God is right 100% of the time and never wrong.
  • God spoke through His word, the Bible, revealing His opinions.
  • Our opinion can never override God’s.
  • All sin is genetic (Romans 5:12).
  • No sin is acceptable to God.
Recognizing that all sin is genetic, we must also recognize that genetics is a part of flesh. Therefore, an argument favoring genetics favors flesh over faith. Calling sexual sin a sin is not an act of hatred. Neither is actively opposing “gay marriage.” Remember, it is God and God alone who determines what is and what is not an act of hatred. Further, if labeling something a sin is hatred, does that mean calling my own sexual sin (lust) a sin means I hate myself? I can assure you that when I lust I call it sin, and I am uncomfortably far from hating myself. Does calling a confessed thief guilty of stealing mean that I hate him? Is God’s delineation of all sexual sin in the Bible an act of hatred by God? We can’t follow the world in redefining terms that God has defined, like hate and love, so that we fall into a trap of honoring flesh over faith. God never gave the world such authority. If voting for a “gay marriage” ban is an act of hatred, then by logical extension, voting for other behavior-related bans are acts of hatred towards those people who freely partake in what is being banned. This is foolish thinking. Does a ban on smoking in public places mean that we hate smokers? Does a ban on selling large soft drinks in New York mean that Mayor Bloomberg hates people who sell or drink large soft drinks? More to the point, does a national ban on polygamy mean that we hate polygamists? This is nonsense thinking and nonsense does not belong in the minds of Christ. This thinking honors flesh over faith. In everything, those claiming and using the mind of Christ must always honor faith in God over flesh.

Pastor Rick Warren once said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

Would God, the Author and Inventor of all things (including marriage), support His people being aligned with redefining marriage (His institution and invention) to include homosexual couples? Remember that God invented marriage and He alone defines it from the beginning. Genesis 2:23-24 says, “The man said, ‘this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man,’  For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” And, like all of His inventions, the reason God invented marriage was not random. It is one of only two institutions that He invented to reveal Himself to man (the other being the Church). Marriage intentionally points to God. Marriage was invented by God as a reflection of His unconditional love and the beautiful union between Jesus (the Groom), and the Church (His Bride), as the final culmination of our salvation and redemption from sin. Perverting God’s institution in honor of sexual sin is a mockery of His institution and His revelation.

Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” How is it possible for someone to be doing something that they believe is “right” but unknowingly leads to something as dreadful as “death”? The thing that Solomon is referring to as leading to death is sin. Sin is what the Bible instructs us as always leading to death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, if your “way” is aligned with sin, it will lead to death. Sin includes sexual sin. Sexual sin includes heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. It opposes God to attempt to white-wash one class of sexual sin just because it is fashionable. And, such opposition promotes more sin, which is certainly a way that leads to more death.

In 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Paul warned Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” In this passage, Paul warned Timothy about the Church. He was not talking about the world. And, Paul was also speaking prophetically about today. Christians today are actively placing teachers before them to redefine sinful passions as genetically predestined. And, since God invented, defined, sanctions and recognizes marriages, “gay marriage” is a myth to Him. Christians must take Paul’s warnings to Timothy even more seriously today than 2,000 years ago.

Christians should hold the Bible as all authority for God having spoken.  It is not the defenders of God’s definition of marriage that have to show scriptural proof, because it is already explicitly there.  The burden of proof lies upon Christians who are working to redefine marriage.  Where is the scripture that clearly displays God’s approval for “gay marriage?” Christian proponents of “gay marriage” have yet to articulate one. Instead, there are Christians espousing humanistic platitudes as if they are God’s. But, “adding” to God’s revelation is not a position with which Christians should align.

Speaking of misalignment, in Joshua 5, Joshua was about to lead the people into the battle for Jericho. He noticed a stranger standing in front of him with his sword drawn as if about to lead Joshua and the Israelites into battle. Joshua approached him and asked, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” Curiously, he replied, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” In other words the angel said, “No; I don’t fight for any fleshly side. I fight for God.” Joshua quickly fell in line behind him. Joshua had initially asked God’s commander to pick a fleshly side. But, God doesn’t take fleshly sides; He leads. It is man who must choose to either take God’s side or oppose Him. God leads His people and not the other way around. If we are to address this movement, we must align with faith over flesh, like Joshua. It is impossible to fight for God before Him. To fight before God always results in opposing Him.

In conclusion, Jesus Himself gave us a very clear and loving model on how to Biblically interact with others regarding sexual sin in John 8. Jesus was brought an adulteress, who was condemned by the religious leaders to be stoned to death. Jesus did not twist scripture to white-wash her sin based upon her genetics. Jesus did not play politics to fight for her freedom of sexual expression. To our knowledge, Jesus did not make a plea for equality in light of the glaring absence of the guilty man she had sinned with. And, Jesus did not refrain from characterizing her act as “sin.” But, He also embraced her with love. Jesus forgave her without hesitation. Jesus implored others not to condemn her. And, Jesus implored her to walk forward from that day onward in a renewed identity characterized by repentance from that sin. In the most powerful words of this story, Jesus (God) looked the adulteress in the eyes, informed her that He does not condemn her and concluded, “go and sin no more.” Jesus affirmed her true identity and called her to turn away from genetic sin. This is our Model of reconciliation. A posture that works to promote “gay marriage” is one that is aligned with sin and clearly counter to the Jesus Model for handling sexual sin. And, our response must be consistently loving as outlined in I Corinthians 13 and John 8. Christians absolutely must faithfully follow Jesus Christ (God), as the one they call Lord, no matter what it costs. That is the least of what He purchased when He shed His own blood on the cross.