Current Events – Page 2 – Muscular Christianity

Slavery in the Bible

July 27, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Muscular Christianity, Politics/by Bruce Gust

While you find the word, “slavery” in the Bible, in no way shape or form do you find an endorsement for the kind of slavery that existed in the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not even close. Easton’s Bible Dictionary sums it up real well by saying that “Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel.” And the slavery that’s referred to in the New Testament is a Roman institution that contradicts the way the gospel defines all of humanity as being equal in the sight of God and therefore eliminates all cultural categories that would otherwise be used to justify the enslavement of a particular people group.” Still, while Scripture doesn’t give slavery a Divine stamp of approval, it is nevertheless present as a form of servitude that can appear harsh at times and in that way generates some questions which deserve some answers. Here’s what we’re going to look at:

The Old Testament defines kidnapping as a capital offense. That directive alone is enough to destroy any notion of a Biblical endorsement of the slave trade as it existed in modern history.
The word “slavery” in the Old Testament is used to describe one of three types of servitude, none of which entail the kind of inhumane dynamics that characterized the 18th and 19th century slave trade. It was:
- a temporary arrangement established for the sake of working off a debt that couldn’t otherwise be paid
- a work release program assigned to an apprehended thief which compelled him to work off the dollar amount of whatever had been stolen
- an alternative to war where the enemies of Israel agreed to live among the Hebrews as workers that were to be treated with kindness and respect
In the New Testament, slavery was a Roman Institution that crumbled beneath the weight of the gospel in that all men are created equal under God. And while that Truth would be used to dismantle the machinations of the slave trade by future generations, it was also deployed as a way to redefine the relationship between master and slave in a manner that was both immediate and transformational

Here we go…

I) Slavery in the Old Testament

First of all, in Exodus 21:16, you read how kidnapping was considered a capital offense:

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

That verse alone is enough to condemn anyone to death who owned a slave in the United States during the time leading up to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. So, again, anyone who wants to even imply that Scripture condones the kind of slavery that existed in our country during the 17th and 18th centuries is absolutely wrong in that it was based on kidnapping. As far as the other kinds of slavery that are represented in the Old Testament, you have three basic categories:

#1) To make restitution for whatever it was that you stole

There were no penitentiaries in the ancient world. If you stole something, you were to make restitution by working off the dollar value of whatever it is that you stole. You see this in Exodus 22:3:

A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. (Ex 22:3)

So, that’s not “slavery” per se as much as it’s a work release program.

#2) To pay off financial obligations that you couldn’t afford to pay off otherwise

…In Revelation 18:13 the word “slaves” is the rendering of a Greek word meaning “bodies.” The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply “servant,” “bondman,” or “bondservant.” Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery ( Exodus 21:20 Exodus 21:21 Exodus 21:26 Exodus 21:27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Joshua 9:6-27 ). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.

The second appearance of “slavery” as it’s found in the Old Testament refers to that situation where you found yourself in debt and could not afford to pay it off. Since there was no such thing as a status of “bankruptcy” in the ancient world, you simply made yourself and / or members of your family available as servants (see 2 Kings 4:1-7 for examples of children being put to work to pay off debt).

Bear in mind that this was voluntary, temporary and was to be conducted in manner that honored the worker’s dignity:

³⁹ “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. ⁴⁰ They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. ⁴¹ Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. ⁴²⁴³ Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:39-43 [see also Ex 21:2])

So, according to this verse, should you choose to hire yourself and / or your family to the person you were indebted to, you / they were in the employ of that person only until:

the debt was paid off either through your labor or income you were able to earn through other means (Lev 25:49) or…
a period of six years had passed or…
the Year of Jubilee which happened every 50 years (see Ex 21:2)

The only exception to that rule is if you got married to someone that was also working for your employer. Because she is also serving out an obligation, if your term was up before hers you couldn’t simply cancel her debt and justify it by saying that you wanted to leave with your new family. Rather, you had the option of choosing to remain in the employ of your boss for the rest of your life or the Year of Jubilee when all Hebrew slaves were set free and all property was returned to the original owner (see Lev 25:8-55). Then again, you could simply wait until her debt was satisfied and then move on from there.

The bottom line is that this kind of servanthood was designed to be temporary, dignified and voluntary and engaged as an alternative to bankruptcy. It was not permanent nor was it founded on the color of one’s skin and built around the idea that a human being was nothing more than a piece of property.

#3) An alternative to combat and judgment

Apart from that situation where a thief is to offer restitution for his crime through an extended period of physical labor that matched the value of what had been stolen (Ex 22:3-4) or working off a debt that you couldn’t pay otherwise, the only other reference to slavery in the Old Testament is in Leviticus 25:44-46:

⁴⁴ Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. ⁴⁵ You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. ⁴⁶ You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.

While it may see that this is a Divine Endorsement of Slavery, there’s more to this than what meets the eye and it goes back to the book of Genesis.

A) A Man by the Name of Canaan

All of the peoples in the world, both past and present, hail from one of the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Of these three, Ham distinguished himself as being especially heinous in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

To fully appreciate the vile nature of Ham, you have to remember that this situation with his father is happening not too long after the Flood. Ham had waited for seven days with his family on board the ark before it even began to rain (Gen 7:10). He saw the entire planet covered in water (Gen 7:19) while he and he family remained on board for more than a year (Gen 7:11; 8:13). And he was there to see the very first rainbow in recorded history (Gen 9:12-13). He had seen God’s Power and Mercy firsthand. For him to be as rebellious as he was required a truly lethal deficiency in character – a trait that was apparently passed on to his son, Canaan.

In Genesis 9:20-25, you read:

²⁰ Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. ²¹ He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. ²² Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. ²³ Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.

²⁴ When Noah awoke from his drinking and learned what his youngest son had done to him, ²⁵ he said:

Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.

Not only did Ham seemingly take some pleasure in mocking his father’s indecency and indiscretion, but there’s reason to believe, according to verse 24, that Ham actually did something to Noah. Whatever the case may be, Noah saw something in Ham that was also present in Canaan, Ham’s son – something that would surface in the form of a character trait that would result in idolatry and all the consequences that go along with it. In this instance, one of the consequences would be a lifetime of servitude.

B) Anything that Breathed…

Fast forward to the book of Joshua. The Israelites are getting ready to claim the land that had been promised to Abraham several centuries beforehand. But this wasn’t a mere collection of military campaigns, it was the Judgment of God being poured out against the vile behavior of…

…the descendants of Canaan.

Just how sinful many Canaanite religious 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.¹

The Canaanites have descended into a mindset that despises God, just as Noah had declared in his response to Ham’s belligerence centuries beforehand. Their idolatry and their immorality are so repugnant in the sight of the One that saved their forefathers from the Flood that they are now literally on death row from God’s standpoint. These aren’t whole people groups, however. Rather, they’re cities and areas that represent concentrated regions of pure evil and it’s these cities that God specifies in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

¹⁶ However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. ¹⁷ You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, ¹⁸ so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God (Dt 20:16-18 [see also Dt 7:1-2]).

Again, these are geographical areas and not entire bloodlines. You see that in Joshua 11. There were Hivites among the northern kingdoms that joined forces against the Israelites that lived below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. The Israelites totally destroyed them. In verse 14-15, it says:

The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. ¹⁵As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:14-15).

But, again…

C) …Only in Specific Areas

While there were Hivites among those destroyed in Joshua 11:14-15, there were also Hivites living in Gibeon:

These devoted nations are here named and numbered (v. 1), seven in all, and seven to one are great odds. They are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further; nor must they, under colour of this commission, kill all that came in their way; no, here must its waves be stayed. The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent; this will not serve to justify those barbarous laws which give no quarter. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 12

¹⁹ Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. ²⁰ For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:19-20)

So not every Hivite was killed. Only those that lived among the northern kingdoms referenced in Joshua 11:3 (they lived at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpah) were destroyed. But those that were spared were nevertheless condemned to become slaves as was stated centuries beforehand in Genesis 9:25.

Critics of Scripture are quick to point to the total decimation of all those that lived in the cities that God had directed Israel to destroy as evidence that God endorsed genocide. Their perspective is that a God Who would condone or, even worse, command the Israelites to “not spare anyone that breathed” is not worthy of worship.

Their indignation is ill founded, however.

First of all, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t entire people groups that were destroyed – just those that lived in areas that engaged in an aggressive brand of idolatry and decadence. Just like there were Hivites living in Gibeon as well as Mizpah, the Hittites were not exclusive to one particular area in that you have godly Hittites showing up later in Scripture occupying prominent positions within Israel such as Uriah, one of David’s Mighty Men (1 Chron 11:41 [“Uriah” in Hebrew means, “Yahweh is my light”]). So, yes there were entire cities that were put to the sword, but not entire ethnic groups. And the inhabitants of those cities slated for destruction were not mere military targets, they were direct descendants of the sons of Noah who knew and experienced God first hand. Yet, they chose a reprehensible lifestyle and a form of idolatry that was a belligerent dismissal of what they knew to be True which included an awareness of what happens when you choose a lifestyle that labors to advance a satanic agenda.

This is the wrath of God. And when you process it knowing the truly despicable psychology and methodology that characterized the Canaanites, while it still makes you cringe the way you might wince as you view pictures of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is an understandable horror given the evil that was being addressed and justly destroyed.

But not all those who deserved the wrath of God were taken to task for their actions. Some were given an option despite the spiritual blood on their hands.

D) You Have an Option…

Every city that constituted a threat to Israel, with the exception of those that were specified by God as being objects of His Wrath, were to be given the option of either being destroyed in combat or live among the Israelites as servants:

¹⁰ “When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. ¹¹ If it accepts your offer of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. (Dt 20:10-11)

If they didn’t accept that offer, however, the men were to be completely destroyed and all the remaining inhabitants:

¹² However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. ¹³ When the Lord your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. ¹⁴ But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. ¹⁵ This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. ¹⁶ However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. ¹⁷ You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, ¹⁸ so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. (Dt 20:10-18)

So with the Conquest of the Promised Land, you have a large territory populated with a substantial number of people, many of whom have distinguished themselves as truly heinous in the eyes of God. They live in specific cites / areas that the Lord had directed the armies of Israel to wipe out entirely. Every city – even those that are slated for destruction – are given the option of surrendering and living among the Israelites as servants. But only Gibeon is allowed to take advantage of that offer (see Josh 11:20). Every other city chooses to fight Israel and God deals with them accordingly.

E) Surrounding Nations

There are the “other nations” surrounding the area where the Canaanites are being destroyed. It’s these nations that are being referred to in Leviticus 25. If you look at a map of the area surrounding Canaan, those nations would’ve included the Moabites, Hittites, Ammonites, the kingdom of Bashan, the Edomites and the Philistines. Take a look at the chart below and consider the lineage and the disposition that characterizes each of these nations.

nation	lineage	history
Moab	Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was a descendant of Shem (see Gen 19:25)	Balak enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Num 22). The Moabites were hostile to Israel on more than one occasion.
Ammonites	Ammon was the son of Lot, the brother of Moab (see Gen 19:38).	They were a part of the party that enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel. They were enemies of Israel throughout their existence. Click here for more information.
Amorites	“Amorite” literally means, “dwellers in the summits.” They were not one particular nation, but a collection of Canaanites that dwelled in the high country as opposed to the lowlands.	In Numbers 21 you read of how the Israelites defeated Sihon king of the Amorites after he denied them permission to pass through his territory and attacked them.
Bashan	Bashan was an Amorite territory that consisted of 60 cities.	The king of Bashan was a giant of a man named Og. After the defeat of King Sihon, he and his army attacked Israel and were soundly defeated.
Edomites	The Edomites were descendants of Esau who was Jacob’s brother. But while they were close relatives, all of Esau’s wives came from the Canaanites.	The Edomites were hostile towards Israel (see Numbers 20:14-21) and are listed among the enemies of Israel that Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 14:47 and again in 2 Samuel 8:13-14 where David defeats them in combat and established garrisons in their cities.
Philistines	The Philistines were descendants of Egypt – one of Ham’s four sons (Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan).	While the Philistines are probably recognized most readily by the story of David and Goliath, they were enemies of Israel beginning as early as Genesis 26:14-15 when they were antagonistic towards Isaac.

Joshua 12 gives a summary of all the nations and kings that were conquered as part of the conquest of the Promised Land. In Joshua 13, God identifies several other territories that need to be subdued but represent campaigns that are distinct from the original marching orders given to Moses and Joshua. Among those that God enumerates are the five cities within the territory of the Philistines. While the Philistines were not initially listed alongside those slated for destruction, the five cities that God specifies could nevertheless be counted as Canaanite cities. Reason being is that while they were governed by Philistine rulers, the inhabitants were entirely Canaanite and thus deserving of God’s wrath.

Each of these “surrounding nations” represent enemies of Israel and to be an enemy of Israel is to be an enemy of God (see 1 Sam 2:9-10; Zec 2:8). To oppose God is to invite His Wrath and that’s exactly what is going on behind the scenes when you’re looking at Israel’s military actions.

It’s not Israel’s tactical might nor their moral superiority that translated to increased land holdings or a greater population of servants (Dt 9:1-6). It’s the fact that all of these nations, to varying degrees, had identified themselves as enemies of God and it’s for that reason that they were either executed, defeated in combat or allowed to live among the Israelites as servants.

1) Servants and Not Enemies

Given the obvious tension that existed between Israel and her hostile neighbors, it’s not difficult to imagine the potential for the way in which a slave might be physically abused by a Hebrew or the hostile actions a passionate enemy of Israel might attempt while serving an Israelite. God made it very clear on numerous occasions that a foreigner was to be treated with dignity and respect. Even those Egyptians that had chosen to live among the Israelites were to be treated with kindness and love:

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev 19:34)

That being the case, should a foreign soldier find themselves working for an Israelite and they give full vent to the antagonism they feel towards the Hebrew community by doing something heinous, while their actions may merit some harsh discipline, their punishment was to be just and not used as an excuse to play out hostile intentions based on past social and military experiences.

²⁰ “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, ²¹ but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Ex 21:20-21)

By the way, the word “property” in Exodus 21 is actually translated “money.” It’s not a term to be interpreted as something demeaning as much as it’s referring to the worth of that servant’s labor. The Contemporary English Version translates it as:

However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property. *Ex 21:21 [CEV])

Another thing to consider is the way in which runaway slaves were treated. Rather than them being returned to their master, they’re allowed to remain with whomever they took refuge:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Dt 23:15)

The bottom line is that “slavery” in the Old Testament is completely different from the slave trade that existed in the United States. Whereas slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was a form of servanthood that was either offered as a means by which you could pay off a financial debt, or imposed as a work release program / alternative to judgment, the slave trade as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on kidnapping (a capital offense) and the dehumanization of individuals to the point where they were mere appliances with no rights, no future and no real value.

II) Slavery in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the world is ruled by Rome and their domination was maintained almost entirely by slave labor.

Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.²

Much of the slave population in the Roman Empire was procured in the context of military campaigns where those who were defeated were enslaved. Their numbers were further supplemented by piracy and kidnapping.

”… if any people ought to be allowed to consecrate their origins and refer them to a divine source, so great is the military glory of the Roman People that when they profess that their Father and the Father of their Founder was none other than Mars, the nations of the earth may well submit to this also with as good a grace as they submit to Rome’s dominion.”³

Unlike the situation in the Old Testament where Israel’s military victories and their domination over the surrounding nations were a consequence of those countries’ resolve to rebel against God, Rome’s approach to the world was inspired by nothing more other than to simply increase its size and might as is evidenced by the way in which they defined themselves as dedicated disciples of Mars, the god of war (see sidebar to the right). And while those who were consigned to a lifetime of menial labor within the Hebrew community were treated with kindness and respect, those that had to answer to their Roman masters were nothing more than pieces of property who had fewer rights than freed criminals. This was not an institution endorsed or invented by God. Whereas slavery in the Old Testament was either a way of paying off a financial debt – be it a loan or something you stole – or offered to a condemned people as an option to being a casualty of a just war, here it’s just a terrible manifestation of greed and a will to dominate those around you.

A) Man is Made in the Image of God

In addition to Scripture’s condemnation of kidnapping, which deals a lethal and final blow to the slave trade right out of the chute, there’s also the fact that because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) you can’t rightfully strip a person of their humanity to the degree where they’re nothing more than an appliance. Genesis 9:6 demonstrates that because man is made in the image of God that murder is considered an assault on the Person of God as well as an attack on the individual:

Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Gen 9:6 [see also Jas 3:9])

In a similar way, to reduce a person to nothing more than an intelligent beast is to ignore the Divine Dignity that characterizes every human being that has ever walked this earth. You see this expressed in Job 31:13-15:

“If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me ¹⁴ what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? ¹⁵ Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13-15)

Yet, this is what the Roman brand of slavery was: A demeaning subjugation of another human being that, not only consigned them to a lifetime of hard labor, but also stripped them of the most basic human rights. God’s condemnation of such an institution was expressed in the Old Testament, as has already been mentioned (Lev 19:34). But God’s grace takes it a step further by erasing all of the cultural boundaries that would otherwise elevate one person over another.

B) There is No Slave or Free…

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)

It’s that Truth in particular that Paul emphasizes in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus was a runaway slave that had, at one point, belonged to Philemon. Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and then ran away to Rome – a crime punishable by death. But after hearing the preaching of Paul, he became a believer and worked alongside Paul for a season before deciding he needed to make things right with his former master.

While Onesimus would’ve been safe under Old Testament law (Dt 23:15-16) in that, while he would’ve been held responsible for what he stole, he would not have been handed over to his original master, his future was far more bleak under Roman law. But in the context of the gospel, Philemon and Onesimus are in a place where they can view each other as equals in that they’re both sinners saved by grace.

This is what Paul is referring to when he says…

¹² I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. ¹³ I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. ¹⁴ But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. ¹⁵ Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— ¹⁶ no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. (Philemon 1:12-16)

So, while in the Old Testament where a slave who had taken refuge with another person was not to be handed back over to their original master, Paul points to the New Covenant that is even more liberating by admonishing Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a… …brother!

C) Making a Difference

As has already been mentioned, Roman law forbade the harboring of fugitives and runaways were often punished with great severity. Freedom was a possibility but, for all intents and purposes, was highly unlikely. You were doomed to watch others bask in the light of comfort and liberty while you were forever destined to be at their beck and call to do whatever work needed to be done.

It was a crushing reality in some cases, in others it was just a cultural and legal weight that had to be borne with no complaint and to aspire to the status of a free man was to reach for something that was virtually impossible. Given that kind of culture, imagine the response of a master whose slave is suddenly enthusiastic about doing the work they’re assigned to do. Ponder what must’ve been going in the mind of a Roman whose slave bordered on belligerent just yesterday and is now respectful and even pleasant.

This is what the New Testament encouraged among those who were slaves. While both the Old and New Testament provide a voluminous and substantial body of Divine Concepts for the abolitionist, the New Testament don’t merely condemn slavery as much as it eliminates any social construct that could justify the elevation of one person over another by establishing all people being equal in the sight of God .

You see this in the book of Colossians. To slaves he says:

²² Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. ²³ Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, ²⁴ since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. ²⁵ Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)

And to their masters, he says:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Col 4:1)

In order for this change to occur, it would require a Divine change of heart which is precisely what the gospel facilitates:

¹⁷ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here… ²¹ God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:17; 21 [see also Jn 1:3])

It’s in the context of being a “new creation” and becoming the “righteousness of God” that, not only would the relationship between slave and master be dramatically changed, it would also promote the Power and the Reality of the gospel itself. And as the gospel spread, so did the tools and the Truth that would one day be used to eliminate slavery entirely.

III) Conclusion

Critics of Scripture have a series of talking points that can be hard to refute if you engage them according to the way in which they formulate their convictions. They’re not looking at a full color portrait, they’re looking at a black and white thumbnail that resonates as compelling only if certain elements are accepted as both comprehensive and assumed givens.

If you structure your rebuttal according to a series of questions whose answers reveal those elements as flawed, they’re forced to concede the fact that their argument is lacking. On the other hand, if you target only those things they cite as relevant, you never get beyond the thumbnail and, not only does your platform look anemic, more importantly the full color portrait gets overlooked and the Truth gets ignored once again.

That said…

Does the Bible advocate kidnapping as an acceptable practice?

No. It doesn’t. It was a capital offense which means that the Slave Trade as it existed in the United State during the 18th and 19th centuries is contrary to God’s Word.

What did the nation of Israel provide as an alternative to penitentiaries? How did an Israelite go about filing for bankruptcy?

You didn’t file for bankruptcy, rather you worked off the dollar amount of whatever you owed. And if you were guilty of having stolen something, you were not incarcerated, instead you provided restitution by working off the value of whatever it is that you stole. These were the dynamics that characterized two of the three types of slavery referenced in the Old Testament.

Did the Israelites offer their enemies the opportunity to live among them as respected servants as an alternative to war?

Yes. To raise your hand against the Israelites was to take your idolatry a step further in that now you were not only ignoring Him, you were actively seeking to destroy His Work and His People. This placed you in a category of wrongdoing so heinous that justice in the form of the death penalty was an absolutely certainty. On the other hand, to live among the Israelites as dignified servants allowed you a second chance and in that way receive grace that, apart from God’s intervention, was neither deserved nor desired.

Was the slavery that existed in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ similar to the slavery referenced in the Old Testament?

No. Slavery was a consequence of war in the Roman world. In the Old Testament, it was either an alternative to war or an institution used to make restitution for a crime or make good on a debt. And where slavery in the Roman empire involuntarily reduced you to a subhuman status with no rights and no prospects, in the Old Testament it was an option and one that was chosen in the context of respect and dignity.

How can Scripture be said to promote slavery when it was the Bible that the Abolitionist used as a philosophical foundation upon which to base their argument that slavery was wrong? When Abraham Lincoln took the stage in his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was his articulate condemnation of slavery that earned him the Republican party’s nomination for President. On September 16, 1859, in Columbus, Ohio, he gave a speech. In it, you can see a sample of the rhetoric that earned him a spot in the national spotlight. Stephen Douglas believed slavery to be something that could be engaged on the premise that negroes were subordinate to the white race and were not to be thought of as equals in any way. And he believed that the slavery question should be determined by individual states – an approach referred to as “popular sovereignty.”

Lincoln identifies the fallacy of that argument by referring to a comment made by Thomas Jefferson almost a century beforehand that references the inevitably justice of God and how it will be visited upon the United States because of the way certain elements approved of and even insisted upon the enslavement of the black race.

Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.

Bottom line: Those who insist that the Bible condones slavery rely on a distortion of Scripture and not an expression of it. Remember, it was the Christian creed that inspired the spiritual songs⁴ of freedom sung by the slaves and it was that same doctrine that the abolitionists based their arguments upon⁵.

To even suggest that the Bible supports slavery requires a limited intake of Scripture, a biased perspective on history and a resolve to base one’s convictions on an intentionally streamlined collection of facts rather than a comprehensive analysis of the truth.

1. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
2. “Slavery in the Roman World,” Mark Cartwright, “Ancient History Encyclopedia”, https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/, accessed November 1, 2019
3. “Military of Ancient Rome”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome, accessed November 1, 2019
4. African American Spirituals Lyrics, https://africanamericanspirituals.com/African-American-Spirituals-Lyrics.htm, accessed January 21, 2020
5. “Christian Abolitionism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism, accessed January 22, 2020

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part Two

July 23, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship/by Bruce Gust

Is Homosexuality sinful?

This is Part II of a five part series that attempts to answer that question.

Objection: The New Testament doesn’t specifically refer to homosexuality, rather it addresses male prostitution and promiscuity. As far as Paul’s commentary on the issue, he also said that women are to remain silent and never assume authority over a man. Those notions are obviously antiquated and have no place in contemporary society, therefore his views on homosexuality should likewise be discarded.

Overruled: The New Testament does reference homosexuality specifically in Romans 1:27. While other passages elaborate on sexual perversion in more general terms, to imply that homosexuality isn’t included in those verses is to turn a deaf ear to the obvious verdict that God vocalizes throughout the Bible. In addition, the Bible tasks men with being the spiritual leader in the home as well as the spiritual leaders in the church. But to say that that Bible commands women to be silent and that they are never to occupy positions of authority is incorrect. The Bible contains several examples of women who wielded significant authority and influence over men. Their role in the home and in the church is subordinate to the role of their husband, but both sexes are equal in Christ and considered qualified to occupy leadership positions.

Homosexuality is Specifically Referenced in the New Testament Romans 1:27 specifically references men having sex with one another, which is homosexuality. While promiscuity and male prostitution could be categorized as, “shameless acts” and other translations differ in their specifically mentioning homosexuality as opposed to, “pervert” or, “effeminate,” the bottom line is that the degradation of man often shows up in the way he deviates from the healthy and holy sexual relationship God intended to exist between a husband and wife.

Anything contrary to that is sin and that includes same sex relationships. So the New Testament does specify homosexuality and it also lumps it in with any one of a number of perverse expressions of man’s inclination to rebel against God (see also 1 for 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10.)

Women as Leaders and Subordinates As far as women never being allowed to have authority over a man, that is true but only in the context of a worship service and in the way a wife is to interact with her husband.

After the Fall, God established a hierarchy as far as the relationship that would exist between a man and his wife:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

You see that reiterated in Ephesians 5:22:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22)

By no means does this give the husband to take advantage of his wife in any way in that he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25 [see also verse 28, 33])

Bear in mind that Christ loved the church by dying for her, so in order for a husband to be consistent with the Biblical model for the way in which he is to love his bride, he needs to subordinate himself to her welfare to the extent that he would be willing to lay down his life for her. You see Paul elaborate on that imagery throughout this particular text.

But while a wife is commanded to submit to a loving husband who is completely devoted to her, that doesn’t mean women cannot occupy positions of authority and influence over men.

Deborah is a great example of that as she was a judge over the nation of Israel as seen in Judges 4. Huldah, the prophetess in 2 Kings 22:14 as well as Philip’s daughters in Acts 21:8-9 and Phoebe, the deaconess in Romans 16:1 are all examples of women who wielded authority and power. Deborah was married as was Huldah and Phoebe. While they occupied roles characterized by civic and judicial authority, they were still subordinate to their husbands in their respective homes and would’ve yielded to the authority of the spiritual leaders in their lives when it came to worship and discipleship.

So, women do have the capacity to lead and to teach. But, in church it is different. Men, and only men, are to fill the role of pastor and teacher. The foundation for that hierarchy was established first in Genesis, not just in the context of the Fall of Man, but also in the order that male and female were created.

Men and Women as Equals

It should be noted that when God said that it was, “not good” that the man be alone, He was not implying that what He had created was less than perfect, as much as He was looking to the perfection that would be accomplished once man and woman were created and until then, it was, “not good.” The woman was created from the man and created to help the man.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Cor 11:8-9)

That doesn’t speak to woman’s insufficiency as much as it points to man’s inadequacy. Mankind, as an institution, cannot flourish without both sexes working side by side. From that perspective, both genders are equal, and that can be seen in Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)

Paul elaborates on that further in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (1 Cor 11:11-12)

The Distinctive Roles of Men and Women

But while they are the same in spiritual essence and worth, they are nevertheless assigned different roles in worship and in the home. This is seen throughout Scripture:

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (1 Cor 14:34)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12 [1 Tim 2 pertains to orderly worship. Also, 1 Timothy 3 lists the qualifications of a church leader and there is no reference to women at all])

Paul’s commentary on the role of women can be categorized under two headings: Distractions and Discrepancies. In verses like First Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:1-12, you see the issue of, “distraction” being addressed in that people were talking over themselves, specifically women speaking out of turn, which was leading to an improper climate for a worship service.

Reminding them of their submissive role before God and their husbands was an appropriate admonishment in that it went beyond simply asking them to be courteous, rather it framed what their conduct needed to be according to the Absolutes articulated in Scripture.

The, “discrepancy” dynamic is covered in the way Paul states how it’s not appropriate for a woman to have authority over a man. Again, in every instance where Paul makes this statement, the context is orderly worship. Men are to be the spiritual leaders in their home and in the church. When a woman proves herself to be more qualified to teach and lead in the sanctuary, while her spiritual maturity is to be applauded, it is ultimately an indictment against those men she would hypothetically instruct in that they should be capable of teaching her rather than the other way around.

Godly women who have the gift of teaching and leadership are extraordinary people that God uses in a variety of ways – Business women, artists, Conference Leaders, Principals and the list goes on and on. In church, they can be seen as teachers and lay leaders, but not in those instances where they are leading or teaching men.

Those who process the Biblical way in which authoritative roles are designated in Scripture with a feeling of either resignation or resistance are forgetting verses like Psalm 37:4 where it’s made clear that the amount of fulfillment you experience in your life is in direct proportion to the degree of obedience you deploy in response to God’s Instructions. As a woman you are not held accountable for the spiritual health of your husband, nor are you tasked with having to teach other men. If you insist on taking that responsibility upon yourself, despite the fact that God has made it clear that it isn’t your job, your efforts will fall short of God’s Ideal if for no other reason in that you’re standing in the place that has been reserved by God for someone else.

Moreover, the sort of leadership and submission that is being commanded in Scripture is not the assignment of the qualified over the unqualified. Rather, it is an infrastructure that is established first for the sake of promoting the proper regard for God and then to foster the kind of Divinely empowered productivity that can only occur when each person is subordinating themselves to the authority that has been placed over them, much like a team of all stars has a captain who they follow as well as a coach that they all answer to.

So, while men and women are equal in Christ, they do have different roles and that is a good thing. By attempting to discredit the way in which Scripture has assigned authority in the home and in the church by insinuating that women are prohibited from occupying any position of authority is incorrect and indicative of a very limited knowledge of God’s Word. God’s commands are freeing in that they open up the path that leads to success. To perceive them as limiting or inaccurate is to buy into a lie that ultimately leads to a world of unrealized expectations that, left unchecked, will culminate in a very dark and spiritually destitute demise.

Therefore, as far as those who would insist that the Biblical template for the way in which women are to fulfill their role as wives and leaders is obsolete, thus making the New Testament commentary on homosexuality something that can be ignored in a similar fashion – they are wrong in both instances and are denying themselves the advantages that go along with being receptive and obedient to the Word of God.

To proceed to Part III click here…

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part I

July 23, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Muscular Christianity, Politics/by Bruce Gust

There’s a graphic floating around Facebook that’s entitled, “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” and it goes on to use a flowchart to suggest that it’s both logical and sensible to embrace Homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Biblical standpoint (see image to the right).

The first red flag is that it doesn’t reference any specific chapter or verse. Beyond that, there’s some stuff there that sounds plausible, but after you pop the hood and do some digging, you discover that it’s not credible at all.

Here we go:

Objection: Jesus Never Uttered a Word About Same Sex Relationships.

Overruled: Jesus endorsed the Law as being valid and in so doing established homosexuality as being a sin. In addition, Jesus was God in the flesh and in light of the fact that God dictated the whole of Scripture, it is therefore nonsensical to claim that Christ had nothing to say on the matter.

Jesus Endorsed the Old Testament as Being Valid Correct. Jesus never taught on the subject, but Jesus endorsed Old Testament Law as being valid in Matthew 5:17 and that would include God’s specific outlawing of homosexuality. Take a look:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22 [see also Lev 20:13])

Homosexuality is Referenced as a Sin Throughout Scripture In addition, it’s referenced in the New Testament which demonstrates that this is a moral sin that rates a special emphasis in God’s mind in that it shows up throughout Scripture and not just in the New Testament.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers,[a] liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (1 Tim 1:9-10)

Jesus is God Another thing to consider is that Jesus is God in the flesh:

I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30 [see also John 1:1-2; 5:17-18;Heb 1:3])

When Jesus says, “I and the Father are One,” He’s saying that He and God are the same thing. The Greek word means “one and the same,” not “one person, “ but akin to two different names for the same thing. That’s why Calvary worked because it was God Himself Who was paying the penalty for our sins and not just a noble substitute. So if Jesus is God and vice versa, then to suggest that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality is pointless. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says the entire Bible is God-breathed so Jesus’ perspective on the subject is well represented throughout the Bible in that it is God’s Word and Jesus is God.

Objection: The OT also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics and to eat pork? Should we still live by OT laws?

Overruled: God’s condemning of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament Law as has already been mentioned. In addition, the portion of the law that is being referenced here is the judicial law which was fulfilled in Christ. The moral law, however, endures and that includes the condemnation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is Referenced Throughout Scripture Two things: First off, homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture so to limit one’s scope to the Old Testament alone and attempt to justify homosexuality by saying it’s an Old Testament law and therefore obsolete is to ignore the way in which it is addressed in the New Testament:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:8-10)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:9-10 [HCSB])

While the Old Testament Law Pertaining to Ceremonial and Judicial Specifics Were Fulfilled in Christ, the Moral Law Still Applies In addition, it’s important to realize that while the ceremonial and judicial aspects of Old Testament Law having been fulfilled, the moral law still applies. Here are the OT passages that are deal with the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics and the eating of shellfish:

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. (Lev 11:9-10)

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Lev 19:19)

And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Lev 11:7-8)

Why God prohibited the consumption of some animals or the wearing of certain types of clothing is speculative. But there are a couple of things about what was going on historically that allow these directives to make some sense.

Israel was surrounded by pagan nations whose practices included the combining of fabrics and different types of seed as part of religious rituals. Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204) wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books.”¹

So there’s good reason to believe that one of the reasons that God directed the Israelites to not mix seed or fabrics or different kinds of animals is because by doing so you were engaging in behaviors that were recognized as idolatrous.

As far as why you were to not eat marine life lacking in fins or scales, again it’s possible that due to the diet of the typical pagan, which included shellfish, God was putting up some guard rails that would make it difficult to even eat with those who despised the Lord.²

The point that’s being made the “So You Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” crowd is that if all of these instructions were valid in antiquity, yet not relevant in today’s world then why should God’s command pertaining to homosexuality be any different? If we no longer concern ourselves with combining different types of fabric or abstaining from eating certain types of food, why should homosexuality be an issue?

In the New Testament, Jesus addressed the dietary restrictions that had been established through Moses by saying that it wasn’t what went into a man that made him unclean, rather it was what came out of him that reflected the true condition of his heart. Consider the following:

¹⁷ After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ¹⁸ “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? ¹⁹ For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) (Mk 7:17-20 [see also 1 Tim 4:3-5])

Jesus often qualified the Law by quoting it and then elaborating on it in order for people to get beyond the letter of the Law and instead obey the spirit and the original intent of the Law. That’s what he was getting at in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt 5:17)

Some will mistakenly interpret Jesus’ quoting the Law as His having a disdain for what He had Moses document centuries before in that He would often add some commentary to what was on the books. Here’s the thing: The word, “fulfill” doesn’t mean to fill out, as in to add something that was lacking. Rather, it means to fill up. In other words, the law was perfect in its content and purpose which was to identify sin. Paul states that in Romans 7:12 when he refers to the law as holy, righteous and good. Without the law, we wouldn’t recognize sin for what it is nor could we appreciate the need for a Savior and that was the ultimate purpose of the law.

When Jesus said that He wasn’t seeking to abolish the law, He was highlighting the fact that He was the Savior that law had been pointing to since its conception. He says in Matthew 5:18:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)

In this one verse, you have an amazing collection of Truths that represent the substance of the gospel. When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial part of the Law was fulfilled in that no sacrifices would ever be needed again to atone for sin because Jesus was God’s one time, sacrifice for sin. You see that in 1 Peter 3:18:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Pet 3:18)

The judicial aspect of the law was the way in which God uniquely dealt with Israel (Lev 26:46; Ps 147:19). It’s in the context of this law that you find the dietary restrictions and instructions pertaining to apparel. But when Israel rejected the Messiah and put Him to death, that was the end of Israel’s distinction as “God’s people” and the beginning of the church which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Hence the abrogation of judicial law, not that it was destroyed but fulfilled in Christ.

Take a look at some of what John MacArthur offers in the way of commentary on this issue:

Look at it this way; this is thrilling. Look at the judicial law and all the various rules that governed the behavior of Israel, all their legal codes, all the things they were supposed to do. Leviticus 26:46, “The statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel.”

God made special laws with Israel. In Psalm 147:19, “He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.” In other words, God had peculiar laws for Israel; this is His judicial law which set them apart. They had certain dietary laws, certail laws of dress, of agriculture, laws within their relationships with certain things they had to do. These set them apart.

You say, “How did Jesus fulfill that?” When Jesus died on the cross, that was the final, full rejection by Israel of her Messiah, right? That was it. And that was the end of God dealing with that nation as a nation. The judicial law that He gave to Israel passed away when God no longer dealt with them as a nation anymore and Jesus built His church. Praise God, someday He will go back and redeem that nation again and deal with them again as a nation. But for this time, when Jesus died on the cross, the judicial law came to a screetching halt. There was no more national people of God. There would be a new man, cut out of Jews and Gentiles, that would be called the church. The judicial law came to an end. That’s why Matthew 21:43 says, “Therefore I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you.” (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

The one aspect of God’s Law that still applies, however, is His moral law. Not that we need to concern ourselves with the penalty that comes when you disobey His moral law, but as far as how it defines what is right and what is wrong – that aspect of God’s moral law is still binding. John MacArthur elaborates on that point when he says:

The same thing is said in Romans 6:14, and we could spend forever on this principle. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law.” What does he mean, that you don’t have to do anything any more? Do you not have to live a moral life or obey God? No! What he means is that you are no longer under the power of the penalty of the law. It can’t kill you anymore; you can only die once. That’s all, only once. Christ died on the Cross, and you, by faith, died in Him. That pays the penalty, so in that sense, you are no longer under the law. That is, the law has no power to slay you. The law had a penalty, the wages of sin is death, and Christ took the penalty. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2211/christ-and-the-law-part-3)

The whole judicial system was only good as long as Israel was God’s people. When that was over, the system was over. The ceremonial system was only good until the final sacrifice came, and when it came, then the system was done away. That only leaves one element of God’s law abiding still, and what is that? The moral law. That’s what undergirded everything. That will be with us until we see Him face to face. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

So to imply that the Old Testament laws which no longer apply to the New Testament church include God’s ruling against homosexuality is neither Biblical let alone logical.

Proceed to Part II by clicking here…

The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part Two: What About Prayer?

July 23, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Muscular Christianity/by Bruce Gust

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 did 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.

Click here to read “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One: FIT.”

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

The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One: FIT

July 22, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Muscular Christianity, Politics/by Bruce Gust

Facts

There are three kinds of “data.” “Facts” “Facts” are accurate statements. Think of them as headlines. For example:

Headline #1: Jesus Rises From the Grave
Headline #2: Pharisees Accuse Christ Followers of Stealing Corpse of Christ

Both of these statements are accurate. While we know Christ did, in fact, rise, the Pharisees also paid the guards that were guarding the tomb a large sum of money to back up the story that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt 28:11-15).

What’s significant is that for someone who’s just glossing over the headlines, the verbiage, albeit very brief, can still shape conclusions for those who don’t take the time to consider the full account.

That leads us to the second category:

Information

“Information” is the “facts” in the context of a limited perspective. A journalist could build a compelling yet misleading article by strategically citing the chief priests, the guards who had been bribed and any one of a number of like minded people.

Can you see the article in your mind’s eye (click here to read “Experts Doubt the Resurrection of Christ” to see an example)?

By steering clear of any testimony that differs from the accounts of the judiciously selected individuals compiled by the hypothetical journalist, you’ve got an article that’s legitimately accurate (facts) and informative (limited perspective). But because the perspective of the article is limited, while there’s nothing directly stated, there is nevertheless an implication that says Christ is dead and unless the reader is inspired to seek out a more comprehensive perspective, assuming he’s even aware that one is available, he’s waking around sporting a very cynical outlook on the first Easter morning.

Information.

Limited perspective.

Finally, the last category of “data” is…

Truth

Truth is an accurate statement that’s been elaborated on in the context of a full perspective. This is the well you want to be drawing your conclusions from. Here is where the right questions are being asked and full disclosure is the norm.

In the absence of “truth,” you risk formulating convictions that are fundamentally flawed. This is why you want to ensure that you’re aggressively and intentionally seeking out the “truth,” and not just the “facts.” You don’t even want to be content with “additional information.” The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Treaty of Tripoli

If you’re familiar with the words of the “Marines Hymn,” then you’re familiar with the phrase, “…the shores of Tripoli.” That phrase refers to the “War with the Barbary Pirates” where Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon lead an exceptionally daring assault as part of the Battle of Dema. Prior to that war President John Adams issued a statement in an effort to assure the radical Muslims that comprised the Barbary Pirates that our country should not be perceived by them as a religious target in that we were not a Christian theocracy. He said:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Most of those who try to take Adams words to mean that he was declaring that the United States was not based on Christian principles are required to leave out some context that is both obvious and crucial. But that is nevertheless the methodology that is often used by the person who has something to hide more so than they have something to say.

Thomas Essel, despite being among those who seemingly do not see God as central to our nation’s founding, wrote a great piece in 2016 entitled, “Secularists, Please Stop Quoting the Treaty of Tripoli” that elaborates on how citing that statement is irresponsible both academically and practically.

Consider this quote from John Adams:

“This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!”

On the surface, you have, what appears to be, a very valid piece of evidence that says our nation’s second President and a founding father was an atheist. Or, at least, a very cynical individual when it came to religion.

John Adams did say it. It’s part of a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson. When you consider the statement in its proper context, you arrive at a much different conclusion:

“Twenty times in the course of my late readings, I have been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!’ But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as [Adams’ former pastor Lemuel] Bryant or [his former teacher Joseph] Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company — I mean hell.”

In other words, Adams is exasperated when he ponders the way in which organized religion has resulted in so much tension. He says, tongue in cheek, that the world would be better without any “religion” in it. But then he’s very quick to say that the world would be, literally, hell on earth. Hardly the musings of a man who views religion with a contemptuous sneer.

Yet, this is the way in which atheists and progressives sometimes frame their “facts” and “information” when it comes to the religious disposition of America’s founding fathers (see also “The Treaty of Tripoli” on sidebar).

Richard Dawkins categorizes John Adams as a cynical deist, to the point of him being used by Dawkins as evidence of a collective disdain for religion shared by virtually all the founding fathers. He quotes Adams as saying:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”¹

But he fails to reference another statement made by Adams:

The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity, let the Blackguard [Thomas] Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man.²

Facts.

Information.

Truth. You want to know the truth, you want to be aware of the facts, but more than anything else, you want to understand the truth.

A Toddler and a 285 Pound Benchpress

As a quick aside, don’t allow yourself to think that being obedient to God’s commands is a laborious drudgery.

It’s not.
When you’ve got the Holy Spirit living in and through you, you’re not flying solo when you’re confronted with a temptation to make compromises (1 Cor 10:13). When the lights aren’t on (aka, the Holy Spirit is not living in you), you’re approaching temptation the same way a toddler approaches a 285 pound bench press. It’s not going to end well.
But when it’s God’s Strength and His Truth that is allowed to animate your actions and your outlook, you now have more than you need to successfully negotiate the challenge that lies before you.

Bear in mind, it’s a choice. You can run the red light and plow head on into traffic if you want and God grants you the freedom to make those decisions (Josh 24:2, 15; Rom 8:12-13). As someone who doesn’t have a relationship with Christ, you don’t have the Spirit of God living in you (Rom 8:9), you’re on your own and you’re that overwhelmed toddler.
But when it’s God’s Spirit being deployed in the context of those situations, it’s one victory after another.

The Book of Proverbs

Scripture admonishes us to do as much. Proverbs 4:7 says:

Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. (Prove 4:7)

And wisdom begins with a reverence for God. That’s the top button.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)

Understand that wisdom, from a biblical standpoint, is more than just knowledge. It’s the “ability to judge correctly and to follow the best course of action, based on knowledge and understanding.”³

While this “ability” is based in part on one’s discipline in the context of academic pursuits, it derives it’s true accuracy and application from an intentional pursuit of God’s Power and Perspective. In short, it’s a Divine Perspective properly applied (1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:29; Jas 1:5-8.

Here, then, is where you see the real distinction between having access to the directions and actually following the directions – the difference between Facts, Information and Truth. Anytime you buy something that requires some assembly, you can gloss over the instructions, believing that your intuition can more than make up for a careful study of the manufacturer’s counsel. More often than not, however, those instructions prove invaluable in being able to put your new resource together correctly. And however prudent it may be to follow the instructions in the assembly of your nephew’s new swing set, it’s absolutely crucial that you follow God’s Instructions when it comes to the whole of life (Jn 14:21; Rom 8:11).

And when you’re listening to people like Richard Dawkins, or people who think like him, use the same technique. Recognize the difference between Facts, Information and Truth.

Don’t let a carefully crafted platform based on an intentionally watered down perspective replace the full perspective and the truly accurate convictions that flow from that approach.

Click here to read “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part Two: What About Prayer?”

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p65
2. John Adams, The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), 3:233-34
3. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, Nashville, TN

My Bride

July 22, 2025/in Current Events, Muscular Christianity, Self-Improvement/by Bruce Gust

When I’m in my car, I like listening to either music or comedy. On occasion, I’ll listen to a podcast of some sort, but generally speaking, I usually want to either groove or laugh.

A lot of the comedians I listen to will poke fun at domesticity – specifically the dynamic that often exists between a man and his wife. For the most part, it’s hysterical. But every now and then, I’ll get a little uncomfortable at the way marriage is portrayed as an institution that robs a man of his masculinity.

The schtick usually revolves around the way a man is prohibited from doing what he wants to do. It may be something trivial or it may be something significant, but in either case the wife is portrayed as an obstacle to her husband’s preferences in terms of how he wants to spend his time and even the way he thinks.

It’s funny because there isn’t a married man who can’t identify with the task of having to occasionally alter his perspective on himself and the world around him in order to preserve the harmony that exists between himself and his bride. But does that qualify as a surrender of one’s hold on what it means to be a “man?”

I don’t think so.

When I took my vows, I promised to honor Michelle. To honor her, I’ve got to be both willing and able to make her perspective a priority. That’s not difficult for a man who’s secure in himself, but it’s a potential dealbreaker to the male who’s determined to remain fundamentally prideful and self absorbed.

That’s not to say my wife is always right, but I will say that I have benefited from my bride’s viewpoint on multiple occasions. I may not have been open to it initially, but because I had been taught that true strength is expressed in the context of humility and a willingness to listen, my situation as well as our collective dynamic, was dramatically improved (Phil 2:3-4).

Much of the literature that’s out there that pertains to leadership emphasizes the importance of character and leading by example. Nowhere is that more important than in the way a man leads his family, which starts with the relationship he has with his wife. There’s no other person on the planet who possesses a more comprehensive view on my strengths as well as those areas where there’s room for improvement than Michelle.

In the same way, there’s no other human being that can breathe life into me as profoundly as she can. The reason she has such complete access to me is because I love her and the reason I listen to her, even when I may be inclined to dismiss what she has to say, is because I choose to honor her above myself. That’s not a compromise of my masculinity, that’s an expression of it.

Who Makes the Rules?

July 21, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Muscular Christianity, Politics/by Bruce Gust

So, here’s what happened: The “Gay Pride” Club at Independence High School built a float that was featured as part of the Homecoming parade that drove around the High School, down 31 and then made a lap around Heritage Elementary and Heritage Middle School.

It’s a big tradition and the Kindergarteners along with the Grade Schoolers are allowed to sit outside and watch what amounts to a big parade coming close enough to where those who are on the floats can throw candy and wave hello. But at one point, two of the individuals on the “Gay Pride” float kissed…

Some saw that and felt an overwhelming sense of disgust and threw a fit. Others saw it as a sign of the times and, while they don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, accept it as a hill that’s not worth dying on because, after all, everyone has the, “…right to be happy.”

You can watch the clip and read the article by clicking here. It’s a volatile discussion, but there’s a key element that often gets overlooked that’s worth considering because in the end, there’s a lot more at stake than a person’s right to be happy. The real question is: Who Makes the Rules?

I) It’s a Strategy

First of all, the manner in which the Homosexual Agenda is advanced is done according to a strategy that’s characteristic of someone who has something to hide more than they have something to say. The moment you hear elements of that strategy being deployed, you can rest assured that what you’re hearing is not meant to champion the truth as much as it’s intended to distract from it.

Typically the Homosexual Activist positions themselves as a victim of a cruel and intolerant society that’s determined to prevent them from being able to exercise their right to be happy. However that may or may not be the case, the fact that you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled as insensitive and inappropriate is a handy tool in the hands of someone who needs to avoid those questions that have the potential to reveal their argument as being weak apart from a controlled collection of polls, pictures and personalities.

In this case, the issue isn’t whether or not the Homosexual has the right to be happy as much as they have the authority to redefine Moral Absolutes. That’s the question on the table. And that’s why it’s necessary to frame the entire conversation around the “victim,” because otherwise it becomes too obvious that there’s a resolve to either manipulate or dismiss the Bible in a way that’s neither accurate let alone appropriate. That’s why characterizing those who have a problem with Homosexuality as being guilty of “fear and hate” can be so effective because now you can divert attention away from what the real issue is: Who Makes the Rules?

click here to watch Frank Peretti’s
“God’s Way or My Way”

II) Who Makes the Rules

You’ve got one of two options: Man or God. Granted, for some, there’s a lot to unpack there. But the point is this: It’s not about a person’s “right to be happy.” You can conceivably assert that as a way to justify almost whatever you want to do. The question is, “Who Makes the Rules?” And while that’s not a question people want to entertain in the context of a Homecoming Parade, that’s the other piece of this that makes this whole campaign so diabolical. By positioning their agenda in the context of something that is traditionally processed as healthy, patriotic or philanthropic, they compel those who would otherwise object to be silent because of the way any criticism will come across as inappropriate given the obvious noble nature of the event. But if the issue isn’t so much about one’s rights as much as it’s about what’s True… …then regardless of the event or the situation, we’re now looking at a completely different issue. Who Makes the Rules?

A) It’s What You Do Believe

However passionate or dogmatic a person may be in insisting that God has no place in a civilized conversation pertaining to morality, it’s not about what you don’t believe… …it’s what you do believe. There is a “god” in this equation – there is someone who’s calling the shots and defining the standard that you deem acceptable. And it’s one of two people. It’s either the God Who created the heavens and the earth and validated His Identity by dying and coming back to life, or… …the person who’s staring back at you in the mirror every morning when you wake up.

B) There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

Atheists want to be perceived as having an impartial approach to the various faiths represented by the American population by insisting on a “religion-less” perspective on morality. But there is no such thing as a “religion-less” approach to anything, let alone morality. From a purely philosophical standpoint, “religion” is the way in which you answer four basic questions:

Origin – how did the universe come to be?
Destiny – what happens when you die?
Morality – how are you supposed to behave while you’re here?
Purpose – what’s the point of your existence?

These are not lofty, theological issues or advanced, philosophical themes that only academic types bother to engage. The way you process yourself and the world around you on a daily basis is based on the way you answer these questions and from that standpoint, you are a “religious” person regardless of how often you go to church, if you go at all. And from that standpoint, there’s no such thing as an atheist. You’re simply your own god – you’ve established yourself as your own religion. So, when you hear critics of Christianity or social activists insist that they represent a more judicious approach to moral issues and social tensions by removing the Bible from the conversation, they’re not leveling the playing field as much as they’re giving priority to that “religious” school of thought that establishes the individual as his own deity.

C) Not All Religions are the Same

And before you allow yourself to think that there is more than one “god” to choose from, bear in mind that Christianity is the only faith where man cannot facilitate his own salvation let alone merit the favor of his chosen deity. Every other religion, be it Islam where you’ve got the option of Jihad, or as a Buddhist you have the pursuit of Nirvana or as a Hindu, you have Moksha – every other doctrine, save what’s represented by the gospel, positions the individual as the one who can achieve their own redemption. In other words, you don’t need a god to achieve the highest good or obtain a perfect existence. You can rise above the limitations of humanity simply by being, “better.” Christ, on the other hand, says there’s no amount of noble activity or disciplined sacrifice that can alter the fact that your capacity to sin translates to a perpetual willingness to rebel against the One Who created you to begin with. Solomon says as much in Ecclesiastes 7:20:

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. (Ecc 7:20)

And Paul reiterates the same thing in Romans 3:10-18:

¹⁰As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; ¹¹there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. ¹²All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” ¹³“Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” ¹⁴“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” ¹⁵“Their feet are swift to shed blood; ¹⁶ ruin and misery mark their ways, ¹⁷and the way of peace they do not know.” ¹⁸ “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

In short, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1-7) and it’s God and God alone that makes you alive. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary (Jn 6:65).

D) There is No Comparison

So, no, not every religion is the same and although a person can sound articulate and even compelling as they elaborate on what it is that they don’t believe, it’s when they start elaborating on what they do believe in that the temporary and relative dynamics they they subscribe to are revealed as the veiled attempt to make mathematical absurdities, philosophical train wrecks and moral disasters sound fulfilling. Not only is not fulfilling, it isn’t even logical.

But you can’t expect anything more from a spiritual paradigm based on the limited and corrupt perspective that defines the human condition. On one hand, I have the option of believing I’m a lucky accident desperately trying to explain and validate my existence before my expiration date…

or…

I’ve been created with a purpose by an all-Powerful God Who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself in order to ensure a life that’s worth living.

There is no comparison.

I’ll take the option that defines me as an intentional creation that doesn’t depend on a human mechanism to grant me meaning, value and love.

III) Breakdown and Conclusion

So, while on the surface this issue appears to be whether or not a certain people group has the right to be happy, the real issue is whether or not they have the Authority to redefine Moral Absolutes.

Initially, that response doesn’t work because Moral Absolutes do not exist in the minds of those who maintain themselves as their own bottom line and to try and convince them otherwise is virtually impossible because of the way they frame their argument in the context of a victim. You can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain, let alone the person who’s trying to help without immediately be labeled as cruel and intolerant which gives the Homosexual Activist the ability to champion their platform without ever having to substantiate it.

But in order for your argument to resonate as compelling, you have to be able to base your reasoning on something other than personal preferences because if you don’t believe in God and the Moral Absolutes that He has established, then you’ve replaced every bottom line you would use to validate your perspective with a temporary and transient commodity that has no credibility apart from whatever substance you assign to it.

That may sound reasonable, but if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is therefore inconclusive. In short, you don’t have an argument, only a preferred alternative rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself it’s own philosophical foundation. And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

The Homosexual Platform is not a demand for equal rights or an innocent desire to simply be happy as much as it’s an instance of an individual going up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and telling Him to get out of their chair. They’re basically asserting themselves as the answer to the question, “Who makes the rules?” And when they do that, they’re ignoring what God has said, Who God is and who we are in relation to Him.

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

July 19, 2025/in Current Events, Discipleship, Politics, White House/by Bruce Gust

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences	Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists.	Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are.	I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with.	As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live.	It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast.	Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around.	I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you.	Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

³³ as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

In God We Trust

July 3, 2025/in Current Events, Muscular Christianity/by Bruce Gust

“In God We Trust.”

Some people have a real hard time with that.

More often than not, they’re the same people who want to cancel July 4th this year.

Thing is, if you line up the Declaration of Independence, the recent elimination of Iran’s Nuclear capability, and Alligator Alcatraz, the one common thread that you see is the reality of a Standard.

Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity are to be immediately deported, and our rights are guaranteed by God and not the disposition of a court.

Anything or anyone who promotes the idea of a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is not welcome in mind of someone who wants to see themselves as their own bottom line. Religious sounding mottos and historical documents are fine right up until the point where it threatens a person’s resolve to eliminate the reality of Principles in favor of Preferences.

But that’s not the paradigm we’re based on and Freedom doesn’t mean you get to use your “rights” as weapons you use to get your way as much as you value them as gifts God gives you to guard your way.

In God We Trust.

Happy 4th of July!

Division

June 14, 2025/in Current Events, Muscular Christianity, Politics/by Bruce Gust

People who complain about Division fall into one of two categories.

Those who focus on the presence of tension.
Those who focus on the absence of truth.

People who lament the presence of tension don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated. By pretending to be in pain, they don’t have to prove that they’re right because you can’t criticize or correct someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So, instead of focusing on what’s causing the division, as far as determining who’s right and who’s wrong, the truth is discarded in favor of simply insisting that we all just need to get along and silencing those who dare to assert the reality of a bottom line.

The Bible says…

¹⁷ In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. ¹⁸ In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. ¹⁹ No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:17-19)

You don’t resolve a dispute by pretending it doesn’t exist. Nor do you solve a moral dilemma by suggesting that there are no principles only preferences.

You don’t use legal sounding verbiage to validate a lie. Rather, you use the power of truth to enforce the law.

But those who are a law unto themselves will insist that there are no standards, only situations. They need a toxic and nonsensical environment in order to maintain the idea that they are accountable to no one other than themselves. In order to distract attention from the moral and practical ruin that inevitably occurs, they position themselves as victims of an oppressive society and they call it…

…division.