City Limits

/in /by

When God draws a line, it’s tempting sometimes to get as close as you can to that boundary without actually crossing over into forbidden territory.

After all, you’re not actually “sinning,” if you’re not crossing that line. You can drink without getting drunk (Eph 5:18), you can flirt without being intimate (1 Thess 4:3), and you can interact with some people without being influenced (1 Cor 15:33).

But there’s a pattern that you see, both in Scripture and in real life, that’s worth considering, when it comes to making those concessions that make it easier to fail.

Think of sin as a city. Within those city walls, you’ve got pain, regret, and all that occurs in the aftermath of disregarding God’s commands. No one in their right mind goes into that city on purpose. It happens, but for the most part, it’s the result of a process that begins with being within the city limits.

Adam and Eve

When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it should’ve been a situation where they prohibited themselves from going anywhere near the tree, let alone close enough to notice that the fruit looked genuinely appetizing.

But instead, they chose to be close enough to hear the serpent make his presentation and then actually pick the fruit off the branch and then stare at it for a minute.

They were within the city limits. Instead of remaining outside the city walls where temptation isn’t a factor, they willfully put themselves in harm’s way and what should’ve been a distant and inconvenient prospect is now a very reasonable looking concession.

Sodom and Gomorrah

In Genesis 13, it says that Lot pitched his tents near Sodom, a city that was already on God’s list of people who were “…sinning greatly against the Lord.”

In Genesis 14:12, we find that Lot is now living in Sodom.

He’s now within the city limits. Given the way he’s described in 2 Peter 2:8, he knew he was surrounded by depravity and perhaps it was that influence that made him so willing to offer up his daughters to prevent the homosexuals of Sodom to violate the angels that were in Lot’s house at the time (Gen 19:4-5).

Every Form of Evil…
Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22 [MSG])

This is a good means to prevent our being deceived with false doctrines, or unsettled in our faith; for our Saviour has told us ( John 7 17), If a man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. Corrupt affections indulged in the heart, and evil practices allowed of in the life, will greatly tend to promote fatal errors in the mind; whereas purity of heart, and integrity of life, will dispose men to receive the truth in the love of it. We should therefore abstain from evil, and all appearances of evil, from sin, and that which looks like sin, leads to it, and borders upon it. He who is not shy of the appearances of sin, who shuns not the occasions of sin, and who avoids not the temptations and approaches to sin, will not long abstain from the actual commission of sin. (Matthew Henry)

David and Bathsheba

1In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. 2One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her… (2 Sam 11:1-4)

David is outside the city limits right up until verse 3. On the surface, nothing seems out of place. Even when he sent messengers to get her, there’s no line being crossed.

But when you hit verse 4, it’s then when he’s not just within the city limits, he’s right at the city’s gate. At that point, disobedience isn’t merely possible, it’s almost inevitable.

A Safe Distance

In each of the above scenarios, disaster could’ve been avoided had a safe distance been established between themselves and the one place they were told to avoid. But instead of remaining well outside the city limits, each of the above individuals positioned themselves in a way where satan’s voice and their own sinful nature were given more attention than they would’ve received otherwise.

Bottom line: The closer you get to sin, the easier it becomes to sin.

Maybe that’s part of what inspired Paul when he told the church in Thessalonica to reject every kind of evil…

20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22 [see sidebar])

No doubt, you can get into subject territory, as far as what constitutes “city limits.” Some use their desire to avoid a problem by becoming legalistic and harmless indulgences are processed as major infractions (see Ecc 7:16-18).

Every Form of Evil…

This command forbids not only the acts of fornication and adultery, but, (1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (James 1 15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it; there wants nothing but convenient opportunity for the sin itself. (Matthew Henry)

Then you’ve got the other extreme where reckless and irresponsible concessions lead to a world of sin and consequences that are nothing short of dramatic.

A great example of that is the way Christ talks about the way you can commit adultery in your heart without actually being physically intimate (Matt 5:28). On the surface, it looks almost absurd, given the way it seems that God is determined to condemn even the notion of infidelity.

But that’s not what this passage is saying.

Your thought life is the place where things are processed and identified as either good or bad. There’s nothing sinful about the task of discerning right from wrong (2 Cor 10:5).

There’s a difference between discernment and intention, however. Once you’ve crossed into plans and action items, you’re no longer just “thinking about it,” and you’re well within the city limits with every intention of taking a tour of main street. Regardless of how things might appear on the surface, God sees your true intentions (aka your heart) and can rightfully declare you guilty given the way you’re already made up your mind.

Conclusion

When God says “don’t,” you want to process that, not so much as an obligation, but as an invitation to pursue something that’s far more rewarding than whatever is being offered by the sin God is telling you to avoid. Given the way natural cravings can be problematic when not tempered with a wise disposition, and an enemy that is only too happy to promote decadence as a good decision (1 Pet 5:8), increasing the distance between you and that line God has told you not to cross is a healthy exercise.

While you’ll always be able to see the skyline of that city God has told you not to visit, you can prevent it from becoming a toxic distraction by staying outside the city limits, as opposed to lingering just outside the city gates.

Prove It! | Part IV: The New Testament

/in /by

Thus far in the “Prove It!” series, we’ve looked at:

In this segment, we’re going to look at the New Testament.

I) The New Testament
A) Content

It’s appropriate to rehearse what it is that we’re actually trying to deduce from the evidence that is available to us, as far as, not only the accuracy of Scripture, but the reasonableness of the Bible’s claim about itself to be the Word of God:

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. (2 Sam 22:31)

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. (Ps 19:7)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Prov 30:5)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20-21 [2 Sam 23:2] )

Given Scripture’s Divine Audacity, as far as it refusing to accept the label of “accurate,” but instead insists on it being Inerrant, let’s start with the content of the New Testament and look at it in terms of being historically accurate.

1) Archaeology

Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961 the archaeological world was taken back to the first century Roman province of Judea. A group of archaeologists, led by Dr. Antonio Frova were excavating an ancient Roman theater near Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was a leading city in the first century located on the Mediterranean Sea. A limestone block was found there with a surprising inscription. The inscription, on three lines, reads:

…]S TIBERIVM…PON]TIVS PILATVS…PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]

The inscription is believed to be part of a larger inscription dedicating a temple in Caesarea to the emperor Tiberius. The inscription clearly states, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”1

Heel of Yehohanan The practice of crucifixion in antiquity was brought to life as never before when the heel bones of a young man named Yehohanan were found in a Jerusalem tomb, pierced by an iron nail. The discovery shed new light on Roman crucifixion methods and began to rewrite the history of crucifixion in antiquity.2

siloam
“In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”3

Pool of Siloam

In 2004, some repairs were being done on a large pipe in Jerusalem when engineers stumbled upon a series of steps that led to a first century pool. By the end of 2005, archaeologists were able to confirm that this was the Pool of Siloam referenced in John 9. Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD In the book of Matthew, not long before He was put to death, Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matt 24:1-2)

Today you can look at an area in Jerusalem that was originally unearthed in the 1838. As the area was further excavated, you could see the massive stones that had at one point been part of the Temple’s structure that had been pushed over by the Romans when they destroyed in 70 AD.

To summarize, Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has every controverted a biblical reference.” He continued his assertion of “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particular so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.”4

What makes the New Testament such a standout, however, is not so much the way in which it can be validated from an archaeological standpoint, as much as it’s the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection.   

2) The Resurrection

We’ve already looked at how the Resurrection is the “archway” of the Christian faith. Without it, Scripture is a “cloud without rain (Prov 25:14).”

When you look at Paul’s commentary in 1 Corinthians, it’s obvious, even from the standpoint of those who had the most to lose, that the Resurrection was absolutely crucial to the Christian doctrine:

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:16-19)

The reliability of the gospels is beyond reproach, which we’ll see in a moment. While we’ve already looked at some of the secular accounts that reference the Resurrection, not as a theological talking point, but as a historical reality, there’s also the account of the eclipse in Luke 23:44.

Given the obvious nature of an eclipse, you could rightfully assume that it would’ve been documented as a significant anomaly, regardless of one’s knowledge of it happening right when Jesus breathed His last.

Sure enough, it was recorded by Phlegon (FLAY-gohn), the Greek historian

Greek historian Phlegon wrote: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an eclipse of the Sun which was greater than any known before and in the sixth hour of the day it became night; so that stars appeared in the heaven; and a great Earthquake that broke out in Bithynia destroyed the greatest part of Nicaea.”1

Again, you have historical “dots” that can be connected that validate the reality of the Resurrection.

B) Construction
1) Apostolic Origin
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

In the last session, we showed how some doubt the content of Scripture, believing it to be a patchwork of judiciously selected writings that happened to corroborate a message that could be used to manipulate the masses. But when you look at the criteria that was used to identify the books of the Bible, the end result is a very, very short list because of the required prophetic credential as well as the necessary fulfillment of any prophecy that was articulated.

The Old Testament is what it is, not because of preferences or subjective rulings, but because of the substance of the content and the proven credibility of the human author.

The New Testament is no different.

The criteria used to determine what book qualified as Scriptural was whether or not it was “apostolic” in origin. So, if the book in question was either written by an apostle or with the endorsement of an apostle, it was considered Authoritative. Otherwise, it was discarded.

An “apostle,” in the broadest sense of the word, is someone who had seen Christ alive after He had been crucified. That included more than the original Twelve. Paul had his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19) and James, the brother of Jesus, saw Him alive according to 1 Corinthians 15:7.

Luke, John Mark and Barnabas were close associates of Paul and Jude, being the brother of Christ, while they weren’t apostles, because of their association with those who were, were recognized as credible representations of apostolic credibility. Given that dynamic, consider the books of the New Testament:

Book(s) / Author Bio
Matthew
Matthew One of the original 12 disciples (Lk 6:15)
Mark
John Mark Close associate of Peter and Paul (2 Tim 4:11)
Luke
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
John; 1-3 John; Revelation
John One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Acts
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
Romans; 1-2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1-2 Thessalonians; 1-2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon
Paul Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19)
Hebrews
Barnabas Associate of Paul and cousin to John Mark (Acts 12:25; Col 4:10)3
James
James Brother of Christ and referred to as an apostle by Paul (Gal 1:19).
1-2 Peter
Peter One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Jude
 Jude Brother of Christ (Jude 1:7 [describes himself as a brother of James, which is most likely the author of the book of James)

In A.D. 393, a Church Council was convened called the “Synod of Hippo.” “Synod,” (pronounced “SIN-ed”) comes from a Greek word that means, “assembly.” Hippo is the city of Hippo Regius, which is the ancient name of the modern city of Annaba, in Algeria. Their purpose for meeting was to officially define the books of the New Testament. You can see how most of their work had already been done simply by filtering everything through the qualifier of “apostolic origin.” When we read the New Testament, we’re reading the Inspired words of God written by people who had either seen the risen Christ personally or were close associates of those who had. Bear in mind, too, that most gave their lives in defense of what they believed and what had been written through them. That’s strong!

2) Textual Criticism

The evidence to support the authenticity of the Scriptures, as far as them being an accurate rendering of what was originally written, is more than adequate. When evaluating works of antiquity from a textual perspective, you’re looking at two things:

  • How many original manuscripts (MSS) do we have today?
  • How long was it before the first copy and the initial writing of the text in question?

The Iliad, by Homer is considered to be classic and was a standard in intellectual circles for centuries. Look at how the two works compare with one another in terms of textual integrity:

Textual Integrity of the New Testament
work when written earliest copy time span # of copies
Homer (Iliad) 800-700 B.C. 415 B.C. 500 years 1900+
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years over 24,000*
* “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, PhD, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN, 2017, p52, 56

Dr F.F Bruce was the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at Manchester University after having served in various posts where he taught Greek after having served as head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947.He says:

 “Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.2

 Dr. Dan Wallace is Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written, co-authored, edited, or contributed to more than two dozen books and is internationally known as a Greek New Testament scholar. He says:

The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches.3

 II) Conclusion

The following quotes were referenced in Part I of this discussion, but they’re worth repeating:

You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. (Clement of Rome)4

The Scriptures are indeed perfect. (Iraneus)5

The Scriptures have never erred…The Scriptures cannot err. (Martin Luther)6

The statements of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (Tertullian)7

The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. (Augustine)8

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning his church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. (Augustine) 9

For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold that opinion. (Anselm of Canterbury)10

When one insists that the Bible is flawed, they don’t merely undermine contemporary scholarship, they refute the assertions of the early church fathers – some of whom gave their lives rather than recant their convictions.

There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of God’s Word – specifically in the way it presents itself as the inerrant Word of God. Some will try to dismiss the testimony of Scripture when it comes to the way some will try to use the Bible as way to certify itself. They label it as a circular argument and therefore inadmissible in the court of public opinion. But the Bible is not merely one book, nor is it one voice. Yes, it is the Word of God, but it’s expressed through over 40 different authors writing over a 1,500 year time span and distributed over three different continents.

The Bible doesn’t represent one witness, but many witnesses scattered over several centuries. Dr. MacArthur highlights the importance of a healthy regard for Scripture by saying:

It was A.W. Tozer who famously stated, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” The reason for this, Tozer went on to explain, is that deficient views of God are idolatrous and ultimately damning: “Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them.” And again, “Perverse notions about God soon rot the religion in which they appear…the first step down for any church is taken when it surrenders its opinion of God.” As Tozer insightfully observed, the abandonment of a right view of God inevitably results in theological collapse and moral ruin.

Because God has made himself known in his Word, a commitment to a high view of Scripture is of paramount importance. The Bible both reflects and reveals the character of its Author. Consequently, those who deny its veracity do so at their peril. If the most important thing about us is how we think about God, then what we think about his self-revelation in Scripture is of the utmost consequence. Those who have a high view of Scripture will have a high view of God. And vice versa – those who treat the Word of God with disdain and contempt possess no real appreciation for the God of the Word. Put simply, it is impossible to accurately understand who God is while simultaneously rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible.11

Archeology, Science, Textual Attestation – it’s all there. There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament.

Still, to accept the Bible as Divine requires more than just what can be gauged by the senses. To embrace something as supernatural, you have to deploy the same kind of intellectual extrapolation that scientists do when confronted with things such as the boundary of the cosmos or the origin of gravity. Some things we are just not capable of quantifying simply because it lies beyond the human capacity to measure or observe.

That’s not to say we can’t make intelligent assessments, but there is, in some instances, an empirical certainty that exists beyond the limitations of the human paradigm. The empirical dots that can be connected are those that exist in terms of that which happened in the past. Our perspective is that of a rear view mirror. We can’t stop the car and witness those events in the present and build our convictions on having personally witnessed the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. It’s in those moments when we have to place our trust in something we cannot see.

The Bible calls this faith. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Not because He expects you to disengage your intellect when surmising the evidence that validates His Identity and His Word, but because there are historical realities that cannot be observed today, only accepted as fact based on the evidence those events have left in their wake.

In other words, we have to be willing to go forward in our convictions based on what we cannot see. To embrace the Bible as nothing more than a fascinating text is to strip it of the Role it asserts as the Word of God. And it’s not just for the sake of information as much as it’s about the supernatural transformation that occurs when you realize that His Word is His Message to you personally (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23).

God, through the Scriptures, requires a response beyond a positive intellectual endorsement. It asks for the kind of obedience that God Himself facilitates through you by His Spirit (Phil 2:13). You become the permanent home for His Holy Spirit by accepting the Message He proclaims in His Word (Rom 10:17) and that ultimately requires faith.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17) Not a blind faith, but faith nonetheless. Faith in Him, what He can do and… …the Integrity, the Substance and the Truth of His Inerrant Word.

For even more information about the credibility of the Old Testament, click here

1. Astronomy Today, “Eclipses from Ancient Times – Part Three, http://www.astronomytoday.com/eclipses/ancient-part3.html, accessed April 23, 2017
2. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972, p45
3. “Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture”, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2006 p82
4. “Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?”, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2007, p140
5. Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p252
6. “Evangelical Lutheran Synod”, “Luther and the Word of God’, http://els.org/resources/document-archive/convention-essays/essay1964-kuster/, accessed April 25, 2017
7. “The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”, John MacArthur, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2016, p124
8. Ibid, p125
9. Ibid, p126
10. Ibid, p125
11. Ibid, p12

The Federal Deficit

/in /by

Many of those who despise President Trump justify their hatred by insisting that he’s a heinous human being and anyone who supports him is just as sinister.

There was a question on Quora that I attempted to answer and it was, yet again, another situation where you feel as though no amount of facts can sway someone who’s determined to ignore anything other than what they want to hear.

At one point in the exchange, she said this:

…the US federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2026 (starting Oct 1, 2025) stands at approximately $1.17 trillion for the first six months, representing the third-worst first-half in history. While slightly lower than the same period in FY2025, the deficit remains historically high, with total FY2026 projections nearing $1.85.

When you read, “The US deficit is now at $1.17 trillion over the first 6 months of FY2026, the 3rd-worst first-half in history,” you are inclined to think the US economy is weak and getting progressively weaker.

The problem with that perspective is that it doesn’t take into consideration other information that significantly changes the conclusion that number by itself would imply.

Take a look…

Biden
2023 1.695 trillion + 138 billion “President Biden and Vice President Harris have ignored resounding messages from Iowans and Americans nationwide, as well as alarms from global credit ratings companies. By consistently choosing a spendthrift agenda over fiscal sanity, this administration has hamstrung our economy for generations to come,” Grassley said. “Our nation needs a change of pace from the one this administration has set. Vice President Harris’ recent proposals, however, signal an unwillingness to meaningfully address Americans’ concerns and a readiness to double down on policies that have caused major consequences, like prices rising over 20 percent in less than four years.” United States Senate Committee on the Budget
2024 1.833 trillion
Trump
2025 1.78 trillion -50 billion WASHINGTON, DC –Today, the Joint Economic Committee released its Monthly Fiscal Update. In FY2025, the nation ended with a $1.78 trillion deficit, $50 billion (2.8 percent) less than FY2024. Leading to the decreased deficit impact was the record-setting tariff collections of $195 billion for FY2025, increased tax receipts, and modifications to the student loan program authorized in the 2025 reconciliation act. While customs duties jumped significantly in FY2025, it still accounts for only 3.7 percent of total receipts. United States Congress Joint Economic Committee
2026 1.2 trillion (first half) -139 billion WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its monthly budget review which estimated the federal budget deficit totaled $1.2 trillion in the first half of fiscal year 2026. That amount is $139 billion less than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) released the following statement:

“The non-partisan CBO recently did a comparison of the first six months of last fiscal year (FY25) with the first six months of this fiscal year (FY26). The report showed that the combination of savings from cutting bureaucratic waste and increased revenue from tariffs helped lower the deficit by $139b, which is over 10%. If we continue cutting waste and fraud from the federal government as well as incentivizing economic growth, we will stabilize the debt and put our nation on a credible path to balance going to 3% deficit-to-GDP from 6% over the next several years.”

 Budget Committee 

If you take a closer look at the 2025 statement made by the Joint Economic Committee, you’ll see how they highlight the fact that the 2025 deficit was 50 billion dollars less than the last year of the Biden administration.

Then, if you take a look at what this year’s Budget Committee said,  despite the sobering amount represented by the first six months of this year, we’re nevertheless 139 billion dollars less than the same time last year.

So, would it not make sense to be encouraged by this number, based on the way it can be compared to last year’s situation which represented a 50 billion dollar improvement over the previous year?

Absolutely!

But if you’re determined to ignore anything that doesn’t promote what you want to believe, not only will your conclusions never be accurate, but you’ve restricted yourself and anyone else impacted by your thought processes to a world of pain and problems.

However nonsensical that may sound, it is precisely what happens when you’re resolved to define truth according to what you feel as opposed to what is real and that is the fundamental dispute that fuels all of the political tension that exists in our society today.

Faith

/in /by

Moses

Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. (Acts 7:22)

Before the burning bush, Moses was already one amazing individual.

When the book of Acts describes him as someone who was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” that means he was taught in the context of the same sort of intellect that built the pyramids (see sidebar).

He most likely would’ve received training in history, chemistry, and military tactics. In short, he would’ve been more than prepared to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

And yet…

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Num 12:3)

A King’s Education

Moses was adopted and raised in the house of the daughter of Pharaoh, which meant he lived in the royal household. Acts 7:22 states, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.” From this verse we see that Moses had all the education of the known world available while in the royal house of Pharaoh. Any university or tutoring scholar, as it were, would have deemed it a privilege to tutor the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.

Egypt was, at that time, one of the most productive and progressive countries of the known world, with educational achievements far above any other land. Their economic and social life, too, was highly developed. Even today, Egypt’s colossal pyramids, with their mathematical precision, confound the understanding of the most educated builders in the world. This was the environment in which Moses was raised from his youth. (Portand Bible College | The Call of Moses)

That’s significant because, according to Scripture, Moses spoke to God face to face…

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Ex 33:11)

That just makes Moses all the more admirable.

He was an accomplished military tactician, he was educated, and he was a prince. He would be the one who lead the Israelites through the Red Sea, he would write the first five books of the Old Testament and he would be revered throughout the ages as the great Law Giver (The Ten Commandments).

And in the midst of this, he was authentically humble.

Faithful

Yet, it wasn’t his humility that God appreciated, it was his faithfulness:

“When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num 12:6-8)

It’s not surprising that God would underscore Moses’ faith as being Moses’ most admirable characteristic given the way faith is described in Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6)

When you’re faithful, you’re not just obedient, you’re consistently obedient. And the reason you’re obedient is not just because you want to stay out of trouble, it’s because you want to honor the One Who’s showing you what to do.

It Comes From Him

But you can’t truly honor something that you doubt. Inevitably, compromise seemingly becomes necessary in order to accommodate the possibility that the object of your faith isn’t entirely trustworthy.

You see that in James 1:5-8

5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. (Jas 1:5-8)

The good news is that the faith that we want and need is not something that we have to manufacture within ourselves. God gives you the faith that you need. Both the faith that you used to accept the gospel as your bottom line (Eph 2:8), and the faith that you use to navigate your everyday activities is a something that comes from Him.

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Rom 12:3)

You’ve Got to Ask

But while the faith you need is always available, it’s not automatic. Just like you have to plug in your phone to keep it charged, you have to keep your brain connected to your King in order to access the Resources you need to keep both your perspective and your performance in line (2 Pet 1:3). You do that by spending time with Him – talking to Him in prayer and letting Him speak to you through His Word (Lk 11:9-12; 2 Tim 3:16-17). When you do that, you’re keeping both your powers of observation (Rom 8:6; 12:2) as well as your imagination (Is 26:3) founded on what amounts to Perfect Peace and Power.

Today and Tomorrow

Faith isn’t the ability to know the future as much as it’s a confidence in the One Who does (Matt 6:25-34). Ask for the faith that you need (Lk 17:5; Mk 9:24) and let yourself be energized by the Perspective that transforms both the moment in front of you and the road ahead.

For further reading: Why You Want to be Spiritually Ripped

How Do You Know?

/in , , , , /by

If you were asked, “How do you know that Jesus really did die and come back to life?” how would you respond, if you couldn’t point to the Bible as a Resource?

It’s Current

We wouldn’t still be talking about the Resurrection today unless it really happened.

Simon Ben Kosiba is one of a handful of “counterfeit” Jewish Messiahs that were revered as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy, but we don’t hear about them today because…

…they’re dead.

It works.

You live your life according to biblical principles, you benefit. If you opt to ignore those same principles, you have to deal with the consequences.

Some may respond by saying, “Well, it works for you…” While that’s not always the case, more often than not, that response comes from a mindset that wants to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences in order to justify maintaining themselves as their own bottom line.

If you’re not sinning, then you’re not lying, you’re not stealing, and you’re loving your neighbor as yourself. You’re on a much better path than if you were doing things differently and that applies to everyone.

It makes sense.

Every “religion” empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. After a while, that starts to sound a little suspicious in that the focus is more on you and what you’re capable of despite the obvious limitations of the human condition.  As a Christian, the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. That makes more sense in that the emphasis is now more on God – Who He is and what He’s capable of rather than on the individual and what they’re obviously not able to do.

For further reading, check out COEXIST.

What Does It Mean to be Saved?

/in /by

Being “saved” sometimes resonates as something illusive. You hear terms like “evangelical,” “born again,” “redeemed…”

But what does it mean and how does one make it happen?

First of all, let’s look at a couple of questions and scenarios that will help rule out some things that can be distracting otherwise.

You and Your Typical Demon

Imagine two individuals—one is a demon the other is a believer. Try to determine which one is which based on the way they might answer the following questions:

Question #1: Do you believe in God?  

James 2:19 says:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (Jas 2:19)

Based on that passage, what do you think the demon would say?

Question #2: Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?

In Matthew 8:29, several demons see Jesus coming and they say:

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”  (Matt 8:29)

Obviously the believer would answer yes, but how do you think the demon will reply based on the verse we just read?

Question #3: Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

Again, the believer is going to answer yes. What’s the demon’s answer going to be?

Colossians 2:15 says: 

“And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he (Jesus) made a public spectacle of them (Satan and demons), triumphing over them by the cross.” (Col 2:15)

Based on those two verses, how do you think the demons would answer? What do you think? Is there a difference in the way our two individuals answered the questions? Let’s take a minute and review what was asked:

  • Do you believe in God?
  • Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?
  • Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

There’s no difference between these two individuals based on the questions that were asked. Both answered in exactly the same way. James 2:19 indicates that demons believe in God. Matthew 8:29 quotes a demon as accurately referring to Jesus as God’s Son, and it’s evident from the other Scriptures we looked at that the devil and those who serve him are very aware of the defeat that was dealt them when Jesus rose from the grave.

Do you smell that?

That’s the aroma of reality.

The fact is, demons “believe” that Jesus is God’s Son and that He rose from the grave. So, there’s got to be something else besides just a willingness to acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure with some theological substance attached to Him.

But what?

Believing With Your Heart

When you believe something in your mind, it changes the way you think. But when you believe something in your heart, it changes the way you live. You see that idea expressed in Proverbs 4:23:

“Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Prov. 4:23)

It’s significant that Scripture references the heart as what constitutes the source of who you are rather than the mind. Some maintain that if you can change a person’s mind, you can change who they are, but who someone is as a person is determined by more than mere facts. Two people can be confronted with the exact same scenario and be presented with the exact same set of information yet process it differently because who you are determines the way you think.

With that in mind, take a look at Romans 10:9-10:

“That is you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Rom. 10:9-10).

“It’s with your heart that you believe.” It’s comparable to that situation where someone agrees that diet and exercise are healthy habits. But it’s the one who actually engages those habits that demonstrates a belief that resides in his heart.

So, Jesus isn’t just “the” Messiah, He’s “my” Messiah. He’s not just King of kings, He’s “my” King. He’s my Creator, He’s my Redeemer, He is my Lord.

A Complete Transformation

Your belief doesn’t merely qualify you as morally perfect before God – which is what happens when you accept God’s gift of grace.1 It also facilitates a complete transformation of who you are.

 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Cor 5:17)

When you make the Reality of Christ your reality – when you’re recognizing that what He did on the cross was for you in the most direct and personal way possible – at that point, you’re no longer respecting a Nativity scene or a crucifix, you’re now sitting down with the Son of God as your Savior and not just a lifeless idea.2 In that moment, you go from being a spiritual corpse to having a spiritual pulse.3 Your membership into the Kingdom of God is now guaranteed,4, but you’re also operating according to an entirely new internal paradigm in that God’s Spirit is living in you.

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard that word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). [See also Jn. 14:17; Gal. 4:7.]

It’s His Spirit that’s now providing a Voice that, up to now, wasn’t even available (see Eph 2:1). This Voice is now guiding you and giving you a new kind of desire for doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons.5

Conclusion

Let’s go back to the Q/A session with two individuals we were envisioning at the beginning of our discussion. Let’s imagine that they have to answer one more question, and here it is:

Does the Spirit of Christ live in you?

Romans 8:9 says:

“You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.” (Rom 8:9)

What would the demon say, what would the believer say?

What would you say?

According to Romans 8:9, that is the determining factor. That is what distinguishes the believer from the demon in our scenario.

There are many who go through life having convinced themselves that they’re believers—thinking that a mental acknowledgment of Christ’s reality equates to the saving belief referenced in Scripture. It’s not an uncommon fallacy, but it is nevertheless a departure from God’s Word that is both tragic and lethal.

On the other hand, the belief that comes from the heart that manifests itself as a personal conviction and not just a mental acknowledgement opens the door to a relationship with the One Who put the stars in their place and gives you, not only a guarantee of an eternity spent with Him, but a life that’s truly worth living as long as you’re walking this earth.

That’s what it means to be saved!

The Billy Graham Association has a great piece that will walk you through the verses and the subsequent steps you need to take to make Christ your personal Savior and not just a mental picture. Click here to read more.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:22; Titus 3:5; Hebrew 10:15-18
2. Revelation 3:20
3. Ephesians 2:1; 2:3-5
4. John 1:12; 14:3
5. Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:12; ; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:15-16

The Right to be Wrong

/in /by

The total population of the United States was reduced by 2% as a result of the casualties inflicted by the Civil War.1 It wasn’t fought over economic disputes. Financial disagreements are quickly revealed as trivial once the horrors of war park themselves in your front yard. And while it’s not inaccurate to say that the war was fought over slavery, there’s more to it than that. The bottom line is that the Civil War was fought over the way a human being was to be defined.

There were four political parties that came to the table during the Presidential election in 1860: The Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats, the Republican Party and the Constitutional Union Party.2 Each of these parties was defined by their stance on slavery. The reason the Republican Party chose newcomer Abraham Lincoln as their champion is because of the way he was able to identify the core issue at the heart of the slavery debate.

Many were distracted by the South’s justification of slavery by categorizing as a matter of “state’s rights.” Lincoln handily dismantled that argument. At one point he said: “…the doctrine of self-government is right – absolutely and eternally right,” but argued that “it has no just application” to slavery. “When the white man governs himself,’ he asserted, “that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government – that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”3

And the thing is, the South did not simply want to be left alone. As new territories were being added to the Union, the South was insistent that these new states were to be added as slave states.4  And when South Carolina announced its decision to secede, it simultaneously confiscated all Federal property and infrastructure and claimed it as its own. 5

This was not autonomy that was being desired, it was an attempt to gain authority over that which defined the nature of a human being as well as any resource that could aid them in their bid for control. That is what caused the North and South to war against one another.

What makes this topic important is that you will often hear deviations from Truth asserted in the context of a right to be left alone or a right to be happy. On the surface, it appears correct. But if the issue in question is predicated on something that is morally wrong, then it’s no longer a question of rights. The South did not have the “right” to enslave an entire race, nor did it have the “right” to confiscate property that was not their own. They did have the right to govern themselves, but not to the extent that it violated the rights of others.

Today we debate over things like same sex marriage and any one of a number of entitlements from health insurance to employment.  The pursuit of one’s own happiness is part of our philosophical foundation as a nation. But that same philosophy references an Absolute as the justification for our ability to secure the blessings of life and liberty. When we step outside the moral boundaries defined by that Absolute, we are no longer exercising our “right” as much as we are simply rebelling against that which is right. And while rhetoric and legal sounding verbiage can veil that for a season, inevitably it will be revealed for what it is – immoral, unjust and just plain wrong.

The Civil War was both tragic and costly. Whether it could’ve been avoided is speculative, but the lessons to be learned in terms of being vigilant in recognizing a perversion of the Truth are not vague or illusive. And those lessons need to be deployed now as we process what’s going in our culture and in our government.

The result of apathy may not be a Civil War, but left unchecked, the result will not be healthy.

Postscript: Check out this video from Prager University. It’s excellent and reinforces the point about the Civil War being about slavery and slavery alone – http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Was-the-Civil-War-About-Slavery.html

1. “Civil War Casualties”, “Civil War Trust”, http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html, accessed June 6, 2014
2. By the late 1850s, the Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats generally opposed slavery’s expansion while many Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist across the United States. In the presidential election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two, with Stephen Douglas running for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge representing the Southern Democratic Party. Two other political parties competed in this election as well. One of these parties was the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its candidate. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery’s expansion. The other party was the Constitutional Union Party. The party’s candidate, John Bell, hoped to compromise the differences between the North and South by extending the Missouri Compromise line across the remainder of the United States. Slavery would be permitted in new states established south of the line, while the institution would be illegal in new states formed north of the line. The Northern and Southern Democratic Parties only officially existed in the election of 1860. (“Northern Democrat Party”, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Northern_Democratic_Party, accessed July 3, 2013)
3. “Team of Rivals”, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Shuster, 2006, page 203
4. Ibid, p162 (The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a piece of legislation that prohibited slavery from those territories procured from France as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectually nullified that act by stating that states could choose by “popular sovereignty” whether or not they were to be slave or free. The problem was that those who had the resources and political clout to affect the outcome of these supposedly democratic procedures were predominantly wealthy slave owners. It wasn’t a compromise, it was a political maneuver that further revealed the true motivation of the more vocal proponents of the pro-slavery faction, while simultaneously galvanizing those who opposed it.)
5.Ibid, p297

Ask a Canaanite

/in /by

The Conquest of the Promised Land was a series of military campaigns led by Joshua (see Josh 12). The mission was to completely destroy the Canaanites and settle the land that God had promised Abraham in Genesis (see Gen 13:14-17; 15:19-21).

That same land, by the way, is the land that the nation of Israel occupies today. Some process the violence initiated by the Israelites against the inhabitants of Canaan as being similar to the way in which other nations throughout history have determined to overwhelm neighboring countries and expand their borders and influence by force.

But the Conquest of the Promised Land wasn’t a self absorbed determination to divide and conquer. For all intents and purposes, Israel was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered from the start. They were hardly a threat, let alone a force, to be taken seriously by any of the fortified cities and established armies that comprised the area of Canaan (Numbers 28-33). The reason Israel triumphed was not because of their military might or because of their superior rating in the eyes of God (Dt 9:1-6), rather, it was because the Canaanites had become so decadent and so heinous in the eyes of God. Israel was merely an instrument of Divine Judgement (Dt 9:4).

But who were the Canaanites and what had they done that made them such an irritant in the eyes of God?

Let’s take a look…

I) Who Were the Canaanites?

When Noah’s voyage came to an end, he left the ark with his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From these three boys came all of the nations that are scattered around the earth to this day (Gen 9:19). Ham was a problem child and his rebellious nature was passed on to his sons, who you see listed in Genesis 10:6: Cush, Mizraim, Put and…Canaan. In verse 15, you see the sons of Canaan listed. Taken together, these families / tribes comprised the people group collectively referred to as the Canaanites. They were a wide spread group and as they lived and prospered, their territory grew. But as their landholdings increased, so did their decadence and perversion.

You see that in Genesis 24:3 where Abraham asks his chief servant to swear that he would not get a wife for his son Isaac among the Canaanites who he could see were degenerating into a life of wickedness. He also knew that however heinous the Canaanites were at the time, their conduct as well as their prospects would only get worse based on the fact that God had already told him that their land would be given to him.

II) God’s CleanUp Operation

By the time Moses and Joshua began what was actually God’s “clean up” operation in Deuteronomy 2-3, the pagan practices of the Canaanites were in full swing.

The religion of these pagan people were basically a fertility cult. At temple scattered throughout their land, Canaanite worshipers actually participated in lewd, immoral acts with “sacred” prostitutes. Theirs was a depraved form of worship that appealed to the base instincts of man’s animal nature.1

But more than just depravity, part of Baal worship included sacrificing children by burning them alive (2 Chron 28:2-3). In light of this kind of lifestyle and behavior, you can see why God’s anger would be peaking. And that’s why, in some cases, God instructed the Israelites to destroy entire cities and leave nothing alive.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 instructs the Israelites to make an offer of peace to neighboring cities that were not within the explicit borders of the Promised Land. But verses 16-17 says to kill anything that breathes that lives within the walls of those cities that warranted the full wrath of God.

That included women and children.

Why would you kill women and children?

Do they not merit a kinder and more gentle treatment?

III) Women and Children…?

In Genesis 15:16, God is talking to Abraham and states how in the fourth generation of his family, his descendants would come back to the land he was living in presently and claim it as their own. There would be a bit of a delay because, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

Just how sinful many Canaanite religions practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929…Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination. God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.2

A generation, in this instance is 100 years. 400 years later, you see that prophecy coming true in Deuteronomy 2. This is one of the first areas that were conquered by the Israelites as they entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the desert. Every town belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites, is completely destroyed. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, elaborates:

They put all the Amorites to the sword, men, women, and children (v. 33, v. 34); this they did as the executioners of God’s wrath; now the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity was full (Gen. 15:16 ), and the longer it was in the filling the sorer was the reckoning at last. This was one of the devoted nations. They died, not as Israel’s enemies, but as sacrifices to divine justice, in the offering of which sacrifices Israel was employed, as a kingdom of priests. The case being therefore extraordinary, it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for military executions, which make no distinction and give no quarter: those will have judgment without mercy that show no mercy. 3

This was not “business as usual.” As has already been pointed out, not every city / people group was put to the sword. But those who had distinguished themselves by wallowing in the kind of decadence that equated to spitting in the face of God over and over again – as Matthew Henry pointed out – it wasn’t a military action that was directed towards the Amorites, it was the wrath of God being prosecuted in a way that resulted in the total destruction of an entire nation.

Again, this was not a template, nor a precedent, but it’s an example of what can, and often does, occur to a nation that doesn’t just turn their back on God, but runs in the opposite direction over a period of centuries and by so doing sinks deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity that ultimately becomes their grave.

IV) Still, Women and Children?

There are scores of commentary and attempts to reconcile the idea of a loving God with genocide. Some want to suggest that the Biblical text is a form of hyperbole – that what we read as a slaughter of innocent women and children is a figure of speech and nothing more.

But the question isn’t “How could God be so cruel and destroy an entire nation including women and children?” Rather, the question should be, “How could an entire nation collectively say ‘No,’ to a loving God?” And as far as taking the lives of women and children, however difficult that may be from a human standpoint to process, consider this:

1. The Cross

Anytime you’re inclined to think of God as cruel, you have to go back to the cross. With that one event, you have the ultimate exclamation point, as far as God’s unconditional love for all people (Rom 5:8). Is God capable of being a tyrant? The answer is “Absolutely, not!”

Just? Yes.

Cruel? No.

2. We Belong to Him

As far as human life is concerned, regardless of the age of the person in question, that individual was created by God (Ps 139:13). From that standpoint, we belong to God and our lives are ultimately His to do with as He pleases (Ps 24:1).

Rebuking God for the way in which He handles that which belongs to Him falls short of what’s logical and appropriate. And while some are quick to say, “But He has no right to be cold-hearted.” Again, the cross reveals that assertion as having no basis in fact. In addition, God’s essence is holy and completely devoid of anything evil (Job 34:10; Ps 77:3; 1 Jn 1;5; Jas 1:13). So, should He choose to do something that appears harsh, one can rest assured there’s a holy agenda being served (justice, punishment, discipline) as opposed to something sinister.

 3. More Than a Moment

When we see an infant, we see the innocence and helplessness that defines that child at that moment. On the other hand, God sees their entire life laid out before Him. It’s not a life that has never been lived, it’s a known existence from start to finish. If God chooses to bring that person home before they’re born, it could very well be an act of mercy if that child is to grow up and do all kinds of evil.

By bringing that child immediately to their eternal dwelling, they’re prevented from condemning themselves as a result of their sin. As a side note, is it not ironic that many of those who are indignant with God, as far as Him commanding the death of infants and children, have no problem with babies being destroyed in the context of abortion?

4. Don’t Forget Jezebel

While in most cases, it’s unfair to pit a man against a woman, in terms of physical strength, it’s neither wise nor healthy to suggest that a woman cannot pose a very real threat. Consider Jezebel. She was the wife of King Ahab. In 1 Kings 18, you see her behind a campaign to kill all of the prophets of God in Israel.

In the next chapter, after a brilliant display of God’s superiority over the Baal and his prophets that was facilitated through Elijah, Elijah now is running for his life in order to escape the indignation and the wrath of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:3). She was hideously evil (1 Kings 9:22; 21:25-26) and ruled over Israel through her sons after the death of her husband for a period of 10 years. In the end, she died a very violent and gruesome death (2 Kings 9:30-37) – a destiny that was prescribed in 1 Kings 21:23 as a punishment for the vile acts she committed against God and her subjects.

Jezebel demonstrates that one’s gender doesn’t limit the atrocities one can commit against God. No doubt, the females within the Canaanite  community, given their reverence for Baal, were guilty of similar behaviors and were therefore deserving of the same kind of fate.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you’re confronted with a Divine act or behavior that seems out of Character for God, you’re being wise by establishing the cross as your starting point and from there allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as justice and there is such a thing as discipline.

Our perspective is limited (Is 55:8) and we’re not capable of seeing the big picture. Given those two dynamics, it’s more than appropriate to trust God even though certain aspects of a situation lack the kind of bottom lines we would prefer.

But regardless of harsh God’s Judgment was against the Canaanites, the fact was they were living a life and revering a standard that taunted the Reality of God. While grace is always available, it is possible to incur the wrath of your Heavenly Father?

How?

Ask a Canaanite.

1. “Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1986, p205
2. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
3. “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible”, biblstudytools.com, Deuteronomy 2, accessed July 3, 2016

Islam, Syrian Refugees and How to Love Your Enemy

/in /by

“Pure Christianity” is never exercised in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10; Jas 1:5). Dressing up whatever policy or conviction you in the guise of “compassion” or “Christian charity” –  if it doesn’t pass the litmus test of  a comprehensive perspective on Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17)  – you’re simply attempting to give your flawed opinions the look of a Biblically based disposition, the result being neither healthy nor wise.

The question on the table is “Does denying Syrian refugees into the US run contrary to the commandment to love your enemies and to be loving and charitable to all people?”

90% of Syria

90% of Syria is Muslim. When you scan the headlines, you find differing stories as to whether or not you can accept these people as legitimate refugees or you need to at least consider the fact that they pose a potential threat given their creed as well as the history of the way terrorists have infiltrated those areas they define as targets. Given the question marks surrounding the true nature and agenda of these people, a vetting process has been established, but, according to some, it’s been diluted to the point of becoming almost non-existent in order to accommodate President Obama’s commitment to welcome 10,000 refugees by September of 2016.

Many believe that this is a logical response to a problem that doesn’t really exist, others see it as an irresponsible mindset that could case the country harm. There are several “bullet points” that emerge in the context of this debate, and while some appear both credible and compelling, there’s a warning represented by the aforementioned statistics thast need to be acknowledged in order to arrive at a conclusion that is taking into consideration all of the facts.

  • Do Muslims represent a real threat?
  • Are the Syrian refugees devoid of any possible terrorist element?
  • What is the appropriate Christian response?

Are Muslims a Threat?

The struggle that’s going on in Syria right now is being described as one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. What began as an uprising fueled by economic and political unrest has become a struggle that’s drawn according to sectarian lines. In other words, it’s become a religious battle between the Suni’s and the Shiite’s. The struggle between Suni’s and Shiites goes back to the beginning of Islam as far as who is the true successor to Mohammed.

But there are nevertheless some common denominators between the two factions, one being their mutual hatred and resolve to destroy the United States. Some will argue that this is not the tenor of most Muslims and is therefore illogical and unfair to be hesitant when labeling Muslims in general as being a threat to national security. But here’s the problem:

The moment you put that uniform on – the moment you align yourself with Islamic teachings – you are subscribing to a creed that includes a divine endorsement for murder in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims are radical, but the more orthodox your interpretation of the Quran, the more militant you become.

Furthermore, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

The Problem of Abrogation

While the Bill of Rights gives everyone the opportunity to practice their religion without any kind of governmental limitation, the Supreme Court in 1878 appropriately ruled that the practice of one’s religion does not serve as a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words, should your religion be used as a way to justify murder, then your religious beliefs no longer fall beneath the umbrella of the First Amendment.

Because of the way in which our nation’s 200 year history has been consistently punctuated with acts of terror prosecuted by individuals who claim a commitment to Allah as being their inspiration, being a Muslim, by default, puts you in a position where your voluntary ties to these acts defines you as a potential threat to the general welfare and not as a mere religious pilgrim.

That may sound harsh and even inaccurate, given the way many Muslims appear to be kind and more than gracious,  and they may very well be. But it’s imperative to realize that those who are “moderate” are viewed by their more orthodox counterparts as “Uncle Tom’s” and not followers of the true faith.  And it’s also important to realize that the Qur’an insists on the destruction of the infidel. It’s not a question of how you interpret the Qur’an, rather it’s your personal disposition as to which passages you embrace and which ones you do not.

The contention is that the most recent revelations of Mohamad are the ones that you obey. Should any of those contradict what had been documented in the past, you are to ignore anything that was previously stated and instead obey the newest admonishments. This anomaly is called “abrogation” and it’s most threatening manifestation is in the context of jihad:

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad’s life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations. 1

This is why any Muslim who is “peaceful” is nevertheless conflicted in that they are hard pressed to condemn their more militant counterparts. After all, the terrorists are simply obeying what is in the Quran. For example:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. (“Radical vs Moderate Islam: A Muslim View“)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

What About Christianity?

Some will argue that Christianity has fueled may of the conflicts that have plagued the human existence, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t being categorized as a threat. “Why not?” they ask.

First and foremost, just because you carry a Bible doesn’t make you a believer any more than brandishing a cross on your shield qualifies you as a Christian soldier. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as a truly “righteous” cause that merits the use of force. But there’s a difference between what’s right from a Biblical standpoint and what’s merely profitable.

The Crusades are often viewed as a Christian enterprise that illustrates how people who are supposedly Christ followers can be just as violent as their Islamic counterparts thus giving the impression there is no distinction between one “religious” group over another.

But the Crusades were not fought for sake of advancing the gospel as much as it was for the sake of protecting the interests of Alexis I, the emperor of Constantinople and promoting the influence of Pope Urban II. The Jews surrendered their home to the Muslims in 638. It wasn’t until 1096 that the first Crusade was initiated. If it was a purely Christian impetus that inspired the Crusades, why did it take over 400 years for any kind of military campaign to be launched? Fact is, the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their territory to include Constantinople. Only then did Alexis I reach out to the Pope who was only too happy to seize the opportunity to extend his authority into what was previously an exclusively Greek Orthodox dynamic. Bottom line: The Crusades were about wealth and power and not the cause of Christ.

That’s not to say that providing aid to Alexis the First would’ve been an inappropriate gesture. But to offer forgiveness of one’s sin in exchange for taking up arms against the Turks…

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (portion of Pope Urban II’s speech at Council of Clermont, 1095)

…is not even remotely biblical let alone a “holy” war.

And as far as the kind of violence the you do see in Scripture, there’s a fundamental difference there as well.

War in the Bible versus Jihad

Dr. Emir Caner grew up as a Muslim and later, along with his brother, converted to Christianity. Part of what makes his story so compelling is that his father was a devout Muslim. According to the Hadith, you are to be put to death if you renounce your faith in Allah. Rather than following the Qur’an to the letter, their father chose instead to disown them and they never saw their father again until he was on their deathbed. He’s currently president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia.

He explains the difference between war from a biblical standpoint and the way it’s promoted in the Qur’an:

…war, in Christian thought has the express purpose of securing peace (see Timothy 2:2) and removing those who oppress and act wickedly (see Romans 13:1-7). But war in Islam is different both in its scope and purpose. The latter half of sura 9:5 commands, “But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees…

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).2

God and Allah

And it’s not just the difference in what prompts war. It comes down to the fundamental difference between God and Allah. Dr. Emir Caner is joined by his brother in the book, “Unveiling Islam.” Together they explain that:

The greatest difference between Jesus Christ as God and Savior and Muhammad as prophet of Allah, comes at this point. Jesus Christ shed His own blood on the cross so that people could come go to God. Muhammad shed other people’s blood so that his constituents could have political power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Further, since Muhammad is held to be the “excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day” (sura 33:21), we need to look no righter for explanation of violent acts with Islam than at the character of its founder. Was Muhammad a man of peace who shed other people’s blood only as a last resort? When he killed others, were his acts part of war or for personal vengeance? The answers to such questions tarnish the ethical integrity of the Islamic worldview.3

Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world. Allah is to be worshiped, period. Any who will not do so must be defeated, silenced, or expelled. The theme is conquest, not conversion, of the unbelieving world. Allah has called the Muslim to make the name of Allah alone to be worshiped. 4

At the end of the day, Christianity and Islam represent two vastly different paradigms, both in the natures of God and Allah as well as in the way they are to be championed and proliferated. A very short and succinct way of expressing the differences would be to simply reflect on how Allah invites his followers to die for him, whereas God says, “No, I’ll die for you.” But what about the way in which you are to treat your enemy from a Christian standpoint? Does Christian charity not demand that we as a nation welcome anyone within our borders, regardless of their intent?

Senior Intelligence Community officials assess the greatest international terrorist threats currently facing the United States come from violent extremists inspired by al-Qa‘ida, including its allies and affiliates, who are committed to conducting attacks inside the United States and abroad.

Loving Your Enemy versus Enabling Them

Here’s the thing: There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them. In 2 Kings 6, the Arameans were at war with Israel and had surrounded the city of Dothan in an effort to capture the prophet Elisha. Elisha prayed that God would strike the army with blindness and God honored Elisha’s request. Elisha then led the army into Samaria, at which point the eyes of the Aramean army were opened. Rather than destroying them, Israel fed them and sent them away. Afterwhich the king of Aram ceased to war with Israel. But that peace didn’t last. In the very next chapter, the nation of Aram is once again attacking Israel.

The point is, chapter six illustrates how a Christian is to deal with their enemy – with compassion. That isn’t to say that there are no casualties in the kind of warfare prosecuted by believers (2 Kings 18:8). The Arameans were no strangers to Israel. You see them throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, in 2 Samuel 8, King David killed 22,000 of them in a battle where they had tried to defeat Israel by fighting alongside the Zobahites.

But war in general is fought either as a last resort to subordinate a wicked ideology and ensure a lasting peace, or it is engaged for the sake of promoting a wicked ideology and advancing a quest for power. War is never choreographed nor is it scripted. By the time the situation has deteriorated to that point, horrific scenes are commonplace and those who survive that value life will carry with them scars and psychological wounds that they will bear for the rest of their lives. Individuals such as Hitler, however, had no problem sleeping at night because the presence of a breathing Jew –  or any who would offer them sanctuary-  was nothing more than an obstacle to overcome. A Hebrew was not a soul that Christ had died for. They were a social poison that was therefore unworthy of the dignity that every human being would otherwise rate when viewed through the lens of a Christian paradigm. Death and suffering were merely processes by which the Nazi archetype would be established.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Dt 20:10-15 [see also Lev 19:33])

That’s the distinction between war waged as a form of conquest and war waged in the name of justice. In both situations you have an enemy, but in the context of conquest, you have a nameless entity that needs to be eliminated. When the cause is just, on the other hand, the enemy is a human opponent that merits the consideration due a person that God valued enough to redeem.

But that doesn’t mean you hesitate to do whatever is required to subdue them should they attack (Num 21:1-3). Nor does it mean that you allow them to keep a sword in their hands as long as they remain a threat (see sidebar [Dt 20:10-11]).

When Israel went to war with neighboring nations, they were instructed to first make an offer of peace. It would be in the context of that offer that Israel’s enemy could demonstrate that they were no longer an enemy, but merely a foreigner that was now entitled to the same rights and privileges of an Israelite.

Take for example Uriah the Hittite. The Hittites were among those that Israel fought as part of the conquest of the Promised Land (Dt 20:17). Yet, Uriah is listed among David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 23:39). Uriah literally means, “My light is the Lord.” So, here’s an example of someone who’s lineage included a people group that had at one point been at war with Israel, but had since adopted the Israelite faith and proven his worth and integrity to the point where he was now serving in a prestigious, military position.

While we don’t have video footage of the feast the Jews held for their enemies, no doubt the mood of the Arameans was that of a conquered opponent. The reason the gesture resonated the way that it did was because it was deployed from a position of strength. It’s one thing to impress your enemy with a noble surrender, but when you have the higher ground, the impression you’re making by being compassionate can be even more powerful.

It’s Not a Courtroom, it’s Combat

In warfare, your enemy is not a mere criminal in that their agenda is not that of a common thief or a murderer. Rather, it’s the demise of the ideals that serve as the philosophical foundation upon which your nation is based.

That is their target.

When contending with an enemy soldier, it’s not a criminal attack that you’re trying, it’s a military attack that you’re combating. Hence, any kindness must be executed in a manner that prevents them for shaking hands with one hand and delivering a lethal blow with the other. It’s only when your foe is having to admit defeat or, at the very least, the very real likelihood of being overwhelmed, that your hospitality compels them to reevaluate their hatred for you and the value system you represent.

It should be noted as well that any pagan foreigner who chose to live among the Israelites was expected to obey the same laws that had been prescribed for the Jews (Num 15:16). The worship of Jehovah was not dictated (Ex 12:48) and the Israelites were commanded not to oppress or mistreat any foreigner (Ex 23:9). But as far as moral and criminal statutes – those laws were expected to be upheld.

In some instances, that might seem like a violation of one’s civil liberties – especially from today’s point of view. But you have to realize that it was the foreigner’s reverence for their pagan deities that served as the basis for their determination to destroy Israel. Committing to a new moral / legal code was not an infringement of their rights as much as it was a necessary pledge of allegiance to the general welfare of the Hebrew nation as opposed to its demise.

In Conclusion

Using Scripture as a template for the way in which the US is to approach the admission of 10,000 Muslims into our cities has to go beyond a hippie-like dismissal of evil based on a solitary Bible verse. Rather, it must be a comprehensive perspective of the Bible which includes the reason you are to love your enemies and the manner in which you are to make that love apparent.

Those who sneer at military action or condemn the use of deadly force forget that the opponent whose sole objective is power process their offer of peace as them simply removing themselves from the battlefield and exchanging the indignity of violence for the certainty of being destroyed.

  • Pacifism is not an application of of the Bible, it’s a distortion of it.
  • Socialism is not a system illustrated by the life of Christ, it’s a humanistic attempt to solve the problem of greed.
  • Loving your enemy is not about making yourself vulnerable to attack as much as it’s a victor’s kindness extended to their foe as an encouragement to change.

Unless it can be determined conclusively that a Syrian refugee is not inclined to embrace those portions of the Qur’an that condemn the infidel to death, you are welcoming into your neighborhood a potential threat. Offering aid and assistance is one thing, handing over the keys to your home is another. That’s not being disobedient to the Word of God, that’s an application of the wisdom contained within it.

1. “Middle East Forum”, “Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam”, David Bukay, 2007, http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam, accessed June 20, 2016)
2. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19
3. “Unveiling Islam”, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002, 2009, p20
4. Ibid, p90

The God Delusion | Part Two – What About Prayer?

/0 Comments/in /by

Dawkins 1 | God 0

Richard Dawkins, in his continued attempt to mock the legitimacy of the Christian faith, references something he refers to as “The Great Prayer Experiment.”

He explains…

...the physicist Russell Standard (one of Britain’s three well-known religious scientists, as we shall see) has thrown his weight behind an initiative, funded by – of course – the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health. Such experiments, if done properly, have to be double blind, and this standard was strictly observed. The patients were assigned, strictly at random, to an experimental group (received prayers) or control group (received no prayers). Neither the patients, nor their doctors or caregivers, nor the experimenters were allowed to know which patients were being prayed for and which patients were controls. Those who did the experimental praying had to know the names of the individuals for whom they were praying  – otherwise, in what sense would they be praying for them rather than for somebody else? But care was taken to tell them on the first name and the initial letter of the surname. Apparently that would be enough to enable God to pinpoint the right hospital bed. The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous amount of ridicule, and the project duly received it. As far as I know, Bob Newhart didn’t do a sketch about it, but I can distinctly hear his voice:

What’s that you say, Lord? You can’t cure me because I’m a member of the control group?…Oh, I see, my aunt’s prayers aren’t enough. But Lord, Mr Evans in the next door bed…What was that, Lord?…Mr Evans received a thousand prayers per day? But Lord, Mr Evans doesn’t know a thousand people…Oh, the just referred to him as John E. But Lord, how di you know they didn’t mean John Ellsworth?…Oh right, you used your omniscience to work out which John E. they meant…1

The study that Dawkins references was done in 2006. The two groups were further divided into three sub groups:

  • people that knew they were being prayed for
  • people that were being prayed for and did not know it
  • people that received no prayers and didn’t know it

The results of the study were clear cut. There was no difference between those being prayed for and those who were not. There was a difference in the amount of suffering however, in that the people who knew they were being prayed for suffered more than those who weren’t being prayed for and had no clue.

Bottom line: Prayer doesn’t work, God isn’t real and to believe otherwise is either complete stupidity or an example of a blind faith that resolves to believe regardless of the quantifiable evidence that exists to refute it.

Dawkins: 1 | God: 0

A Weak Response

Dawkins cites several theologians who embarrass themselves by attempting to explain the results in the context of how God either uses suffering to accomplish His Purposes or such studies are pointless in that they attempt to quantify God – which you can’t do.

It’s not that they don’t have a point. God does use suffering to strengthen a believer’s faith (Romans 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:3-7). But it also says that you mourn with those who mourn (Rom 12:15).

It is encouraging to know that God has a Purpose and He can be trusted when you’re going through a hard time, but you telling someone they should be “happy” when something terrible has happened is not always helpful. And saying that you can plot the Reality of God on a graph or prove His existence on a calculator is no different than saying you can package love in a shoebox or reproduce peace in a test tube. God is more than a “result,” just like a person is more than a photograph.

Still, you should be able to expect some kind of material evidence to support the validity of the Christian faith and when a clergyman responds to a test like this by saying people should welcome suffering or God can’t be “proven,” their responses sound pretty weak and Dawkins’ argument appears to be all the more compelling.

If God’s real, and prayer supposedly is a person asking God for something, then it follows that, in a study such as this, you should see some kind of evidence that God is at least listening. No?

Dawkins concludes by assuming that the “faithful” will soldier on, despite the lack of evidence and proof, and wait it out until they get the result they want.

But Wait

It’s interesting because, while the study Dawkins cites occurred in 2006, there’s an article in Newsmax magazine entitled, “Studies Prove the Healing Power of Prayer” that references several similar studies that produced much different results:

  • The American Journal of Public Health studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years and found that those who attended religious services were 36 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.
  • A study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a significantly increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
  • Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship.
  • The American Society of Hypertension established in 2006 that church-goers have lower blood pressure than non-believers.
  • Scientists have also revealed believers recover from breast cancer quicker than non-believers, have better outcomes from coronary disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and are less likely to have children with meningitis.
  • Research at San Francisco General Hospital looked at the effect of prayer on 393 cardiac patients. Half were prayed for by strangers who had only the patients’ names. Those patients had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia, and needed less drug treatment.They also got better quicker and left the hospital earlier.

So, which studies do you believe? And why does Dawkins not acknowledge other similar studies that actually reinforce the utility and the Power of prayer?

That’s a question that may not ever get a satisfactory answer, but let’s take a minute and look at Scripture.

In Jesus’ Name

First of all, God is not a vending machine. You don’t simply put in your “prayer coin,” pull a lever and expect Divine machinations come to life, spit out the result you want, in the timeframe you’re expecting. He’s God, you’re not. The Bible makes some pretty broad sounding guarantees when it comes to prayer.

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt 7:7-8)

On surface, it looks like if you position your appeal just right, you’re gold! Whatever you want, whatever you need – it’s yours. But look at John 14:

13 And I will do whatever you ask  in my name , so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything  in my name , and I will do it. (Jn 14:13-14)

 “In my Name” is more than just a poetic compliment to your prayer. “In the Name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ Name” invokes a dynamic that establishes the Priority and the Precedence of God. Specifically, His Will:

14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to  his will,  he hears us.15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 Jn 5:13-14)

And that’s not a “hidden clause.” That’s consistent with the kind of approach you would expect in a wise, father figure. A child can approach their Dad for anything they want, but the Dad isn’t going to respond in the affirmative if the child asks for a machine gun. Take a look at Matthew 18:19-20:

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:9-11)

You see where this is all going?

God sees you and your life laid out before Him in a way that’s not limited by the constraints of time and space. He knows what’s best from womb to tomb.

Ask.

Absolutely!

But ask knowing that should He say, “No,” or “Wait,” it’s not Him being cruel and it’s certainly not a prompt to doubt His Reality. Rather, it’s a cue to remember His Sovereignty which is Ultimately founded on an unconditional love and an uncompromising commitment to our welfare.

You Don’t Talk to Your Father That Way

When satan was attempting to get Jesus to make some compromises, he honed in on, what would naturally be, a logical means by which Christ could recruit the attention and the admiration of those He sought to save by throwing Himself down off the top of the temple and emerge unharmed (Matt 4:5-7).

Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16,  saying that you don’t put the Lord your God to the test. That passage in Deuteronomy is referring the scenario in Exodus when the Israelites were on the march and had come to point where they were without water. Despite very recent demonstrations of God’s Power and Presence in the context of all the miracles He had done in their midst, here they are now asking, point blank, “Is God among us or not? (Ex 17:7)”

Kind of like the study Dawkins wants to use to demonstrate the Reality of God.

“You do what I want you to do, when I want you to do it, and I’ll give you a second look…”

That doesn’t sound like a reverent request as much as it sounds like a belligerent demand. It’s almost like a child approaching their Dad insisting that unless he gives them that machine gun, they’re going to throw a fit. Things like “You don’t love me!” or “You’re not my real Dad!” are shouted in response to their father’s refusal to meet their demand. Whether they’re legitimate expressions of indignation or strategic phrases deployed for the purpose of securing a specific outcome, either way, it’s wrong. Especially if what the father is withholding from his child is something that could prove harmful.

Yet, that’s the approach some take with God. It’s not healthy let alone appropriate. You don’t talk to your Father that way.

There’s a degree of audacity represented by a human being looking at God and saying, “Oh yeah? Prove it!” Yet, from Dawkins’ perspective, there’s nothing audacious about it because he views humanity as being an absolute in and of themselves.

The cross is foolishness to unbelievers (1 Cor 1:18) and it makes sense. If you’re not convinced that you need forgiveness, then what’s the purpose of a Savior? If you answer to yourself and yourself alone, then the notion of a God is at once ridiculous and intrusive.

That was the mindset being addressed by Jesus when He responded to the Pharisees who were demanding a sign by saying, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matt 16:4) It’s similar to the way God responded to Job who, seemingly had every reason to be indignant with God, by saying, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:3)

Do you smell what’s on the stove?

Brace Yourself Like a Man

Consider the created order (Rom 1:20), contemplate the miracle of grace (Rom 5:8). Recognize who and what you are before your King and appreciate the gift that He’s given to you, as far as your ability to ask for things in prayer, (Matt 7:7-12; Heb 4:16).

Park there for a minute.

It’s a gift!

You need to be careful to process it as something that has been given to you by God and not a license to make demands of God. You don’t talk to your Father that way and should you feel inclined to be a little indignant, remember Who set the planets in motion and initiated the pumping action of your heart.

Most of all, be mindful of the fact that the One you’re getting ready to criticize is the One Who secured a “non-guilty” verdict for you by dying on the cross.

Brace yourself like a man…

A Privilege to be Revered

Perhaps the most succinct refutation of Dawkins’ outlook on prayer in that it is not a practice to be evaluated by man, rather it is a privilege to be revered by man. And to abuse it as a means to test God is to make the focus of your prayer your own arrogance.

In that moment you’re not conversing with the Almighty as much as you’re just talking to hear yourself speak (Matt 6:5-15).

Perhaps that’s why He taught us to begin our conversations with Him by saying: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:9-10 [emphasis added])

Your Kingdom, Your will, because… You’re God.

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p86-87