TRUSTING IS REMEMBERING

Why do we sometimes find it so hard to trust in the Lord? I have been struggling lately with the fact that bad things happen to good Christians. We often become martyrs. How then can I trust the Lord with my comparatively little worries, when I read about Christians who are forced to convert or into sex slavery?

The Psalmist, King David, was also confronted with such enemies:

• Turn, O Lord, deliver my life; save me for the sake of your steadfast love...I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears; I drench my couch with my weeping. My eye wastes away because of grief; it grows weak because of all my foes. (Psalms 6:4, 6-7 ESV)

However, David then expressed hope and the certainty of his deliverance:

• Depart from me, all you workers of evil, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping. The Lord has heard my plea; the Lord accepts my prayer. All my enemies shall be ashamed and greatly troubled; they shall turn back and be put to shame in a moment. (Psalms 6:8-10)

How did he know that the Lord had heard his prayer? In other Psalms, we read:

• I will remember the deeds of the Lord; yes, I will remember your wonders of old. I will ponder all your work, and meditate on your mighty deeds. (Psalms 77:11-12)

• Seek the Lord and his strength; seek his presence continually! Remember the wondrous works that he has done, his miracles, and the judgments he uttered. (Psalms 105:4-5)

David also practiced remembering what the Lord had done for him:

• For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has made me sit in darkness like those long dead. Therefore my spirit faints within me; my heart within me is appalled. I remember the days of old; I meditate on all that you have done; I ponder the work of your hands. I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land...And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant. (Psalms 143:3-6, 12)

After remembering, David re-asserted his faith in the Lord. This is where he would take his stand. This is also where I am learning to stand, “for I am your servant.”

I still don’t understand why it seems that He had let down others - those who were killed or who had committed suicide. Perhaps it was merciful, or perhaps the Lord had given them the grace to endure the ordeal. 

I don’t know, but I do know what He has done for me, and I know the promises of deliverance He has given to all His children (1 Corinthians 10:13).

I would like to walk in the confidence of complete understanding. However, He will only allow me to proceed in the assurance of the faith, a faith that will not allow me to take my eyes off Him.

IF EVOLUTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE, THEN ANYTHING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE

I am regarded as hateful and accused of dividing the Body of Christ. Why? I have been waging an ongoing battle against the theory of evolution (ToE). I am not at war against micro-evolution. Everyone believes in change-over-time. Just look at breeding and the deterioration of the human genome!

Instead, my sights are on macro-evolution, the grand alleged inter-species changes that contradict the Biblical creation account. I would like to propose that once we make room for ToE, we have also created enough room for any unbiblical teaching. This development has also plunged large segments of the Church into Biblical uncertainty. Thus, my tiny campaign!

How does the belief in ToE condemn the Church to agnosticism? Well, let’s first look at how the theistic or “Christian” evolutionist (CE) have carved out room for ToE. They have removed any basis for any contradiction between their theory and the Biblical account. How? They have declared that Genesis 1-11 is not a matter of history but merely of myth and metaphor. Consequently, if these chapters are just a metaphor about a spiritual reality and not also history, puff – any possible contradiction evaporates into a mist of uncertainty about what actually is being taught.

For instance, we are left in uncertainty about why God had been angry with Cain who had killed his brother Abel. Why? Well, according to the ToE, God had brought forth the various species through the bloody and deceptive survival-of-the-fittest. If this is so, how could God find fault with Cain, who had merely been following in His footsteps, when he killed his brother? Perhaps God has a double-standard – what is good for God was not good for Cain, the survivor and fitter of the two brothers? Perhaps, God might even be an arbitrary sadist wanting to confuse His human subjects? After all, it was He who had introduced sin and death and not human rebellion (Genesis 3). Perhaps then He derives a secret joy from sin and death?

If the ToE is true, then confusion and uncertainty will reign at every turn. The Apostle Peter had preached:

·       [Christ] whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. (Acts 3:21 ESV)

How do we understand the promise of the prophets about God “restoring all…things” at Christ’s return? Will restoration mean that we will find ourselves in Edenic joy and beauty? Not at all! According to the ToE, restoration would mean that we would be restored to a condition where sin and death reigned.

Besides, the entire Biblical revelation is committed to the assertion that sin and death resulted from man’s rebellion against the Word of God. The fault lies with us and not with God! However, according to the ToE, sin and death had been a direct product of God’s “glorious” design. Such a foundational confusion sows confusion and instability throughout the entire theological structure – the nature of God and the entire Biblical revelation.

Besides, if Genesis 1-11 is myth, why not also the rest of the Bible? If the genealogy of Genesis 5 is non-historical myth, why not also the genealogy of Jesus, which partakes of the Genesis 5 genealogy? It gets even worse. If Genesis 1-11 is myth or metaphor, then the CE should expect that all of the NT references to these chapters should acknowledge that they are exclusively myth or metaphor. However, they consistently acknowledge that they are history, even if they do contain metaphorical elements.

Let me illustrate. When Jesus was asked about the permissibility of divorce, He based His answer on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, on what God had historically accomplished:

·       He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Genesis 1:26-27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

According to Jesus, God had actually and historically created Adam and Eve and joined them together as “one flesh.” Therefore, divorce was sinful because it violated the pattern that God had historically established. However, if these two chapters didn’t reflect God’s historical work, then there would be no violation of the pattern God had established. Consequently, divorce might be permissible.

If interpretation is not grounded in actual history, then it is unrestrained and can take almost any form. The sky is the limit. Consequently, perhaps divorce is allowable when we simply fail to experience oneness. Or perhaps the ideal of oneness it meant to define all relationships?

Let me illustrate with another example. Paul had argued for distinctive sexual roles based upon historical events:

·       For Adam was formed first, then Eve [Genesis 2]; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor [Genesis 3]. (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

Although Paul argued that these events (also the pain and threat of bearing children; Tim. 2:15) are historical, the CEs regard them as strictly metaphorical. Consequently, God did not curse the world, and the Fall never was (contra Gen. 3). How then do the CEs interpret these passage? They are agnostic. Some simply claim that Paul, influenced as he must have been by his culture, was misogynistic. Others claim that he was merely pandering to his culture and the myths that they wrongly believed.

Without the historical bedrock, solid and assured interpretations cannot be drawn. Without the history of the Cross, we cannot derive a theology of the Cross. We can no longer maintain that we are now free from our sins because Christ historically and actually died for them. There are many examples of this principle in the Genesis accounts. Based upon God’s actual and historical past judgments, Peter argued that the promised future judgment would also be actual:

·       For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;  if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)

If these historical judgments had not actually happened, there is no reason that the future judgment would also be actual. However, Peter claimed that these prior judgments had been a matter of actual history. Therefore, the promised future judgment would also be actual and not a metaphor for something else. If the world had been destroyed during the worldwide flood, then there will also be a future destruction.

However, if these events never took place, then a final judgment will also not take place. Then what interpretation can we take away from Peter’s warning? Who knows! Perhaps it was merely a scare tactic? In any event, we are left with Biblical agnosticism, a  slide into uncertainty regarding the teachings of the entire Bible.

Am I exaggerating the effects of the ToE upon the Church? I don’t think so. My many dialogues with CEs have shown me:

·       They don’t know Scripture very well; nor have they derived a systematic worldview based upon the Scriptures, with the exception of those top scholars designated to sell the ToE to the Church.

·       They are always cautioning me that we have to be humble about our interpretation of the Scriptures. Why? Because they are uncertain about them! I only wish that they would be equally humble about the ToE.

·       Their views are almost indistinguishable from the professional or university communities to which they belong. Why? Being agnostic about the teachings of Scripture, they have no defenses against the surrounding worldviews and the pressures for peer acceptance.

After some dialogue, it is usual for the CE to become highly defensive and accuse me of judging them and dividing the Body of Christ. However, the division is already there. I just pray that they might become aware of it and how it is separating them from God and His Word.

HOW FAR SHOULD A PASTOR GO TO MAKE HIS CHURCH APPEALING TO SEEKERS?

Many pastors reason that in order to attract seekers and to make the Gospel appealing to them, the “offensive” parts of the Bible have to be quarantined from sight or even eliminated. This cornerstone of the seeker-sensitive movement is pragmatically derived through a cost/benefit analysis, and it often works, at least in terms of numbers. Consequently, this has become the strategy of choice for many:

·       North Point Community Church Senior Pastor Andy Stanley has stated that Christians need to "unhitch" the Old Testament from their faith. In the final part of a recent sermon series, Stanley explained that while he believes that the Old Testament is "divinely inspired," it should not be "the go-to source regarding any behavior in the church." (Michael Gryboski, “Christians Must 'Unhitch' Old Testament From Their Faith, Says Andy Stanley,” Christian Post, 5/9/18)

Stanley is explicit about his use of this strategy:

·       "[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scripture”

What does Stanley mean by “unhitch?” Evidently, he means that any of the “regulations of the Jewish scriptures” can be safely discarded, at least any not specifically mentioned by the NT – pedophilia, incest, and bestiality.

How does Stanley justify this radical stance, especially in light of the fact that the Apostle Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed” and is still useful for

“correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)?

·       “Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well…we must not make it difficult for those Gentiles who are turning to God."

It is true that Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, but many of its requirements are more than temporary shadows or symbols of what was to come (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1-9). Many of its laws and teachings remain in place, because they are not mere symbols but realities, like “Thou shall not kill” or “Thou shall not commit adultery.” In fact, the NT quotes the Old hundreds of times, proving that Jesus and His Apostles still regarded them as normatively relevant.

However, Stanley believes that by setting aside the OT, this “stumbling block” is removed and the Gospel’s light will be seen more persuasively:

·       "It's liberating for men and women who are drawn to the simple message that God loves you so much He sent His Son to pave the way to a relationship with you…It's liberating for people who need and understand grace, who need and understand forgiveness. And it's liberating for people who find it virtually impossible to embrace the dynamic, the worldview, and the values system depicted in the story of Ancient Israel."

However, it didn’t seem as if Jesus thought that unhinging the OT from the NT was liberating. Instead, He was teaching that God’s Word has to come first. When tempted by the devil, He answered:

·       “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4; quoting Deuteronomy 8)

Although there are many honest differences of opinion about how we are to make use of the OT, the principle that God’s Word must take precedence over all else has been thoroughly retained by the NT (John 14:15; 21-24; 15:7-14; 1 John 5:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This leads us to the central issue of the seeker-sensitive debate: “What must take priority – cost/benefit considerations or fidelity to the Word of God?” What is it that God wants from us? Another way to put it: “Is there one command that must take precedence over all others?”

·       “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

The second is not only secondary, it is also dependent upon our performance of the first:

·       By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 5:2-3)

To love the children of God is to first love and perform the commandments of their Father. It is not to pragmatically decide that they need something more than the totality of Scripture. It is also to prevent any socially-conditioned doctrine of compassion to reign over the Gospel (2 Corinthians 10:4-5), which says, “We need to put aside the OT because it gets in the way of seekers.”

Paul claimed that he was free from any guilt because he had not withheld any of the Word of God:

·       Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:26-27)

This doesn’t mean that we cannot lead with the Good News. However, the Good News is not the Good News without the perhaps off-putting bad news of our well-deserved condemnation.

“Well, who can argue against the observable results of the seeker-sensitive movement?” God can.

MOIRA GREYLAND AND THE INTOLERANT RELIGION OF PROMISCUITY

Why the hatred of religion, especially among the celebrities? I haven’t fact-checked this list of quotes that I’ve hijacked from my Timeline. However, even if these celebs never uttered such words, from the little I know about them, they would have proudly embraced their message:

·       “From my point of view I would ban religion completely. . . The reality is that organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.” (Elton John)

·       “Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world . . . It’s what separates people. One religion just represents fragments, it causes war.” (Gwyneth Paltrow)

·       “Religion is the worst enemy of mankind. No single war in the history of humanity has killed as many people as religion has.” (Bill Murray)

·       “Religion must die for mankind to live. . . We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion.” (Bill Maher)

·       “Religion has caused more harm than any other idea since the beginning of time. There’s nothing good I can say about it.” (Larry Flynt)

Here is one thing that these alleged pundits fail to see. They too are expressing religious, value-laden sentiments. They might deny the existence of God, but they have their own religion, their own Highest Power, even if it is only themselves. In any event, they are embodiments of the very intolerance that they damn.

What has made them so intolerant? In “The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon,”

Moira Greyland described her traumatic life having grown up the daughter of famous homosexual parents in a pro-homosexual culture. Her father was also a pedophile who molested his three children with the consent of his wife, against whom Greyland pressed charges in 2014:

·       In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-daughter-of-famed-sci-fi-author-explains-mothers-gay-pedophile-wo

Greyland had confided that of her two brothers, one is dead and the other lingers near death, although he is only in his 50s. She has seen the broad wasteland of sexual destruction and believes that it is her duty to expose it:

·       Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

Greyland claims that the homosexual justifies this evil with the rationalization that the youth they seduce and imprint are actually gay:

·       This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

According to Greyland, the occult is highly esteemed as a useful tool to serve their sexual appetites:

·       Being impressed with or claiming psychic powers was just another way for strong personalities to manipulate weaker ones.  “I am A Heap Big Powerful Psychic Magic Person” really meant “I am stronger, smarter and more powerful than you.  I am Alpha, and I therefore have sexual privilege, and you will obey me.”

Paganism has also been embraced by the promiscuous culture, justifying the belief that what is regarded as evil is really good:

·       Paganism seeks to reinterpret sin, and in so doing, to out-shout our own consciences.  We are meant to regard promiscuous sex as being holy and Christianity as being evil, because it “judges and blames.”  The fact that all the sin has the predictable results of destroying our lives and our relationships is conveniently overlooked.  Something other than promiscuity must be blamed, because since sex is a “sacrament” it cannot possibly be the problem.

Christianity does judge and blame, but so does Western legal systems. While the courts can lock them up the pedophiles, Christianity cannot exercise such power over them. Why then their hatred and intolerance of this faith? Why couldn’t the promiscuous merely laugh at us and our “archaic” set of values? Because they know that they are doing wrong and feel morally condemned by Christianity. They hate it because it makes them feel condemned. It is no surprise that they have zero tolerance for a faith that regards their permissive lifestyle as evil.

Greyland has suffered greatly and likens her condition to PTSD. How then was she able to summons the courage and clarity to stand against her parents and the promiscuous community that had long sheltered them? She explains:

·       One day I heard Jesus talking to me, very quietly, and very gently.  He told me what my father would never say.  He told me he loved me, and that I was His, and that He would take care of me.

·       The effect that my secret conversion to Christianity had on me was to give me enough strength to eventually go to the cops about my father’s sexual abuse of children.  He made it possible for me to quietly question the nonsense I had been programmed to believe, and He gave me the hope of eventual escape…and He made it so I was eventually strong enough to break the lies in my family and end the active abuse of the children in our home. 

·       One thing my faith in God did was to help me understand why speaking the truth about the family secrets was so important to me.  For all that people try to claim how “tolerant” Jesus was, that is a conclusion born of no actual knowledge.  Jesus challenged people right and left, whether they were committing sexual sin or some other kind of sin. 

·       Jesus sat down to eat with tax collectors and prostitutes, who stopped being tax collectors and prostitutes, and became disciples and followers.  At no point did Jesus encourage or tolerate sin, but called it out openly at every turn.  There were times when his scoldings included calling people “whitewashed sepulchers” and even “broods of vipers.”  Just how tolerant is that?

·       Jesus never stops loving sinners, but understands that sin hurts us, and it hurts the people around us.  Allowing it to continue, or claiming that sin is magically acceptable, only prolongs suffering.

We too must never stop loving sinners. However, love is also expressed in the form of warning of the inevitable condemnation they face unless they repent.