How Heavenly Wrath Becomes Historical Record

Politics does little to shape culture. Rather, politics reflects culture. Political trends represent ideas and norms that are already entrenched in the consciousness of the people. If this is right, then the current discussion in the political realm about a supposed homosexual right to marry is frightening. To illustrate the prevalence of the discussion in the political sphere, one only needs to consider the fact that four states have already begun issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples (Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont). California would be included in that list, but voters approved a constitutional amendment in November (Proposition 8) which overturned the supreme court ruling that had effectively legalized gay marriage in that state. Maine has also legalized gay marriage, but they cannot issue licenses pending an opportunity for a “people’s veto” by popular vote. The debate is currently centered in Washington D.C. where the city council is set to legalize the practice. For the measure to be finalized there, it would have to be approved by congress, a step which will probably meet little resistance. On the other hand, twenty-nine states have voted to approve constitutional amendments which specifically ban homosexual marriage by defining marriage in strictly heterosexual terms. Though it is not the most popular item in televised speeches and is often dodged by politicians on the campaign trail, the debate over the validity of homosexual marriage looms large on the political landscape, which means that that it looms even larger in the cultural consciousness of the nation.

Many have taken the time to articulate the necessity of stopping what appears to be an inevitable trend. Many have organized massive political lobbying and voter information efforts in an attempt to stay the alarming trend of legalizing homosexual marriage. However, fewer people, it seems, have been as articulate about what it means for the nation that such a trend is even present and that such strategies to stop it are even necessary.

The Scriptures do not equivocate on the issue of homosexuality. It is presented as base, immoral, unnatural, and worthy of the judgment of God. Of the texts which address the issue of homosexuality directly, Romans 1:18-32 is probably the most penetrating in its analysis, especially with respect to the significance of homosexual behavior in understanding the condition of any culture in the eyes of God. In this passage, the apostle Paul scathingly denounces all human society as being subject to the wrath of God on account of unrighteousness and ungodliness (1:18). He then outlines the course that all human society will inevitably follow, a course which leads to the manifestation in history of the wrath of God that is being stored up in heaven.

The fundamental flaw of human society after the Fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden is his pervasively idolatrous heart. Even though man has the revelation of the wisdom and power of God, which is evidenced through the created order, mankind refuses to worship God as God. Instead, man exchanges “the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man… They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (1:23, 25). Idolatry is the national religion of any people because nations are made up of men with fallen and idolatrous hearts.

After establishing idolatry as the basis for the wrath of God which is being stored up in heaven, Paul outlines the course that idolatrous societies (all human society) will inevitably follow. Step 1: Rank sexual immorality manifests itself openly and proudly (v. 24 – Because Paul does not specify homosexuality in v. 24, I conclude that he has in mind heterosexual immorality here.). Step 2: Homosexual behavior becomes more and more commonplace (vv. 26-27). Step 3: The manifestation of depravity so pervades the culture as to become self-destructive to the very fabric of society. The ethical and moral principles, which serve to preserve life and law in human society, erode away (vv. 28-32).

The typical alarm that is sounded after a reading of this passage goes something like this: “Look at American culture. We are following this path. The judgment of God is going to come if things do not change, if America does not repent.” While I agree with the general sentiment of such an alarm, I think it misses the mark at a very critical point. Paul does not exactly say that rank sexual immorality (of a hetero- or homosexual nature) invites the judgment of God. Rather, Paul says that because of the rampant idolatry that is prevalent in society, God gave them over to heterosexual immorality (v. 24). God gave them over to homosexual immorality (vv. 26-27). God gave them over to self-destructive lawlessness (vv. 28-32). Do you see the difference? The moral failure, sexual and otherwise, which plagues human society, is the judgment of God, not merely a sign suggesting that the judgment is coming. This manifestation of the wrath of God is a passive act of judgment. God, in his mercy, often restrains the expression of immorality among men for the preservation of life and to extend the opportunity for repentance and salvation for all who will believe the gospel. But as the idolatrous tendencies of any society manifest themselves, this restraining mercy of God is gradually removed, allowing the society to destroy itself with the pursuit of its own lusts.

In a dramatic twist of irony, the moral atrocities of American culture have become the silent prophets of God, pointing their long fingers and declaring, “Thus says the LORD, my wrath is being revealed from heaven.” The multi-billion dollar pornography industry is a prophet declaring the wrath of God upon us. The gay man kissing his groom at the altar is a prophet declaring the wrath of God upon us. The fabric of society is coming unraveled because, by the removal of his restraints, the Divine Judge is unraveling it.

But doesn’t the wrath of God ever manifest itself actively, rather than just passively? Certainly it does, and the famous case of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when considered against the backdrop of Romans 1:18-32, may give us some insight here. According to Genesis 18-19, these two cities were characterized by homosexual behavior to the extent that “the men of the city… all the people from every quarter” were homosexual rapists, as they wished to have their way with the two visitors to Lot’s house (Gen. 19:4). We are not given any information about the history of Sodom and Gomorrah. Nevertheless, if Romans 1:18-32 indicates a universal pattern for human society, we can safely conclude that the rampant homosexuality of the two cities did not occur in a vacuum. How long had these societies existed? How long ago had the “sexual revolution” occurred in Sodom? How long ago had marriage licenses begun to be issued? We can only speculate. But one thing is certain, the wrath of God, which initially manifests itself passively eventually manifested itself actively in the violent destruction of these two cities.

As we observe the moral decay of American culture, we are witnesses to the wrath of God becoming the record of history. How long will the wrath be only passively manifest? We can only speculate. But one thing is certain: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18). “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man (or a society) sows, this will he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Though patient toward men, extending the time until the active demonstration of his wrath so that some might repent, God is just. And the day will certainly come when (as with other nations who have gone before us) the wrath of God renders our nation as nothing more than the record of history.

When "Biblical" Theology is Bad Theology

Of course, the word “biblical” is in quotes on purpose. If by the word, biblical, we mean “consistent with the message of Scripture,” then biblical theology is never bad theology. But if by the word, “biblical”, we simply mean that we derived the theology out of the pages of the Bible, then “biblical” theology may very well be bad theology.

The book of Ecclesiastes forms a perfect example of how one could draw some really bad theological conclusions from the text of the Bible itself. The writer of Ecclesiastes (probably Solomon), is an extraordinarily intelligent and wise man. He has very keen powers of observation, and he writes much that resonates with us based on his own observations of life in a fallen world. Nevertheless, the book of Ecclesiastes (unlike Proverbs) does not present us with the wisdom of King Solomon at its finest, but at its worst. For all of his depth of wisdom, Solomon’s thoughts and reflections led him to declare at the outset of the book: “Vanity of vanities; All is vanity” (1:2). In other words, careful and penetrating observations of the world around him have led him to the inevitable conclusion that life is meaningless. He uses the word “vanity” (meaninglessness) or “futility” no less than 30 times throughout the book to describe life. And by the end of Solomon’s reflections, we find that his view of ultimate meaning has not changed. Solomon ends the way he began: “Vanity of vanities; All is vanity” (12:8).

If a reader immerses himself in the text of Ecclesiastes 1:1 – 12:8, looking to form his theology from the text of Scripture, then he might arrive at the following theological conclusions along with King Solomon:

1. Death is the final chapter in the most ultimate sense. Man and beast face the same ultimate fate. The wicked and the righteous face the same ultimate fate. Therefore, the best way to approach life is to live for the moment: Eat, drink, and be merry. The pleasures of this life are the closest thing to reward we will ever achieve. (Eccl. 9:1-10)
   
   

2. God is real, but he is elusive. His workings in the world are such that he keeps men in the dark. He does not wish for us to discover any meaning to life. (Eccl. 3:10-18)
   
   

3. The people whom God really favors are the ones who never ask the deep questions of life. Such people are able to think that their efforts actually mean something. So, simplicity of mind, which keeps a man from discovering the truth, is the real gift of God. (Eccl. 1:13, cf. Eccl. 2:24)

I will not take the time to correct these theological conclusions. It is enough to say that all of them are drawn from the text of Ecclesiastes. The great problem here is that the whole book of Ecclesiastes (and its message of meaningless) finds meaning in the closing paragraph. In this paragraph someone other than Solomon (note the shift to the third-person voice) warns against Solomon’s conclusions and advises a very different conclusion: "Fear God and keep his commandments" (Eccl. 12:13). Many have remarked that while Solomon’s observations are all drawn from “under the sun,” the last paragraph of Ecclesiastes advises us to get “over the sun.” The point here is this. If we are not careful readers who give careful attention to context and the overall flow of discourse, we can very easily derive bad theology from biblical texts.

Not very many evangelical Christians arrive at the conclusions listed above after reading the book of Ecclesiastes. Nevertheless, many other more subtle conclusions have been drawn from a careless reading of the biblical text:

1. God wants me to be happy (Psalm 128:2; Eccl. 3:22). So, it’s OK for me to (fill in the blank) .
   
   

2. God loves me (John 3:16). So, when trouble comes into my life, it must not be from God but from the world or the devil.
   
   
3. God forgives sin and forgets it (Hebrews 8:12). So, even if I do this thing, it will be OK as long as I ask forgiveness later.
   
   
4. God is love (1 John 4:8). So, he would never send anyone to hell.

Do you see how “biblical” theology can be bad theology? The following suggestions might help us all avoid the ditch of "biblical" theology that is bad theology:

1. Read the Bible the way it was written. Remember, verses are a part of chapters. Chapters are a part of whole books. The chapters and verses were not there originally, and the books were meant to be read and understood as a whole.
   
   
2. Beware of devotional tools that pay no heed to context. Many devotional desktop calendars, “Open Windows” articles, etc. abuse the Scriptures by ignoring context. And reading them regularly conditions us to do the same in our own reading of the Bible.
   
   
3. If you are a preacher, preach expositionally. Take on large portions of Scripture and dedicate series’ of sermons to cover it. It is preferable to preach through whole books as a rule of thumb. Over time this will teach your congregation the importance of context and the right way to arrive at meaning.

Let’s make sure our theology is biblical and not just “biblical.”

Enslaved to the Gospel of Liberty

I had the honor of preaching the sermon for the annual meeting of the Central Association of Kentucky Baptists yesterday. I chose a text that was very formative in my own understanding of God's calling on my life as a minister of the gospel. As I began to study the text again, the effect on me was profound. I was challenged, encouraged, and reminded of many things that have been and will be of great value to me in the ministry.

If you are called to gospel ministry, then I hope this message will be used by the Spirit of God to convict you as he used the text to convict me. May our ministries reflect that of the apostle Paul. If you are a layperson, there is application for you too. All of us are called of Jesus Christ to be a witness with the gospel. The principles of gospel ministry should apply in many ways to your own gospel witness with family, friends, co-workers, and the rest of the watching world.

1 Thessalonians 2:1-4 -- Enslaved to the Gospel of Liberty

** Clicking the link will open the audio message in your default media player. If you wish to download the message, right click on it and choose "save target as" (Internet Explorer) or "save link as" (Firefox).**

The Vine

This poem is a meditation on Isaiah 5:1-7 and John 15:1-8. I wrote it a little over a year ago. I hope it moves your heart to worship Him who is the fruitful Vine.

The Vine

Soil tilled an turned, stones and weeds removed
A tender vine is planted, the object of His love.
Painstaking, careful skill, the Vinedresser has shown;
Of all the plants that fill the soil, he calls the vine his own

Cultivated though it was, the vine could not produce
Any sweet and pleasing fruit for the Master's use.
In wrath, the Master cut it down, the vine he loved so well;
Let the reader understand. The fruitless vine is Israel.

Though circumstances be the best and privileges abound,
Upon the branch of a rotten vine, no fruit will e'er be found.
The efforts of the Vinedresser are faulted none at all;
Within the planted vine itself is located the flaw.

The sap of poison courses through the vine and all its parts;
Sin's the poison and the vine is every human heart.
Human effort, at its best, can only fruitless be;
Let the reader understand. The fruitless vine is me.

Soil tilled and turned, stones and weeds removed,
A tender Vine is planted, the Son of eternal love.
The sap of sin courses not within this Vine at all;
Within this choice and precious Vine is located no flaw.

Branches who abide in Him are used to make the wine
Which alone brings pleasure to the Keeper of the Vine.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, will ever-fruitful be;
Let the reader understand. The fruitful Vine is He.

Friendly Debate, Important Issue

Few issues in theology have more personal and practical implications than the doctrine of divine providence (what the Bible teaches about the nature of God's control over the world). And yet few issues in theology are more difficult to comprehend.

I was recently asked by one of my closest friends (and the youth pastor at our church), Kris Foster, how I would respond to a certain article about the nature of God's control over the world. The article in question can be read here.

I responded to the article, sending my thoughts to Kris. I encouraged him to post a response to the article because he knew the man who wrote it. Using my critique of the article and adding some insight of his own, Kris composed a reply and posted it here.

If this subject is of interest to you, you might benefit from reading the original article along with mine and Kris's response. There are some comments under our response that continue the discussion a bit as well. Read, think, enjoy, worship. It's a tough subject. At the end of the day, let God be true though every man a liar!

A Modern Day Molech and the Dilemma of Unused Frozen Embryos

The worship of the Ammonite god Molech was probably the most grotesque and offensive of all the pagan practices in the land of Canaan prior to Israel’s presence there. Sadly, as Moses had warned (Lev. 20:1-5), the customs of Molech worship did not come to an end when the people of Israel conquered the land. Rather, the nation (Judah in particular) took up the detestable custom in the valley of Hinnom, located to the southwest of the city of Jerusalem.

Molech worship involved the sacrifice of one’s children as a burnt offering on an altar called Topheth. The Scriptures refer to the practice as making sons and daughters “pass through the fire.” King Solomon built altars to Molech, though it is not stated that he offered any of his children on them. King Ahaz did offer his son to Molech, and his grandson, Manasseh, followed suit. The logic of this form of worship seems quite simple. As a sign of gratitude to the deity, a worshipper is to offer his best in return. Molech gave his best to the worshipper, and the worshipper gives his best to Molech.

Of course, there are many reasons that Molech worship is seen as a treacherous offense in the Bible’s discourse, but two reasons in particular stand out for this discussion:

1. Gratitude to Molech is ingratitude to God.The children being offered to Molech were given as a gift and stewardship from Yahweh, not Molech (Psalm 127:3). What was perceived by Molech worshippers as the supreme sign of gratitude was perceived by Yahweh as the supreme sign of ingratitude.
2. Misplaced gratitude and worship serves the purposes of Satan. Though biblical Christians will understand that the so-called god “Molech” is a non-god, we should also recognize that there was a very real “deity” who was delighting in these human sacrifices. The serpent of old, the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) was indeed the delighted deity who loved to see both the worship and the children which belonged to Yahweh being offered instead to him.

Parenting: Early Years Magazine recently published an article entitled “Frozen Dreams” (August 2009). The headline reads: “There are nearly half a million embryos stored across the country – and the couples who created them now wrestle with the options of what to do next.” In the article, Laura Beil discusses the options available to such couples. Three options are presented in the article:

1. Donate to other infertile couples.
2. Donate to medical research.
3. Thawing without donating.

Not discussed separately as an option, but discussed throughout the article is a fourth choice: Have more children, personally or through a surrogate.

Bear in mind that frozen embryos are fertilized eggs. Conception has occurred, even if in a test tube, and if given a suitable womb, that embryo will one day have a name and a face. For a consistent pro-life Christian who is convinced (as I am) that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13), either #1 above or the choice to have more children are legitimate options. Thawing without donating (#3) seems to be the easiest one to rule out (for the pro-lifer). But what about option #2? Is donation to medical research (embryonic stem cell research) a true “middle ground,” as Beil says some couples suggest?

Stephanie Smith and her husband are presented as a pro-life couple with “religious convictions.” They considered donating to another infertile couple. “The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became,” says Beil. “She didn’t know if she’d ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers.” Stephanie and her husband resolved their dilemma by donating the embryos to medical research, an act which they considered “a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams” (emphasis added). There are many couples like Stephanie and her husband who are comforted by donating to science, even though they know the embryos will not survive. Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of Duke University says that such couples “feel like they were helped by science and they want to give back” (emphasis added).

Such a trend ought to make the blood of every Christian run cold. To whom is gratitude being offered? To the science which provided the gift of children. What is the expression of gratitude? The offering of the rest of the children.

The name Molech may not be invoked, and formal worship procedures may not be followed. Nevertheless, gratitude is here misplaced. One wonders if the God who grants children as a gift (Psalm 127:3) does not perceive the so-called supreme act of gratitude to science as the supreme act of ingratitude to Himself. One also has to wonder if that same beguiling serpent is not just as delighted in the sacrifice made in the laboratory test tube as in the sacrifice made on Topheth in the valley of Hinnom. After all, whether the gratitude and the children are seen to belong to Molech or science, the chief end of Satan is simply that such not be seen as belonging to Yahweh.

Why Am I Creating a Blog?

I just watched a video suggesting that there are over 70 million blogs on the web. And there are roughly 120,000 being created on a daily basis. What could I possibly contribute to this massive world called the blogosphere? Probably not much on any kind of a grand scale. Nevertheless, here's my list of reasons for starting this blog:

1. My wife really wants me to. And I'm sure that she is representative of countless others who are just drooling to hear my regular insights into the matters of life.
2. Some things just don't make it into the sermon. As a pastor, there are many thoughts and ideas that occur to me through social interactions, reading, family life, and sermon preparation that I am never able to articulate in a sermon. I would love to share many of these thoughts with my congregation, and a blog gives me the opportunity to do so.
3. Ideas are better formed when they are written out. On many occasions, I have formed some rough ideas on a given subject (theological, political, church polity, family, sports, etc.) only to have the ideas vaporize because I never took the time to develop them.
4. To take a position on some important issues. Some issues are really important but easy to ignore. Keeping up with a blog will give me the chance to develop my thoughts of some of these issues, which I might otherwise ignore because I feel I'm too busy.
5. To answer questions. Sometimes people ask me questions which require more than just a short answer, or which I am simply not prepared to answer immediately. Blogging affords the opportunity to address such questions in a more satisfactory way. And chances are, if one guy is willing to ask the question, many others would probably benefit from a responsible answer.
6. Abraham Piper told me to.

I hope to update this blog on at least a weekly basis. See you next week!