We are closing in on the conclusion of our fifth time studying through the entire Bible at Calvary Oxnard. We have gone a little swifter this time, summarizing sections we covered in depth in previous years. Now that we have come to the last book of the Bible, we will slow down once more and take our time going through the Book of Revelation.

As we begin that study, it is wise to acknowledge the challenges in studying this book of the Bible. The challenge comes from the very different ways the book has been understood by the Church over the centuries. There are four main methods for interpreting the Book of Revelation …

• Futurist
• Idealist
• Historicist
• Preterist

The Futurist view understands the Book of Revelation as being a prophecy of events regarding the End Times, and that most of the book has yet to be fulfilled. The Futurist view understands that in the Bible, prophecy speaks of patterns and that there may be several iterations of a prophecy’s fulfillment in history. But these intervening iterations point to a grand climax in which the prophecy finds its culmination.

We may think of the earlier iterations as foreshocks that harbinger the main quake. The Futurist view understand the majority of Revelation as taking place in the Last Days, just prior to the Return of Christ; thus the label ‘futurist.’

Futurists understand the Millennial reign of Christ described in Revelation 20 as literal, and that the Second Coming is before that thousand years commences. This is called the Premillennial position.

Futurists also believe before Jesus comes again, there will be a seven-year period of Tribulation in which terrible calamities befall Earth in a literal fulfillment of the judgments described in Revelation. [Futurists differ on the meaning and timing of the Rapture.]
Calvary Chapel holds to a Futurist understanding of Revelation, as do a good number of Modern Evangelical churches and groups.

The Idealist view is amillennial, meaning they believe there is no literal thousand years in which Christ rules on Earth. Idealists understand the Millennium as referring to a very long time and that the visions and symbols of Revelation only refer to the timeless struggle between the forces of good and evil, which will go on indefinitely until the end of time.

Since the visions of Revelation are not to be understood as being fulfilled in real historical events, either past or future, they are fulfilled however different Idealist interpreters choose to understand them. This makes the idealist position a grab bag and has been the great problem of idealist commentators as each has come up with his/her own meaning for the symbols and visions found in Revelation. If these things are meant to be understood in a purely spiritual sense, what is the code for unlocking them? No idealist has come up with the answer to that, so their attempts to understand the book have been short-lived.

Idealism is the position taken by Roman Catholicism and some liberal main-line Protestant denominations.

This was the favored position of many of the Reformers and has almost passed from the scene. It holds that the Book of Revelation covered the entire scope of history from the Resurrection of Christ to His Second Coming. As history unfolds, historicist interpreters assign various events of history to the visions and symbols of Revelation. But as time progresses, they kept re-interpreting them. The historicist view died the death of a thousand interpretations.

Historicism was the interpretive methodology used by many Protestant denominations from the 17th through early 20th centuries. When liberalism took hold, Historicists moved over to the Idealist position.

The Preterist position is akin to the Historicist but differs in one crucial point; it sees most of Revelation as being fulfilled in a rather short period of history, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 68-70 AD by the armies of the Roman Generals Vespasian and his son, Titus.

The Preterist view had almost passed from the scene until recently when it received new impetus from several Christian Reconstructionists and Post-millenialists.

Preterism comes from the Latin word meaning “what is past” and understands most of Revelation as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Preterism is postmillennial, meaning they do not believe in a literal thousand year reign of Christ. For preterists, the Millennium is just the Bible’s way of referring to a long period in which the Church becomes increasingly more influential and eventually wins, not only the people of Earth to faith in Christ, but redeems the institutions of human society, installs the Law of God in the Laws of Man, and once the world has been Christianized, then Jesus will come again to congratulate a victorious Church.

The important thing to remember about Preterists is that they believe all but the last couple of chapters of Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD.

Because Preterism has experienced a resurgence due to the work of a few well-known teachers, a brief analysis of the position is advised.

Inherent in the Preterist position is a dangerous doctrine called Replacement Theology. This doctrine advocates the idea God is finished with the geo-political entity known as Israel and that all His promises given to the Jews and Israel have been transferred to and subsumed by the Church, which is the New Israel, i.e. the Church has replaced Israel. Calvary Chapel categorically rejects Replacement Theology and sees it as a dangerous doctrine.

The foundational premise for Preterism is found in passages of the New Testament that seem to indicate a “near” fulfillment of End Times prophecy. A good example is Revelation 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.”

Preterists are vociferous in their demand this phrase must be understood as a definitive time marker. Preterists maintain when John wrote, “things which must shortly take place” he meant those things had to take place within a short time from his writing.

That is a way to understand the text, but it is not the necessary or only way to interpret what John is saying. In truth, as we read on into the content of the Revelation, we come to the conclusion it is NOT the way he meant to be understood. The word ‘shortly’ in Greek is en tachei, which means “quickly or suddenly coming to pass,” indicating rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden.

John Walvoord, one of the premier interpreters of the Book of Revelation, notes that the similar word tachys is used seven times in Revelation and is translated as “quickly.” We get our word tachycardia (racing heart) and tachometer from this Greek word. The idea is something that is rapid.

When John writes, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place,” he is saying the things he goes on to describe will unfold in rapid succession. They will not be spread over hundreds of years; they aren’t to be understood by neither Idealist nor Historicist interpretations. On the contrary, they refer to real events that take place in the future; and when they start, they will follow one on the other in rapid succession. That means either the Preterist or the Futurist interpretation is correct.

What clinches it for the Futurist view is the date for the Book of Revelation. If the Preterist is right, and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, John must have written it before AD 70. Yet we know John received his visions on the island of Patmos, where early church history tells us he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian. That was not till long after AD 70. When Domitian died in AD 96, John was allowed to return from exile and lived the rest of his days in Ephesus. The Preterist view of Revelation is refuted by the historical evidence of the timing of John’s imprisonment on Patmos.

One further comment . . .
 
A concern the modern Futurist position stands in danger of is when certain of its leaders say this or that event is the fulfillment of this or that prophecy. When they do that, they make the same error as the Historicists who read endless events as the fulfillment of prophecy, and ended up dying the death of a thousand interpretive cuts. The Futurist position has come under fire for assigning the title “Antichrist” to several people, from Popes to diplomats, and for giving dates for Jesus’ return.

While we ought to expect a literal fulfillment of prophecy in world events, we must be careful about making dogmatic “this-is-that” statements.

This is a documentary from Pastor Lance about his trip to Saudi Arabia, investigating the possible location of the actual Mount Sinai. He includes an intensive Bible study as well as a tour of the Exodus journey from the Red Sea to Mount Sinai.

This presentation is sure to increase your confidence in the historic reliability of God's inspired word!

It is the 16th of June, 2023 as I pen this, the middle of so-called “Pride Month,” an international celebration of LGBTQIA+.
I recently returned from leading a tour of Israel. Our first day was spent in Tel Aviv where the rainbow pride flag was on full display. Here in the United States, the pride flag adorns store windows, corporate websites, State and Federal buildings; even branches of the Military. Professional sports sponsor special Pride Nights, honoring LGBTQIA+ organizations with community service awards, even when those organizations engage in public lewdness and grotesquely mock The Gospel.
The reaction has been varied and mixed. Some have called for a general boycott of businesses that have jumped on the Pride Parade. Others make a quiet, personal decision to take their dollars elsewhere. Then there are the many who shrug their shoulders, saying, “So what? Who cares?”
A few well-known Church leaders have taken public stands against Pride Month events, mobilizing their churches by saying followers of Jesus must boycott LGBTQIA+ affirming businesses. Leaders who won’t take such a stand are branded as “gutless cowards.” Some of them may be. OR, maybe they have chosen what they regard as a more Biblical and Christ-consistent path.
The first email in my inbox this morning was from a precious brother who has spent the past year seeking to obey God as closely as he is able. The joy and sense of God’s presence he enjoys is indescribable and God has showered great favor on him. His commitment to a careful obedience is challenged by Pride Month. He worries that shopping at a store displaying a pride flag dishonors God. He asked for counsel. His email confirmed a thought I awoke to – that I ought to pen an article on how we ought to live today - that is, in what is likely to be the Last Days.

Are these the Last Days? Is this the End Times?
Without getting too technical, the Last Days commenced with the ascension of Christ after His death and Resurrection.[1] It has been “the Last Days” for two-thousand years because there has been no change in God’s plan since Jesus’ ascension and the Day of Pentecost ten days later.
Think of history as a line moving across a gently rising landscape. That line moves through major events in God’s Redemptive plan; Noah, Abraham, the Exodus, King David. Then something happens to the line as it passes through the Incarnation of Christ. With Jesus’ ascension, the line reaches a towering cliff. Instead of proceeding up the cliff, it makes a 90-degree turn and travels along the base of the cliff for two-thousands years. At some point that line ends with the end of human history as we know it. Christ will come and the kingdoms of Man will end in the Kingdom of God.
Technically, the Last Days began two-thousand years ago when the New Covenant went into effect. They will end when Jesus comes to take possession of that which rightly belongs to Him because of His redemptive work. Earth is in escrow. It has been for the last two millennia. For the sake of convenience, let’s refer to this technical meaning of the Last Days as the Church-Age.
The popular meaning of the Last Days is that period foretold in Scripture marked by there-to-fore unseen upheaval in the social, political, economic, environmental, and religious realms. For most people “the Last Days” is the tail end of the Church-Age.
The upheaval of the Last Days reaches a crescendo in what is known as The Tribulation (maybe better than “crescendo” would be “abyss”). We at Calvary Chapel believe the Rapture of the Church takes place before the Tribulation. BUT! We do not believe it will be “rainbows and unicorns” right up to the beginning of the Tribulation, then it all goes to hell overnight. The Tribulation will merely be the consummation of global trends that have been in place long before it begins.
The first half of the Tribulation will be a time of seeming peace and prosperity as the antichrist moves to secure power. His ability to accomplish that is what garners him wide-spread support. As 2 Thessalonians 2:5-12 makes clear, the Holy Spirit’s restraint on evil will be removed. The evil that comes forth won’t begin as social chaos. It’s more subtle than that. It will be manifested in God turning the world over to what it has wanted ever since Adam and Eve turned from Him in Eden. Rebel Man has wanted a world without God so he could fill that space. The first half of the Tribulation is God giving humanity what it wants – a world without His intervention. It gets what it has always aspired to – a man who seems to demonstrate the powers of deity. Read up on his career in 2 Thessalonians.
The antichrist turns out not to be the savior he pretends to be. He’s Satan’s beachhead on Planet Earth who in the last half of the Tribulation unleashes destruction.
Back to our original question. Are these the Last Days?
The debate among Christians over this is fierce and will not be resolved here. What I can say is that as I have studied what the Bible says about what the world will be like in the first half of the Tribulation, all the trends are in place that will reach their climax then. The social, economic, political, and religious realms are like a stage all set for the curtain to rise. I see no major piece that needs to be installed.
Scoffers mock such expectation and talk. They level the charge that some have claimed to be living in the End Times for centuries. Indeed they have. We can even make the case that the Apostles of the First Century thought they lived in the Last Days. Paul seemed to think so and by the technical meaning of the Last Days, they were living in them. But it was their expectation of Jesus’ Return we ought to take note of. The Apostles understood something the scoffers ignore. Jesus was clear – His followers were to live as though He could return at any moment. Remember, with His ascension, history runs along the edge of its consummation. It is no longer running toward it. In truth, Jesus could return at any moment of the last two-thousand years. That is the way He wants us to live – with that expectation. It is why He said, “Be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Luke 12:40
The Apostles weren’t wrong to expect Jesus’ return; they were obedient. They understood that to be obedient to the call to “be ready,” expectation was necessary.
Peter calls out the scoffers who mock an expectation of Christ’s return when he writes,

Peter then refers to God’s judgment of a wicked world in the Flood of Noah’s day.
The Bible tells us what the Last Days will be like, not so we would ignore the signs, but to recognize them and be heightened in our expectancy of Christ’s Return. As I said, all the trends that will reach their climax in the Tribulation are in place in our time and moving rapidly toward their end. The evidence strongly suggests that the Tribulation is close. That means the Rapture is even closer.
But, and to the point of this article, we ought not expect things will be easy in the days before the Rapture, then it all falls apart immediately after. God’s people ought to expect the trends that crescendo in the Tribulation will plague them before that time of testing arrives.
We already are.

In Part 2, we will consider some practical ways Jesus’ Followers ought to live in a world growing increasingly hostile and dark.

[Last Days Living – Part 1]
In Part 1 of Last Days Living we considered if we are indeed living in the “Last Days.” In Part 2 we will look at how Jesus’ Followers ought to live in the days of a world growing increasingly hostile and dark.
Before we consider how to do that today, let’s spend a little time looking at how The Church has done it in the past.

The Church was born into a godless culture. While there were some things to commend in the Greco-Roman society of the First century, its morality most certainly was not. Human life was cheap; perversion was rampant. The Jewish society it originated in was morally superior to the larger Greco-Roman world but murderously hostile toward Jesus’ Followers. Yet the Church thrived and eventually grew to so influence the lands Rome once ruled, it ruled Rome.
Yet neither the New Testament nor the history of the early church commends the kinds of action some Church leaders call for today. Boycotts and public protests are not the mandate Jesus gave His Church. Making disciples is. As the early church was faithful to that, they changed the world.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we find instructions to boycott or stage public protests. Jesus never rallied the disciples to protest the corruption in the temple. While John the Baptist was arrested and executed for criticizing Herod, Jesus did not. Huh, there’s something to think about.
Where in Acts do the Apostles stage an organized protest of the Sanhedrin for condemning Jesus? Where in the letters of the New Testament do Paul or Peter tell the churches it was part of their program to boycott pagan merchants or start an anti-slavery protest? On the contrary, Romans 14 deals with the thorny issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul knew some of his readers purchased meat from butchers who secured their supplies from pagan temples. The meat they sold had been offered in sacrifice to an idol. Paul never tells them to stop it. He tells them to be careful that their liberty to do so doesn’t become an occasion to offend a sensitive Christian who didn’t share that liberty.
Paul’s bottom line in Romans 14 is the need to exercise caution in judging others in how we go about interacting with a fallen world. We must not put our convictions on this issue on others. That means if you choose to boycott or protest, fine. Don’t label those who don’t as “gutless cowards” as some do today. If you choose not to join a boycott or protest, don’t judge those who do. Let each person be fully persuaded in their own mind how God is directing them – not pressured by others who say there is only one way to go about living in a society that has turned its back on God.
Romans 14:5 says, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” Verse 19 follows, “Let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”

I understand the appeal of boycotts and protests. I’ve participated in them in the past. Under certain conditions, I may still. I’ve spent hours on the sidewalk outside an abortion mill, seeking to persuade women entering the clinic not to abort their unborn child. I stood side by side with hundreds of others alongside a roadway with signs in support of a specific piece of legislation. I marched with thousands in Hollywood in protest of gross blasphemy. Years ago, I joined boycotts of companies whose policies promoted evil.
And I have rethought all that in light of what I find in God’s Word and discovered in Church History. Also, using a Biblically-informed pragmatism, what was the real result of all those boycotts and protests we participated in? Was the mandate Jesus gave us advanced, or did it just make us all feel better because we were “doing something” to express our opposition? I realize now frustration drove those boycotts and protests – frustration at watching what was supposed to be a Judeo-Christian Western Civilization turning from its roots to a godless secularism we knew spelled doom. We couldn’t let that happen without saying or doing something. The something we did was protests and boycotts. They accomplished nothing except to make us feel better about ourselves.
I know of no one who was won to faith in Christ by boycotts. No one was persuaded of the Gospel by protests. But a watching world assumed our cause was political rather than moral and spiritual because clever politicians saw in us a force to leverage to their own ends. We foolishly went along with their promises that if we elected them to office, they’d restore the Judeo-Christian heritage. They didn’t. They used us. Sadly, a large swath of Evangelicals continues to dance to the tune of political Pied Pipers.
No, the real result of the boycotts and protests was a large segment of the population rejecting the Gospel because we caused them to regard it as little more than a political platform.

I don’t want to be politically pigeon-holed, so I’ll use an illustration from another field.
Fred and Mark work at the same place. Fred likes classical music. He’s all about Mozart, Bach, and Smetana. Mark is into Country music; Hank Williams and Garth Brooks. Fred is a Christian and finds God glorified in the inspired lines of music he listens to. He’s heard some of the lyrics of country music and takes offense at how immoral they are. At lunch break one day he asks Mark what he’s listening to on his earbuds. Mark tells him it’s Shania Twain. Fred challenges him on how he could listen to such ‘evil’ music. The song Mark’s listening to is innocent. There’s nothing offensive in it, so he writes Fred off as a loon.
This goes on day after day. Fred declares that classical music is good and goldy while country music is wicked, evil, bad. Mark’s heard classical music and doesn’t care for it. But now that Fred claims classical music is morally superior to Country, Mark assumes classical music is a “Christian” thing and becoming a Christian means trading the music he likes for a genre he doesn’t.
I know this illustration is absurd – but it serves the point I’m making. Replace politics for music and you can see what’s happened for an entire segment of the population today.
Mark COULD very well one day learn to appreciate the beauty of music by Beethoven and Mussorgsky. He may even realize that lyrics advocating immorality are out of bounds for his musical diet. But that would only happen if he came to faith in Christ and had his mind renewed by God’s Word and Spirit. He’s not likely to come to faith if Fred’s behavior suggests that BECOMING a Christian in essence is a matter of musical preference.
In the same way, people on the other side of the political divide from what Evangelicals have carved out are NOT going to come to faith in Christ if they think the essence of being a Christian is embracing a set of political positions they find abhorrent. They may one day realign their political views if God’s Spirit changes their heart and His Word renews their mind. But they’ll never come to faith if boycotts and protests reinforce their assumption being a Christian means adopting a set of political views they reject.

Complicating all this is a secular media industry pledged to an anti-God narrative contrary to The Gospel. The media uses every opportunity to portray Christians as advocates of a political agenda that polls now tell us most Americans find repellent. The misrepresentations are legion. Promoting its own agenda and message, mainstream media shines a spotlight on a few radical voices, then suggests thousands of Christian-minions think the same way. Implied is the message that if they aren’t silenced, our democracy will be turned into a theocratic dictatorship along the lines of The Handmaid’s Tale.
All that is why we must strive for a different way from boycotts and protests. Let’s return to the mandate Jesus gave us and the example of the early Church.
Make disciples. Win the lost to faith in Christ by showing how life in Him IS better; better at home, better at work, better in the marketplace. Once they come to faith, show them how to live a life in love with God.
Keep first things first. Don’t persuade people your political views are better. Persuade them Jesus is better. Once they realize that, politics will take care of themselves.
While I don’t support called-for boycotts anymore, I DO decide who I want my shopping dollars to go to based on what they stand for. I evaluate candidates and propositions from a Biblical worldview. That’s what Jesus meant in Matthew 5 when He said as we follow Him we would be the salt of the Earth and the light of the world. It’s about the influence a Christ-infused life has on those around us.

While I hope and pray for one last great revival that transforms the culture and restores the Judeo-Christian roots of Western Civilization that resulted in the greatest liberty and prosperity, for the greatest number of people in all history, I recognize the Bible makes clear there has to be a last revival at some point. After that it’s a very messy end for the world. The question is, is the last revival before or behind us? It is wise to pray for it but prepare as though it is behind us.
Protests and boycotts are a strategy that assumes we can change things for the better by them. Others would say they are right regardless of what they do or don’t accomplish. In light of what we find in the New Testament about living in a fallen world and what the lesson of the Early Church teaches us, a re-evaluation of boycotts and protests seems appropriate.
Methinks prayer would accomplish more of what God wants done.

For background, refer to the study on Daniel 9 – Daniel 9 Verse by Verse

      In Daniel 9:24, the prophet is told 490 years are appointed for the Jews and Jerusalem to accomplish certain things. Verse 25 says those 490 years commencing with the command to restore and build Jerusalem after the Babylonians' demolition decades before.
      The Bible records three commands regarding the restoration of Jerusalem.      We sort out which command Daniel 9:24 refers to by noting the first two commands regarded the temple, not the city. In verse 25, the angel Gabriel told Daniel the command would see "The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times," precisely the situation following the decree of Artaxerxes in 445 BC.
      Nehemiah 2 tells us the command to rebuild Jerusalem's streets and wall came in the 20th year of the Persian king Artaxerxes. Gabriel said from that point until the Messiah arrived as Prince, would be 483 years of the 490 years. Then in verse 26, in a foreshadowing of the cross, the Messiah Who had just been heralded as "the Prince (ruler)," would be "cut off," but not for Himself.
      The command to rebuild  Jerusalem came on March 14, 445 BC. Four hundred eighty-three years later brings us to April 6, 32 AD. Here's how we calculate the 483 years …
      A prophetic year consists of 360 days. This is based on calculations determined from several sources. [see Genesis 7:11, 24, Genesis 8:4, Revelation 11:2-3, 12:6, and 13:5] The calendar used by the ancients was based on a 360-day year, but something occurred to Earth's orbit around the sun to alter this to a 365¼ day year. Consider the 360 degrees of a circle and the figuring of time into 60 minutes. Some suggest the near pass of a large celestial body like a comet affected this change and altered the calendar.      On That Day, Jesus rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the praises of His disciples, being heralded as the Messiah-Prince.
      That is why Jesus made that cryptic remark in response to the Pharisees who demanded He silence the disciples. He said, "If they were silent, the very stones would cry out." Jesus said that because of this prophecy in Daniel. Gabriel said from the command to restore Jerusalem till Messiah the Prince would be 173,880 days. That was the day and time. Since the Word of God cannot be broken, if the disciples were silent, God would make rocks spring to life and shout the Praises of Jesus as Messiah the Prince.
      In solar reckoning, a year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds. It is 11 minutes and 14 seconds short of a 365¼-day-year. While there is a leap year every four years, to adjust for that 11:14, any leap year that falls on a century is not a leap year unless divisible by 400. From 445 BC to 32 AD is 476 years. There is no Year 0, so 1 BC to 1 AD is 1 year. Four hundred seventy-six years X 365 days is 173,740 days. Add 116 leap-year days and the days from March 14 to April 6, and you come to 173,880 days.

        Answering the claims of the Flat Earth movement might seem like an arcane topic to waste time on—Surely no one really believes this stuff, you might think. But, according to research, 2% of Americans claim to believe the earth is flat. Further inquiry suggests only half actually believe this. The rest are “trolling,” finding perverse pleasure in stirring up controversy, or keeping up the revenue stream on their YouTube channel with a steady stream of outrageous “click bait” content to attract the gullible.
        But still, with roughly 1% truly believing in a flat earth, any large church will have a number of people who adhere to this, and because it can be so terribly divisive, the following is our response.

        We need to start by defining terms. Christian flat–earth believers insist their view be labeled “Biblical Cosmology,” rather than “Flat Earth.” This term, though, is pejorative and insulting to Bible–believing Christians who don’t agree with radical flat–earth views! Therefore, the term “Biblical Cosmology” won’t be used in this pamphlet for flat earth beliefs. The fact is, the Christian flat earth movement is a fringe group claiming exclusive truth and superiority over other Christians, just as the cults do. Therefore, it is most appropriate to call this movement, “Flat Earthism,” or abbreviated, F.E.

        Flat Earthism quickly leads to division in the church. Imagine, for example, a church attended by solid, biblical Christians who happen to work in the aerospace industry. F.E. claims the space industry is a money–making deception, and accuse these sincere Christians of perpetuating a fraud with their very livelihood.
        Some flat earthers might suggest, “Can’t we just agree that God could make the earth and sky any shape He wanted to?” The answer is: NO! There is a big difference between what God could have done and what He actually did. We must not accommodate absurdity for the sake of Christian fellowship—Biblical doctrine is based on truth, not fantasy. Be warned: flat earthers are passionate about their esoteric cosmology and will soon be warning fellow Christians of the “satanic deception” of the “spherical globe” model, and teaching this to the kids in Sunday School.
        F.E. is also a hindrance to evangelism. It claims NASA foisted the idea of a spherical earth and a vast universe on the public in order to promote atheism and evolution, so in order to win more souls, they say we must preach a flat earth and sky dome cosmology. But how many people would come to Christ if they were told they had to believe in a flat earth? Our evangelistic success in the world would quickly cease. This is obviously a massive stumbling block to the Gospel!
        The bottom line is F.E. causes consternation, insult, disunity, and a stumbling block to the Gospel. There is simply no room for it in a healthy Christian community.

        In this pamphlet we will briefly summarize a few key flat earth beliefs, and why they aren’t supported biblically, rationally, or observationally. But this won’t cover every argument that F.E. presents, mainly because there are so many differing flat earth “models”–each contradicting the others. And with each refutation, they come up with a slew of “but what about…” objections. It is an endless and futile debate.

Though there are many different variations of F.E., here are some key tenants most agree with:

        F.E. says the UN Flag inadvertently reveals the “correct” earth model: the north pole is at the center of the earth, and the sun and moon rotate around an unknown force above the pole. The seasons occur as the sun moves closer or further from the artic pole, and the changing lengths of days is due to the changing speed of the sun’s circuit across the sky.

        Not seen on the UN map is what keeps the oceans from flowing over the edges of the earth: a massive ice wall, which we typically think of as “Antarctica.” Instead of a continent at the “bottom” of a globe, this land mass is actually spread out like a wall surrounding the world. There is no “south pole,” no one has ever explored the inner regions of Antarctica, and the nations of the world have conspired to keep it off limits, preventing people from discovering the truth. Anyone who claims to have sailed around Antarctica, proving it is round, is lying.

        Also, airlines flying “Great Circle” routes from Southern Africa, South America, or Australia intentionally fly longer routes and waste fuel in order to perpetuate the mythical “globe” model of the world.

        F.E. says the word “firmament” in Genesis 1 (KJV), refers to a firm, solid dome the stars are attached to. Even though this term only describes the shape of the stellar heavens above, the earth must be flat to support this architecture. F.E.’s bottom line is this: because the folks in the Bible believed they lived on a flat earth with sky dome, it must be correct.

        The altitude of the sky dome is a matter of much debate and conjecture by F.E., but it is typically suggested the dome is about 3100 miles above the earth at the north pole, but it descends down to meet the Antarctic ice wall, where it is attached to the earth. The solid dome rotates around the earth, accounting for the motion of the stars, but it is a mystery how this works. Another mystery is where the stars in the south go when they disappear below the horizon, and why the stars at the horizon don’t appear enormous when a person is near the “artic wall,” since they would be thousands of miles closer to the viewer!
        F.E. says the sun is a small light source that circles the earth on a flat plane below the sky dome, at about 3000 miles altitude. It never truly goes below the apparent “horizon,” but rather, recedes into the far–off distance, leaving regions in the dark until it returns. The mystery of why the sun isn’t visible 24–hours a day is explained by describing it like a spotlight which only shines directly below it. The best explanation of the force that keeps the sun circling the north pole is simply God’s supernatural power.
        F.E. says the moon is also a light source. It doesn’t reflect the Sun, but rather, creates its own light. The phases of the moon are caused by God supernaturally. The planets are actually stars and create their own light as well; they don’t reflect the sun’s light. They are “wanderers” because they change position on the face of the sky dome. How this occurs is a mystery, as is the explanation of why Mercury and Venus have phases but the outer planets do not.

        F.E. teaches that because the Bible says the earth has unshakable “foundations,” it must be fixed and unmovable. It doesn’t float through space or orbit the sun. There are various theories about what the earth sits on, or what is beyond the ice wall of the earth, but F.E. claims this is ultimately unknowable.

        F.E. says gravity is a myth. There is no gravitational mass attraction, so for example, if there were no atmosphere, and we existed in a vacuum, all the objects and beings on the earth would float away.
        Instead, F.E. offers two very different explanations to explain what keeps objects falling to the ground, (1) “buoyancy” or (2) “acceleration.”
(1) Weight is determined by buoyancy, or in other words, an object’s density, meaning that heavy things sink in relation to air pressure, and lighter things rise. At higher altitudes, where the air is thinner, we are less buoyant, and therefore weigh more (even though the opposite is actually true: a simple scale shows you weigh less at higher elevations, since you are further from the earth’s mass).
(2) Another explanation of weight is acceleration. The flat earth and dome sky is moving upward, creating acceleration, which we mistakenly attribute to “gravity.” Acceleration, of course, requires a constant rate of increasing speed, so after several thousand years, we’d have to be moving well past the speed of light to maintain “gravity.” So, this is a mystery as well.

        Famously, F.E. claims NASA (which was founded by anti–Christian Freemasons) has perpetuated a myth since the 1960s with space flight and the moon race. Pictures of a global earth from space is just clever photo editing trickery. You also can’t trust any testimony from astronauts who claim to have been in space; they are all lying in order to perpetuate NASA’s atheism.

Here we will unpack some of the scriptures F.E. uses to support the idea of a “flat, arctic–centric earth” and the “solid dome heavens.”

        God doesn’t look at the earth from a single fixed vantage point. He exists outside of time and space and sees all places at once. To say this proves a flat earth is to say that God exists within our creation instead of outside of creation, limiting His deity and omnipresence!

        F.E. says this is a slam dunk to prove a flat earth. The problem is they take this completely out of context. First—this speaks of a dream the king was having, so it wasn’t a real visible tree. But the real issue is verses 20–22…

        So, the tree in the dream was only symbolic of the king’s mighty reputation, which was known across a vast empire.

        This view of the whole earth was supernatural. Even if the earth were flat, it would have been a miraculous thing to see the distant kingdoms. Therefore, this verse doesn’t prove a flat earth, or disprove a global earth.

        This might seem like a “gotcha,” except not even on a flat earth would this be possible with the naked eye! Jesus, descending as a Man from Heaven, would be pretty difficult to see from thousands of miles away.
        God revealing His Son to the world in a supernatural vision visible to everyone seems more reasonable.
        Another explanation that makes sense is thinking about the futuristic setting of Jesus’ return. Technology makes it possible that any event is instantly visible through social media world–wide. When Jesus returns, with millions of cell phones capturing the moment, every eye will clearly see it.

        Flat earth folks quote these verses to say the horizon is the fixed boundary of the flat earth, where the seas meet the Antarctic ice wall. Yet, F.E. admits that you can’t see the distant islands over the ocean; their convoluted explanations involve optical distortions and thermal convections over the ocean. But even from the highest point on Hawaii, Mauna Kea, at 13,803 feet high, known for incredibly clear visibility at the summit, one cannot see mainland USA—not even with the most powerful telescope. This makes no sense on a flat earth.

        The terms “Four Corners” and “Ends” of the earth do not mean the earth is flat with an edge. Scripturally, Isaiah 11:12 says God gathers His tribes from the “four quarters of the earth” where they were scattered. The Bible tells us they were scattered to places like Assyria, Babylon, Asia Minor, Northern Africa, Spain, etc. These “quarters” are nowhere near the supposed ice–wall edge of the earth we call Antarctica! In fact, “four quarters” or “corners” is actually the four points of the compass, meaning, every direction.
        But also, most flat earth models show a round plate—so where are the “corners”? This is another example of clear contradictions within various F.E. theories.

Some of the scriptures used by F.E. to say the earth doesn’t move through space are:

        When the Bible speaks of the earth’s permanence, it isn’t speaking in terms of movement through space; it is speaking of the stability of the earth beneath one’s feet, which illustrate how God is unchanging, faithful, and reliable. For the person standing on the surface of the earth, it doesn’t seem to move and mountains seem to stand there forever. These passages are making no reference to how the earth moves through space.
        Now consider:

        F.E. insists the earth doesn’t move at all, but according to these verses, the earth does move and change, and the mountains eventually crumble. Clearly, verses about the world being “firmly established” and that it “cannot be moved” are dramatic figures of speech, and they have nothing to do with the planet moving through space.

        Are these passages meant to be read as literal, that the earth sits on actual pillars, or are these metaphors for God’s creative work, like an architect or carpenter building a home? Look at the larger context of the first passage:

        Clearly, this is metaphorically describing God like the builder of a grand structure. Light, stars, wind, rain, clouds, mountains—each has a simile in the house being made. The earth, then, is pictured sitting on a foundation because a home sits on a foundation. This doesn’t mean there is literally a mysterious structure that the flat earth sits upon. And, it is reasonable to approach similar passages speaking of pillars and foundation with the same interpretation.
Also, consider how “pillars” and “foundations” are used in these verses:

        According to these, the heavens are also set upon pillars and foundations! F.E. must take these verses literally as well, but there aren’t “pillars” of heaven in their various models of the heavens and the earth.

Some of the scriptures F.E. uses to support a solid sky dome are:

        “Firmament” doesn’t not mean “sky dome;” as in a solid, stone–like ceiling. The word “Firmament” in Genesis 1:7 is the Hebrew word “Raqia.” Because this word is associated with metal working, the flat–earther says the firmament is “firm.” This misunderstands the origin of the word.
        "Raqia" speaks of metal that is stretched out over something else: like a gold or bronze leaf on the tabernacle furnishings, so we understand the raqia as describing the “expanse” of the heavens, which God stretched out as a canopy. This is seen in Isaiah 40:22, which compares the heavens to a “curtain” or a “tent.” So, the word doesn’t mean a solid dome, but rather, that from our perspective, the stars are stretched out overhead like a canopy or tent, and have the glorious beauty of gold–leaf workmanship.
        "Raqia" is best explained by its root word raqa, which describes “stamping out, or stretching forth.” "Raqa" is used to denote God spreading out the earth (Isaiah 42:5, 44:24), stretching out the land above the water (Psalm 136:6), or stretching out the skies (Job 37:18). It also describes stamping one’s feet in Ezekiel 25:6 & 6:11.

        Most Bible versions render “raqia” as “expanse.” The KJV and NKJV use the word “firmament,” and the explanation involves some history.
        One hundred years after the Hebrew Old Testament was completed, it was translated into Greek near Alexandria. This is known as the Septuagint (LXX), and there is evidence it was widely used in the time of Christ, so it is highly regarded. Even so, the LXX is merely a translation and not the original Hebrew Bible.
        When the translators of the LXX were translating the Hebrew word raqia to speak of the stellar heavens into Greek, they used the word stereoma, which means “the heavens.” The trouble comes from Greek philosophy, which at the time had a theory of a “stone vault” of heaven, so stereoma took on this connotation. And so, when the Greek LXX was translated into Latin, the word firmamentum was used to translate stereoma.
        Next came the English translation: because the King James Bible used the Vulgate (the Latin Bible) as a primary source, it uses the word “firmament” for the Hebrew raqia. The Strong’s Concordance follows the KJV’s word choice, and has unfortunately caused needless confusion. So, to sum up: “Firmament” comes from the Greek translation of the OT text, and reflects Greek philosophical ideas, as well as the Latin Vulgate. “Firmament” does not well represent the original Hebrew text.

        There is a clue here to understanding the “waters above the firmament” in Psalm 104:3—He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind.
        In this metaphor, God is building above the waters of the clouds! Here is how several conservative Bible commentaries explain the “waters above” in Genesis 1:
Bible Knowledge Commentary:ESV Study Bible:Christian Standard Bible Study Notes:

        F.E. points to Job 37:18 as a reference to the solid dome heavens above. Actually, in this passage, Elihu is referring to wind, clouds, lightning, storms, ice, downpours of rain, south winds. So, this “hard, cast bronze sky” is referring to a heavy storm cloud, because the wind comes to clear it up in verse 21! This is not a reference to the “vault of heaven.” This is a great example of why context is so critical in Bible study!

        F.E. says this verse only speaks of the round, flat, pancake–shaped earth; that the Hebrew word here is the same as a draftsman’s compass inscribing a circle on a flat plane. This is incorrect! This same word speaks of the “vault” of heaven—Job 22:14 • And He walks on the vault of heaven. The heavens do appear vaulted from our vantage point (even though it isn’t an actual solid dome), so Job calls the sky the “vault” of heaven. This proves that in Isaiah 40, the term “circle” can mean spherical. Now, Isaiah might actually mean “horizon”—but this verse lines up with reality either way!

        This verse clearly states that the stars are above empty space, not a solid dome, and the earth is suspended “on” or “over” nothing! There is no mention of pillars or foundations for the earth or for the heavens. To F.E., which typically reads scripture through extreme literalism, this verse is a conundrum!

        According to scripture, the sun sets by going below the horizon. The Greek word for “set” is defined by the Strong’s dictionary as, “to go into, enter. 2 go under, be plunged into, sink in.” The sun doesn’t stay above the horizon and only appear to set as an optical illusion, as F.E. demands.

        The word for “horizon” here is the word for heavens, and it means where the sky visibly meets the earth. Notice these verses describe people appearing in the distance on the horizon; the horizon is not where the sky dome meets the ice wall at the edge of the earth.

        Flat earth folks enthusiastically engage in armchair physics, astronomy, and other “sciences” to prove their cosmology, yet the simplest observations can be made of God’s creation to prove a spherical earth, and, importantly, the absurdity of this whole debate.

        Romans 1:20 tells us God has revealed His attributes through Creation, so we can know Him better by studying both scripture and His vast creation. F.E. diminishes the scope of the universe, and therefore, the scope of God’s creative work, diminishing His glory and greatness.

        We have beautiful sunsets over our ocean; the clouds explode into riotous colors of pink, lavenders, and blues. This only happens because the sun below the horizon is shining up onto the bottom of the clouds. Sunsets like the one below would be impossible if the sun were always 3100 miles above the clouds, as F.E. teaches. You can see it with your own eyes—the earth is clearly spherical!

[Source: Marcus Dall Col, Unsplash.com]

        The sun and the moon both average about 1/2 of 1 degree in apparent size. Hold up your pinky finger at arm's length—that is probably about 1 degree in width, twice the width of the moon or sun. Whether directly overhead or at the horizon, the sun and the moon are still 1/2 of 1 degree in size. (The moon might appear ginormous as it rises on the horizon, but this is a trick of scale: measure the size of the moon with that pinky finger—it is the same at any placement in the sky.)
        Here's the point: the size of the moon and sun don't change as they move overhead, as the flat earth model requires! If F.E. was correct, the sun, being only 3000 miles away, would be twice as large overhead at noon than its apparent size at sunset.
        F.E. tries to explain it this way: The thicker atmosphere light passes through at the horizon makes things only appear larger, so you can’t trust your eyes about the sun's or moon’s size. This is an absurd explanation, and completely contrary to what we can clearly observe with our own eyes. But finally, even at higher altitudes, above the thick atmosphere, the sun and moon are still always 1/2 of 1 degrees.
        The fact that we have solar eclipses proves the point. Even though the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, it is 400 times further away, so they always appear to be just about the same size, which is why we can have total solar eclipses. F.E. can't explain this phenomena at all.

        F.E. says the moon is an independent light source—a “lesser” light. It doesn’t reflect the light of the sun. Yet, a view through a telescope shows that the mountains and craters on the moon cast shadows on its surface, and these shadows change as the moon’s phases change. It isn’t creating its own light; it is reflecting the sun.

[Photo by author]

        The moon is visible in all regions of the earth, so we clearly know it is a sphere, or else it would look like a flat disc when it is low on the horizon. But the moon only shows one face toward the planet, as it is tidally locked with the earth. But if the flat–earth model was correct, you’d be able to see the rest of the moon’s surface—the far side of the moon—depending on where on the planet you are viewing the moon.

        We live along the coast; the low–lying outer Channel Islands aren’t visible until you get a couple of thousand feet above sea level, from the hills surrounding Ventura. F.E. claims humidity on the surface of the ocean obscures distant objects on the ocean, which explains why things “disappear” below the horizon. Yet, take a look for yourself! Watch a large freighter ship leave the harbor and sink below the horizon. It is an easy observation to make!
        Below is a popular proof of the earth’s curve: the Thorntonbank Wind Farm, which is located about 28km offshore Belgium. You can clearly see the curvature of the earth in this photo...

[Source: Wiki Media Commons]

        As Bible–believing Christians, our true focus is on what the Bible teaches, and what Nature reveals to us about God. Yet, because F.E. makes such a huge deal about it, we need to address the NASA conspiracy. Shaping one’s beliefs based on conspiratorial fear isn’t a healthy way to form a world–view or a life of faith.

NASA Freemasons
        Flat Earthers point out that many of those in early NASA were practicing Freemasons, therefore they were clearly concocting a global deception.
        The answer is: “Partially yes.” It is true that many in the 1960’s were involved in Freemasonry, even some claiming to be Christians. This is unfortunate and we don’t condone involvement in this occult fraternal society.
        But consider this: there have been many sincere and Biblical followers of Jesus, including famous pastors and preachers, who foolishly accepted Freemasonry’s premise that it wasn’t a religion, but rather a helpful fraternal organization. Most believed Masonry simply emphasized good moral character, hard work, and social benevolence. Only the few who progressed to the “higher” levels were exposed to its truly cultic practices.
        It wasn’t until the internet age, when better information about Freemasonry’s beliefs and practices became available, that involvement in it by Christians dropped off. We can perhaps forgive believers in the 1960s for ignorantly participating in this; but not so much in the 2020s!

Christians
        Regardless of their Freemasonry connections, NASA in the 1960s had many devoted Christians in the front lines of space exploration. Some of the most well–known include:        It is incredibly arrogant to slander the character and reputation of these men, suggesting they were part of a fake moon landing conspiracy. They were bold and unashamed Christians, proclaiming their faith even while exploring space, risking their lives, and even losing their lives, believing in the value of space exploration and the importance of this project for the country.

NASA’s Mission
        NASA’s mission in the 1960s was not to promote the Big Bang, evolution, or atheism, but rather, to help beat the atheistic, communist Soviet Union in the Cold War. Science was tacked on to later Apollo missions in an attempt to expand the role of the program and make it more beneficial and interesting for the American taxpayers. After Apollo, during the Space Shuttle era, science did become a key mission of NASA. But, to be clear, the primary goal of the original space missions was to take a huge technological leap in aeronautics and beat the “godless, atheist Soviets” to the moon, which was much preferable to a nuclear conflict.
        And consider this: NASA isn’t the only space program today. We have many nations and even private commercial companies sending astronauts into space. These are in competition—they aren’t all working together to promote a sixty–year old fraud. If they knew this was bogus, why would they be wasting time and money on it?

        Very simply, let’s move past foolish speculations and spiritual elitism of esoteric worldviews and conspiratorial thinking, and let us focus on Christ alone; then we can share in the beautiful unity found in Him and the clear truth of God’s word.

Unless notes, all images public domain via Wikimedia.org

        Calvary Chapel Oxnard affirms the deity of Christ as an essential, non–negotiable article of The Faith, as does every other Calvary Chapel in our movement. We will never compromise on this.
        The proper understanding and teaching of the identity of Christ is crucial in salvation.        We have to be clear and emphatic about the Deity of Christ. Here are many reasons we hold fast to this critical doctrine. This is not every proof in scripture, but these are sufficient to defend His Divine nature—

        These three passages are the clearest, most emphatic in proclaiming Jesus as God. In each case, “deity deniers,” such as cults, have tried to change the interpretation of each, but these arguments fail, for the reasons explained below.

        Jehovah’s Witnesses render this in their version of the Bible (the New World Translation), “the Word was a god.” They try to confound you with convoluted reasoning: saying because an article, such as “the” or “a” is missing in Greek, this indicates that “god” is inferior, so they add the article “a”—rendering it "a god." But all reputable Greek scholars disagree. They say “a god” is not permitted by the grammar. The missing article stresses that “the Word was God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses are in error. It is worth noting that they have refused to release the names of the scholars they base their version on.
        The way the sentence is structured in Greek emphasizes the deity of Christ. The original Greek literally reads, “and God was the Word,” which looks backwards in English, but in Greek, putting the predicate “God” first in the sentence (before the subject, “the Word”), emphasizes the meaning—that the Word was God.
        But, even without getting into the details of Greek grammar, just read the passage and notice the first phrase, “In the beginning…” John is clearly connecting this to...

        The key is this: If Jesus is just a lesser god, then John is teaching polytheism! Presenting Jesus as a god, who is a creator, who has authority as lord, and is our savior, but is not GOD, is simply blasphemous paganism. There is no way John would teach polytheism. He clearly believed there is only ONE God, and that God is ONE.

        This passage so clearly declares the preexistence of Jesus and His eternal, uncreated nature that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their New World Translation have had to outright “fact check” this passage by adding the word “other,” rendering the text “for by Him all [other] things were created.” This suggests Jesus was created first, and then He created everything else. The addition of the word “other” shows how damaging this passage is to their false doctrines! (We'll discuss the term "Firstborn" in a following section.)
        Paul’s big point in Colossians is to counter Gnostic heretics who redefined the nature of Jesus to fit their errant beliefs. We see this in chapter two…

        Anything taught by the Gnostic heretics that demoted Jesus by any degree in deity or in humanity would be rejected by Paul.
        In Colossians, Paul adds: For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, (1:19)
        And, in Jesus, “all the fullness of Deity [or, “Godhead”- NKJV] dwells in bodily form” (2:9)
        This is also seen in Philippians, where Paul says—“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself…” (2:6–7)
        There is no way around the fact that Paul means to establish the deity of Jesus. Once again—there are either multiple gods, or just one Triune God, Who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Spirit.

        God created the world through Jesus, and Jesus upholds all things by His power. Jesus is the exact representation of God, and Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory.
        The word “image” here isn’t a mere likeness, but rather, like the image of a coin. When a coin is stamped with an image, it becomes the denomination it is stamped with. It becomes the same thing as the prototype. Equating Jesus with the image of God doesn’t mean a mere reflection but rather, that He is same in nature and value as God. Jesus IS the radiance of God’s glory. Yet the prophet Isaiah says God won’t give His glory to another. (Isaiah 48:11)
        All of Hebrews chapter 1 exalts Jesus as superior to anything and everything. Notice these verses…

        Jesus is to be worshiped as God.

        The writer of Hebrews identifies Jesus as God.

        The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 102:25–27, which is clearly speaking of Creator God, yet ascribes this passage to Jesus Christ! This is a powerful proof of the deity of Christ.

        According to Isaiah, there is only one God, and He is the Savior. Only by turning to this One God can a person be saved. Yet consider these verses, written by Paul to Titus & Timothy…
God is called “our Savior”—

        The Greek grammar is emphatic here: “God and Savior” refers to one person.

       Calling God His Father was a unique claim for Jesus. God wasn't just a "father" in terms of origins, as the Jews thought of God as the Father of their nation. No—Jesus was claiming far more! He claimed God was IN Him, and working THROUGH Him, and ONE with Him (as we'll see below). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus meant: He was claiming equality with God.
        John 1:18 agrees. Jesus, the “only begotten God in the bosom of the Father” came to reveal the invisible Father God to us. No amount of manipulating the text can alter the fact that John refers to Jesus in unmistakable terms here. The phrase “only begotten God” can’t be interpreted in any way other than as a clear affirmation of Jesus’ deity.

        The honor due to the Son is equal to the honor due to the Father. This is an incredibly arrogant claim—unless Jesus is truly God.

        Jesus claims an eternal nature with these words. The verb tense is present and active—“I am.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this as “I have been,” once again violating the rules of Greek grammar.

        The cults say Jesus only claimed to be one with the Father in the sense of purpose; that He was simply saying they were on the same team.
        But Jesus’ claim of being one with God incited the Jews to declare His words blasphemous, and picked up stones to kill Him. Jesus was saying His hand was equal to God's hand! And as a mortal, finite man, how could Jesus put His works on the same plane as the work of infinite, omnipotent God?
        There is no debate about the interpretation. The Pharisees hearing his words knew what He was saying, and were certainly in the best position to understand the gravity of His claim. Notice Jesus, Who is The Truth, didn’t clarify His meaning, which He certainly would have done if He were being misunderstood, in order to protect God’s honor and holiness.

        “Believe Me.” Jesus stresses the urgency of this. This is a critical matter.

        When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of God” (for example, John 5:25), this does not mean less than God. The Jews understood this as equating Himself with God. Here at His trial, they considered the term “Son of God” blasphemous, and this sealed Jesus’ death sentence.
        Don’t miss Jesus’ words: “It is as you said.” He does take the title “Son of Man,” which was a term of great honor, used in the Old Testament for the Messiah (primarily in Daniel 7). “Son of Man” stresses His role and mission as the Savior of mankind, but He doesn’t deny being the “Son of God” as well.
        The term "Son of God," used throughout the New Testament, it not meant to imply that God gave birth to the Son of God, and that there was a time when the Son of God didn't exist. The term is not a reference to origin; it is a term of relationship; "Son of God" speaks of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son in the Godhead.
        Similarly, the term “firstborn” doesn’t mean “born first,” as we read previously…

        “Firstborn” It is a title which emphasizes the preeminent son in the family; that He has priority over all things. Scholars agree, the Apostle Paul is NOT saying God gave birth to Pre–Incarnate Jesus at some point in eternity past. “Firstborn” means there is no being in all of creation who compares to Jesus in position, authority, and honor.

        In Isaiah, God claims to be the “first and the last,” and there is no other God besides Him.

        In Revelation 21, God again affirms being the “first and last,” and the “Alpha and the Omega,” the beginning and end of the Greek alphabet. This is God speaking, “I will be his God”; no doubt.

        In vs 7, the Lord God is the “Alpha and the Omega” and the Almighty. In vs 7, He is the Pierced One Who comes in the clouds. This means, the Lord God is the One Who is coming with the clouds, who is pierced. Compare that to our next passage:

        Jesus is speaking in this passage. He is the “one who is coming quickly.” (Rev 3:11, 22:7, 22:22)

        Jehovah’s Witnesses say people didn’t “worship” Jesus. They argue that the word for “worship” can also mean “bow down before” as in honor or fear. The Greek word “proskyneo” can mean either worship or bow down, so context must determine the meaning.
        Consider the following examples. In each case, Jesus has just done a miracle; healing the blind, walking on water, resurrecting the dead, ascending to heaven. The disciples responded by worshiping Him. They weren’t bowing down in anything less than honoring Him as God. They weren’t honoring him as an earthly lord, or falling down in fear. This is clearly worship for God.

        After the blind man’s eyes were opened, he worshiped Jesus and wasn’t refused.

        The disciples worshiped Jesus and He didn’t refuse them. Once again, to the Jews, the term “God’s Son” doesn’t mean Jesus is less than God, but rather, equal to God; God incarnate.

        After His resurrection, Jesus’ disciples worshiped Him and He didn’t refuse them.

        After His ascension, Jesus’ disciples worshiped Him and they weren’t rebuked for it.

        Thomas said, “My Lord and my God” when he saw the resurrected Jesus (John 20:28). Greek scholars affirm that both “Lord” and “God” refer to Jesus here.

        In Romans 10:13, Paul says that we must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, quoting from Joel 2:32, where Joel is clearly speaking of the God of Israel: YHWH. Yet, the “name of the Lord” we are to call upon for salvation is JESUS CHRIST (Romans 10:9) So, Jesus is YHWH!

        Jesus is called “Immanuel,” meaning: “God with us.”

        The cults put a period instead of a comma after “flesh” and make the last statement a doxology to God, not to Jesus. Greek scholars say this is an abrupt and unnatural way to punctuate this.

        This is a critical verse. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Master and Lord. This is a blasphemous statement, unless Jesus is EQUAL to God. Also, notice that denying Jesus as Master and Lord is the work of ungodly, condemned false teachers.

        The one true God, known by His covenant name YHWH, “I AM THAT I AM,” to Israel, is declared over and over in scripture to be ONE GOD. He is the Creator of All, and the Maker of Humankind. He shares His glory with no other “god.” He is The Almighty, and He is the only everlasting, eternal being. And, critically, He decided in His infinite and unimpeachable wisdom to reveal Himself to us in Three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
        God can and did become Man, taking on human flesh with a dual nature, fully God and fully human. This is not a contradiction, an absurdity, nor an impossibility. God can do miracles, and the deity of Christ is His greatest and most important. And even more, as we’ve demonstrated, this is Biblically clear and theologically critical.
        Arguments against the deity of Christ typically involve taking a passage that stresses Jesus’ humanity, or His submission to the Father, and offering this as a “proof text,” apart from the full teaching of scripture. Another tactic is taking a verse out of context, or separating the meaning from the original language of scripture. Denying the deity of Christ in this way begs the question: WHY? What is so offensive about the idea of God becoming Man? Why is the God who is able to do all things limited in His ability to take on human flesh?
        The hard truth of Jesus’ identity caused the Jews to stumble and reject Him, and they crucified Him for it. Sadly, modern deity deniers, some who even claim to “Christian,” agree with the Jews of Jesus’ day and reject Jesus in the same way. This is tragic.
        But there is an easy solution. Repent of your false belief, and be transformed in the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2). See Jesus for Who He truly is, and worship Him anew today.

This is a follow up from our study in Acts 17, from July 3, 2022, titled "Welcoming the Word." 
Several of our folks were asking for more information on Prophecy regarding Jesus from the Old Testament. What a joy it is to unpack this further for you. Enjoy! ~Jeff

Acts 17:1–3
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 

Note the phrase: “from the Scriptures”—Paul primary taught of Jesus’ identity and work of salvation by simply going through the “scriptures,” meaning—the part of the Bible we call the “Old Testament.” This means Paul was showing them fulfilled prophecy! For 1st Century Jews who already believed in the “scriptures,” prophecy was the most powerful way to prove the work & identity of Jesus.

Paul wasn’t the only one who taught of Jesus from the Old Testament. Jesus taught of Himself from the “scriptures” as well—

Luke 24:25–27
Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
 
Luke 24:44–46
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day…”

Think of all the amazing Prophecies Jesus and the Apostles would have been sharing with the Jews to win them to faith; how their own scriptures foretold how Jesus! We know some of these teachings exactly—the New Testament specifically quote them and connect them to Christ. Others aren’t mentioned explicitly, but they are clearly prophetic of Jesus.

For review, here is a quote from our study on July 3:
“Jesus…
• Would be of the tribe of Judah, and a direct descendant of King David
• Would be born of a Virgin, and His birth would be marked by a star and royal visitors from afar
• Would be born in Bethlehem, grow up in Egypt, & start His ministry in Galilee and Nazareth
• Would do miracles: giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, voice to the dumb, mobility to the lame, even raising the dead
• Would fulfill the roles of King, and Priest, and Prophet
• Would both King of Kings, and also Servant of All
• Would be like the Passover Lamb, and the Manna from Heaven, and the Water from a Rock / and fulfill every sacrifice in scripture
• Would be rejected and despised / sold out for 30 pieces of silver / handed over to the Gentiles / crucified on a cross / pierced / and die as an innocent substitute to bear the world’s sins
• And then, He would rise again alive from the tomb.
• These facts and many more were all predicted hundreds and thousands of years earlier in the Jewish scriptures. Paul had a LOT to talk about!”

Adam (>4000BC)
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph (~2000s BC)
Job (~2000BC)
Moses (~1500BC)
David (~1000BC)
Solomon (~950BC)
Isaiah (~750BC)
Hosea (~750BC)
Micah (~700BC)
Jeremiah (~600BC)
Zechariah (~520BC)

Genesis 49:10 (to Jacob, recorded by Moses)
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.

— “The scepter” refers to the rule of kings, and “Shiloh” is a term for the peaceful reign of the Messiah.

— Bonus: This prophecy also means Messiah won’t come until the Jews have lost their “scepter”—governing authority; giving a timeframe for Messiah’s arrival. This happened when the Romans took away the Jews right to govern during the time of Pontius Pilate, shortly before Jesus’ ministry. This is seen in John 18:31 • So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,”

Isaiah 11:1
There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

— “Jesse” was King David’s father—so the “stem” of Jesse was King David.

Jeremiah 23:5–6
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Psalm 132:10–11 (Most likely during the time of Solomon)
For Your servant David’s sake, Do not turn away the face of Your Anointed. The LORD has sworn in truth to David; He will not turn from it: I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.

— These promises to David were connected to Christ in the NT:

Luke 1:32
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Acts 13:22–23
And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus

Genesis 3:15 (to Adam, recorded by Moses)
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

— “Seed” is always used for the man’s role in procreation—except for here in Genesis, speaking of the Messiah born of a Virgin, who would defeat satan.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

— The Hebrew word “virgin” here in Isaiah can be either a young woman or an actual virgin—the first fulfillment of Isaiah words were regarding a young married woman bearing a child. But—when referred to in the New Testament (Matthew 1:23), the Greek word which can only mean “virgin” was used to show the ultimate fulfillment of this in Christ Jesus’ birth to a virgin.

Numbers 24:17 (Moses)
“I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel,

— Interestingly, this prophecy comes from one of the strangest characters in the Bible: Balaam, the guy who talked to his donkey. He was a mystic who was working for Israel’s enemies, but was forced to only speak truth by God.

Isaiah 60:6
All those from Sheba will come; They will bring gold and frankincense, And will bear good news of the praises of the LORD.

Psalm 72 (Solomon)
The kings of Tarshish and of the isles Will bring presents; The kings of Sheba and Seba Will offer gifts. Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; All nations shall serve Him.

Micah 5:2&4
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting…”
…And He shall stand and feed His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God; And they shall abide, For now He shall be great To the ends of the earth; And this One shall be peace.

— Matthew 2:6 connects Jesus to this prophecy. This is one of the clearest and most powerful prophecies of Jesus in all the scriptures!

Hosea 11:2b
…And out of Egypt I called My son.

— Matthew 2:15 connects Jesus to this prophecy.

Isaiah 9:1–2
Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed, As when at first He lightly esteemed The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, And afterward more heavily oppressed her, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, In Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.

— Matthew 4:12–16 connect Jesus to this prophecy.

Matthew 2:23
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

The town of Nazareth didn’t exist in the time of the Old Testament, so the reference is a bit obscure; scholars speak of several different ways the Old Testament foreshadowed this:

1 • "BRANCH" = "NEZER" / The word for “Branch” in the Old Testament is “Nezer”—and the Branch is a term for the Messiah! This is a play on words—a homonym for “Nazarene.”

Isaiah 11:1
There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him

Jeremiah 23:5
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;

2 • NAZARETH = SCORN! That Messiah would be scorned and rejected—like those from Nazareth in Jesus’ day—

Isaiah 53:2
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men…
 
Psalm 69:9
Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.
 
— John 1:45–46 reflects this attitude: Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

3 • NAZARITE SOUND LIKE NAZARETH • That this is a play on words, from the Old Testament “Nazirite,” vow of separation, taken, for example, by Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist. Jesus was not a Nazirite, and never took such a vow—but “Nazirite” is a close homonym of “Nazarene” in the NT, and speaks of Jesus’ devotion to God.

Isaiah 26:19
Your dead shall live; Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust

— There is also prophecy here through “typology”— the OT prophets were pictures of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ raising the dead identified Him as a Great Prophet, like those of the OT…
 
Luke 7:15–16
So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother. Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.”

1 Kings 17:22
Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived.

2 Kings 4:32–37
Elisha raises the Shunammite’s son

2 Samuel 7:16–17 (David)
And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ” According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

— Luke 1:32
“Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”

Psalm 110:4 (David)
“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

— King David knew from God that he was a priest—not an official priest from the tribe of Levi, but according to a different “order”—he was like the Kingly Priest Melchizedek from the book of Genesis. Melchizedek is a typological prophetic picture of Jesus.

Hebrew 6:20 explains…
…where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses)
“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

— Acts 3:22 connects this to Jesus.

• HE WOULD BOTH KING OF KINGS…

See “Son of David” and “King” above

Isaiah 42:1–3
“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth.

— Matthew 12:18–20 connects this with Jesus
 
— Jewish Rabbis were so confused about language of the Messiah being a lowly servant, that they imagined two messiahs: one a King like David, the other a Suffering Servant like Joseph!
Joseph is one of the clearest typological pictures of Jesus in the Old Testament. Genesis 37, for example shows Joseph’s jealous brothers selling him to the Egyptians in their jealousy—a striking parallel to the Pharisees rejection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 5:7
For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.
 
— Referring to Exodus 12

John 6:31–35
Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.

— Referring to Exodus 16

1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

— Referring to Exodus 17:6 & Numbers 20:8–11

Hebrews 10 is a long and complete explanation of this. For example:

Hebrews 10:3–5, 12
But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me…
…But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God

— Referring to, for example, Leviticus ch 1–7 & 16

Isaiah 53:3
He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Psalm 22:6–8 (David)
But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised by the people. All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, “He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”

Zechariah 11:12–13

Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.

— This was fulfilled in Matthew 27:3–10.

— Note: Also fulfilled in this passage: that the silver was used to purchase a potter’s field!

Psalm 22:16 & 20 (David)
For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me…
…Deliver Me from the sword, My precious life from the power of the dog.

— Psalm 22 is the most quoted OT passage in the NT—because it is so clearly about Jesus!

— Note: “Dogs” seems like a derogatory term to refer to people, but it is a common idiom in the first Century (see Matthew 15:24–28).

Psalm 22:16–17
They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me.

Zechariah 13:6–7a
And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered;

Isaiah 49:16
See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands;

Zechariah 12:10
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

— John 19:37 connect this to Jesus

Job 19:25
For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;

Psalm 16:10
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
— Acts 13:35–37 connects this to Jesus

Isaiah 53:9–11a
And they made His grave with the wicked—But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.

— Here in the most precise passage of Jesus’ atoning death in the OT, we find both his burial “with the rich,” but also “…He shall prolong His days…”!

Psalm 22:18
They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.
 
— Matthew 27:35 connects this with Jesus

Psalm 34:20
— He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken.
 
— John 19:36 connects this to Jesus

Numbers 9:12
…nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.

— The Passover Lamb was a “type” of Jesus.

Exodus 12:46
...nor shall you break one of its bones.

— Interestingly, no explanation is given of why the Passover lamb’s bones must be kept intact. It only makes sense in light of Jesus’ crucifixion!

On Wednesday, October 27th, CCO had the third of our BASICS Series. The topic was Gender. After the first two sessions established the theological and philosophical foundation for the series, it was time to address specific issues from a Biblical Worldview.

We began BASICS when some new members had questions revealing a lack of understanding of fundamental Bible truths. As the culture went increasingly secular, many had no church or religious background. They wonder what they ought to believe about the things the world is talking about.

Our initial remarks made clear as we address gender, we are not engaging in a political debate. Our goal is to come at the subject from a Biblical Worldview perspective. Our central focus and authority are God’s Word.

It is challenging to handle a topic like this due to how the broader culture frames the issue. So we begin this article here.

In our attempt to give a Biblical perspective on Gender, we must differentiate the LGBTQ+ movement with its radical political and cultural agenda from co-opting the discussion. We instead want to see what the Bible says about Gender generally, then what The Gospel speaks to those who struggle with personal issues. We want to differentiate between the aggressive LBGTQ+ Movement and those who identify with it and those individuals who struggle with personal issues of gender and identity.

It seems in seeking to do that last part carefully, some who heard the study assumed we were seeking to accommodate those advocating for the acceptance of transsexuality in the church. They misunderstood our emphasis on first seeing people come to saving faith in Jesus, then being ushered into a life of progressive sanctification as compromising the Bible’s call to “repent and believe.” We want to clear that up.

The following aims to make clear a Biblical Worldview position on Gender. It is meant to be a widely accessible treatment rather than a theologically exhaustive tome.

Genesis 1:27 • So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Nothing else in all creation, spiritual and material, is declared to be in God’s image. To be human means to be unique by virtue of bearing His image. So, under its origin, identity isn’t self-invented; it’s assigned. God defines what it means to be human. That is not something we can alter or edit. And being human means being male or female. Gender is attached to the unalterable nature of what it means to be human. Just as our identity as humans is fixed, so is our gender. This runs counter to the current fashion of “gender fluidity” that divorces gender from biology.

It isn’t within the scope of our purpose here to dive into human nature and what it means to bear God’s image. What is, is to note how that image is revealed IN the genders of male and female. It makes sense, then, that gender would be a particular target of the adversary. His earliest assault on humanity involved a distortion of our understanding of God. A Biblical perspective on what God intends a man to be and a woman to be would bring a better grasp on Who God is since it yields a clearer picture of God’s image in human beings. The devil doesn’t want us to know what God is really like because God is so gloriously attractive; it would draw us to Him. So it has ever been the devil’s plan to distort our understanding of God. If he can twist gender into something other than what God intends, he’s advanced his goal.

This is why the Law of Moses forbade the blurring of gender distinctives.

Deuteronomy 22:5 • “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

The principle behind that is repeated in the New Testament when in 1 Corinthians 11:4-16, the Apostle Paul gives instructions on head coverings. Using a custom specific to the culture of First Century Corinth, Paul makes clear that men and women ought to use culturally relevant idioms denoting their gender. In other words, followers of Jesus ought not to adopt fashions that would confuse an observer on what gender they were. Men ought to dress and behave in a manner consistent with being a male while women do likewise as females. That Paul uses the culturally-relevant custom of head coverings as a manifestation of gender-differentiation means being sensitive to how a given time and place identifies men and women. The more important principle is not to confuse genders. Men are to dress and act like men, women as women.

Something needs to be added at this point. While all cultures and times have customs for differentiating men and women, we must acknowledge that some customs are unbiblical extremes. A little over a half-century ago in the United States, the manly-man was identified as a rough and tumble cowboy. He could start a fire with two sticks, smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, and whose diet was beans, bacon, and a pot of coffee from a blue porcelain-clad steel coffeepot. All eaten while squatting in front of his campfire, his horse standing loyally by. When he spoke, he said, “Howdy, pardner. Can I rustle you up some grub?”

The ladylike-woman had long hair, wore flamboyant hats and frilly dresses, and carried a parasol, which she could spin smartly. She spent her time cooking, making quilts, and talking about her children.

As exaggerated as those images are, they’re not far off the mark for how the culture of the time regarded what it meant to be a “real” man or woman. But those images didn’t mean the man who worked in an office in a city was less manly. Or that a woman who ran a business on Main Street was any less feminine. It only meant those who chose those stations took a route to who they were as men and women differently from the cultural archetype.

We mustn’t make mere cultural expressions of masculinity and femininity equivalent to Biblical norms for what God means by male and female. Again, the principle is to dress and behave so that observers aren’t left to wonder what gender someone is.

With that as our base, let’s move to the power of The Gospel to save and how we honor that truth in a culture that has grown increasingly hostile toward Faith in God.

Because we hear so much from radical proponents of the LGBTQ+ Movement in their push to have their agenda normalized and approved, it’s easy to slip into an “Us versus Them” posture. Jesus’ interaction with tax-collectors and sinners cautions us against that. Jesus didn’t eat with ALL publicans, only those who would meet with Him. He didn’t invite Himself to every sinner’s house in Jericho, just Zacchaeus’. Jesus didn’t see groups. He saw individuals. In meeting them, He risked the judgment and wrath of self-appointed protectors of holiness, the Pharisees, who called Him “the friend of sinners.” [1] They called Him that because that’s what He seemed to be. Eating with someone was, for that culture, a sign of fellowship. When the Pharisees snarked about Jesus’ undignified behavior, His reply was, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Luke 5:31–32) He wasn’t saying the Pharisees were genuinely righteous. They weren’t. But they regarded themselves so while the sinners with whom Jesus met were attracted to Him precisely because they knew they needed mercy. In Him, they found truth wrapped in grace that promised a change they longed for.
 
The dilemma confronting the Evangelical Church today is how to oppose the destructive measures advocated by the LGBTQ+ Movement seeking to normalize life-destroying perversion while at the same time holding forth The Gospel in a winsome way to those struggling with their gender identity. How do we oppose public policies that institutionalize sin while at the same time not losing our voice in calling people into God’s love?

The solution is to acknowledge not everyone struggling with gender identity is an enemy. Whatever their current condition, God loves them and wants them to be saved. Frankly, their identifying as “trans” is just one of a whole inventory of sins God wants to deliver them from. It’s likely not even the worst. As significant as gender confusion seems, pride is a far more egregious error.

Acts 2 sets the pattern for the Bible's call that sinners repent and believe to be saved. What Peter called the crowd to repent of wasn’t sins in general. He called them to repent of what he had just charged them guilty of > Rejecting their Messiah. Salvation follows on turning from (repenting) unbelief to faith in Jesus. That first repentance then issues us into a life of ongoing and progressive repentance from thoughts, affections, and actions that fail to align with God.

In sharing The Gospel with sinners of all stripes, we need to clarify that what they are being saved from is sin and that walking with God means forsaking all that which dishonors Him. If someone balks at that, they aren’t in the right place to put genuine faith in Christ. The point here is this – Let’s not make a special case for the transgender we wouldn’t make for the flannel-shirted lumberjack who likes porn. Both need to understand giving themselves to Jesus means giving Him the right to call the shots on where they go on the internet and what gender they identify as.
 
   [1] Luke 7:34, cf Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:15-17

I’ve been asked repeatedly by church members on whether or not they ought to get the COVID-19 vaccination. What follows is an attempt to help people decide what course to take. I want to be clear at the outset; reading this will not point you in one direction or the other. It isn’t my aim to either encourage or discourage vaccination. My goal is to help those finding it difficult to MAKE A DECISION to do just that – Make a decision and follow through on it so that they are no longer pinned on the horns of a dilemma.

While the movement against vaccinations in general had been growing before COVID hit, those considering the issue now weren’t part of the anti-vax movement. Their hesitancy today stems mostly from a concern about the efficacy of the vaccine, potential side effects, and the long-term consequences of the treatment. Since the vaccine was rushed into service, the usual testing regimen applied to new medicines was greatly abbreviated. Only emergency approval was granted so the treatment could be employed in combating what was assumed to be a dangerous epidemic. Standard FDA approval is still a long way off. (EMERGENCY approval by the FDA was given and the Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA), previously known as Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, for prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older was given at the end of August. Other COVID-19 vaccines are still in use under the Emergency protocol.)

While situations are unique to each individual, some common themes keep surfacing among those who’ve consulted me for advice.

• They are being pressed by family and friends to be vaccinated
• They are being pressed by family and friends to NOT be vaccinated
• Their employer or school requires vaccination
• They have read reports of the danger of the vaccine
• They have heard the vaccine is “the mark of the beast”

While proper deliberation on such an important issues must be done, I don’t believe God wants His people to be anxious as they find themselves stuck and unable to reach a conclusion. Certainly the options are clear -

• Be vaccinated
• Don’t be vaccinated
• Wait to be vaccinated

Each person needs to decide what the Spirit is leading them to do, settle into that decision, and be done vacillating back and forth between different opinions. We ought not be swayed one way Monday, another Tuesday, then back again Wednesday, based on the latest pronouncements of “experts” who change their views according to the latest research or political wind. We keep hearing we need to be influenced by “the science” but the authorities we look to, to decipher the statistics don’t agree on what it means or the policies we ought to follow. In the vacuum of trustworthy data, politics moves into take charge.

In the midst of all this confusion and uncertainty, Christians have a trustworthy Authority to look to for guidance. God will direct us as we ask Him to.

Wisdom is found in seeking the counsel of qualified and trusted sources. But once that counsel is secured and weighed, the final step is to commit all things to prayer, asking God to guide you into the decision HE wants you to make.

In Philippians 4:6–7, the Apostle Paul provides marvelous guidance for how to decide when options are before us.

Rather than being anxious over what to do, earnestly ask God what course to take, trusting that He will indeed answer. That answer will be made evident by looking for where His peace lies. Among the options before you, which seems the direction you’re to go? It’s really a matter of stepping away from anxiety into peace.

Speaking honestly, there are some decisions we come to in life where all options carry a measure of unrest. Walking by faith means trusting God and that always includes a measure of risk. In those decisions where it’s difficult to discern God’s peace, which is fraught with the least among to anxiety? That’s the direction we’re to go because we’re replacing anxiety with trusting God.

So, should you get the vaccine, not get it, or wait? Ask God to show you what He wants you to do, then do it. What he does NOT want you to do is stay stuck between those options.

If He tells you to get vaccinated, do it.

If He tells you not to, then make the decision not to and stop agonizing over whether or not you should.

If He says to wait, define what criteria you need before moving ahead with being vaccinated. Don’t leave that unspecified. You must identify what is holding you back that when if and when it is clear, you will know clearly whether to be vaccinated or not.

Again, the important issue is to move out from indecision into a Spirit-inspired conclusion.
If I may use atrocious grammar - “Don’t vacillate on the vaccinate.”

The dilemma facing Christians today is living with one another while having various opinions on the vaccine. It’s akin to what the Apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 14; the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. I encourage you to read that chapter yourself. For a fuller explanation for how Christians ought to live with varying convictions, see my study here.

It was from a college philosopher professor many years ago I first heard of the divorce between faith and reason. While standing in the doorway of the class, smoking a cigarette, sipping a cup of coffee and some adult beverage, he lectured us on how The Enlightenment placed an unpassable wall between religious faith and rationality. With dogmatic certainty, he asserted faith was to believe something apart from evidence. If there was any evidence involved, it was a matter of reason, not faith.

This professor was usually fair-minded in regard to philosophical discussion, so I raised my hand to clarify—silly me. I asked if his distinction between faith and reason didn’t, therefore, make faith irrational and unreasonable. He fixed me with a steely glare, nodded, and said, “Precisely.” His countenance made it clear he was eager to debate his point, hoping I’d object. I wanted to but knew the unspoken college “rules of the class.” Defy the professor, fail the class, and there’s no appeal. So I just stared back, shaking my head in negation. The rest of that semester, he regularly made disparaging remarks about faith with a chin-point in my direction.
Having spent the majority of my upbringing among those with a Judeo-Christian Worldview, I was curious if what that professor said was merely his own idea or the accepted position of modern philosophy. I discovered it was indeed the majority view. Moderns tend to regard faith and reason as on opposite sides of the intellectual divide. Rationality is an exercise of human reason, based on evidence and following the rules of logical deduction. Faith, on the other hand, is an exercise of pure will without regard to evidence, frequently disregarding logic. It is, as one popular phrase puts it, “a blind leap into the unknowing dark.”

This view of the divorce between faith and reason is inaccurate and historically untenable. It’s an unwarranted assertion of modern philosophy; a verbal sleight-of-hand promulgated on the historically unaware. In asserting the divorce between faith and reason, modern philosophy cuts itself off at the knees because many of its presuppositions were shaped by Greek, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophers who provided its vocabulary and dictionary. The rules of logic and assessing evidence were developed by people of profound religious faith. Their worldview enabled them to develop the mental and procedural models moderns use to ridicule that worldview.

Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertion of modern philosophy that “faith has no reason and reason has no faith” the Christian understanding of faith rests on evidence. Biblical faith is a rational response to evidence.

It’s crucial to establish this at the outset of our investigation into the place of faith in shaping political views. Just as modern philosophy divorces reason and faith, there are those in the secular community who allow no place for religion in politics. They make a fundamental mistake in understanding reason and faith, as well as religion and politics.

The premier passage defining the Christian conception of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In speaking of faith this way, the author of Hebrews intended the reader to regard it as connected to something substantial. It may not be apparent to the senses, but it is no less real for that.

There are many things we regard as real yet not tangible to our five senses. Our emotions are internal states of mind we give labels to like; peace, happiness, sadness, love, hate. No one doubts their existence though they are immaterial. We might encounter evidence of emotions in someone’s behavior or speech. But what we’re seeing and hearing isn’t the emotion itself, only it’s expression.

Though God, by His very nature as a spiritual being, isn’t apparent to our senses, the evidence of His existence is all around us. I will go so far as to say, the existence of ANY evidence, is proof of God. Indeed, the existence of the Supreme Deity the Bible describes is a logical necessity. It’s simple Ontology. The Apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

No petty intellect himself, the Apostle Paul removes the excuse of the materialist who denies the existence of God because he/she doesn’t perceive Him through their senses. Knowledge doesn’t come to us only by sense perception. Our minds link and manipulate perceptions to draw conclusions. That’s the essence of reason. Paul says there’s an underlying reality the existence of creation requires for there to even BE a creation. That is the existence of an eternal, all-powerful Creator.
In order for there to be anything now, there must be Some Thing that has always been. If there was ever a moment when there was nothing, there would be nothing now because nothing is no-thing and can nothing. That means there must be Some Thing that has always been, that possesses self-existence.

Reason and logic make clear the physical realm we inhabit is ruled by cause-and-effect. Everything owes its existence to a prior cause. But logic also prohibits an eternal regression. There has to be a starting point. The only reasonable conclusion is that that starting point cannot itself be inside a universe ruled by cause-and-effect. It must be a sufficient first cause, something that stands outside of the physical universe, eternal, with the power to give rise to everything else. This is basic logic. Reason demands the existence of an eternal, all-powerful Creator that owns its own existence.

What Paul says in Romans 1:20 makes clear that rather than faith lacking evidence, correctly understood evidence produces faith. To deny the existence of God because of a lack of evidence is a flight of irrational fancy because the use of evidence presumes the existence of a Creator Who made it.

In Part 2, we’ll consider how the eminently reasonable faith of the Judeo-Christian Worldview shaped the modern world. >> The Place of Faith in Shaping Political Views • Part 2 

Building on the momentum of Part One, we now consider how the Judeo-Christian Worldview helped shape the modern world.

As is well-documented in numerous works, it was the blending of the Judeo-Christian understanding of reality with the Greek philosophical tradition of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[1] The Judeo-Christian worldview provided the concept of an objective reality centered on an eternal, all-powerful Creator-God Who created the universe for a reason. Humanity’s original mandate was to have dominion over Earth and in our submission to God to participate with Him in the goal (teleos) of creation. Far from that original dominion being an excuse to misuse and abuse the Earth, it was a mandate to study and use what was learned to advance toward its beneficent goal. In short, Humanity’s original dominion assignment was a mandate for science and technology.

 Greek Philosophy provided the intellectual tools needed in the pursuit of that mandate, things like Socrates’ deduction and rigorous inquiry, Plato’s forms and attention to language, Aristotle’s logic and classifications. This blending of Jerusalem with Athens produced the intellectual climate of Medieval Europe and gave birth to the Renaissance. The Renaissance then moved in two directions, Reformation and Enlightenment.

 While the Reformation liberated the Church from man-made traditions, returning it to its source material in Scripture, the Enlightenment liberated human beings from religion.
 Step One in the Enlightenment’s wedge between faith and reason was taken by Oxford professor John Locke. In 1690, Locke published his Essay on Human Understanding, in which he contended all knowledge is derived from the experience of ours senses and the working of our minds. That working of the mind produced a kind of knowledge he called “probability.” Probability works like this; We repeatedly experienced someone’s existence; we’ll call him “George.” George is a friend we see a couple of times a week. When George isn’t standing in front of us, we still have reason to believe He exists, even though at that moment, we have no purely empirical basis to believe in his existence. Still, sound judgment gives us reason to discern the probability of George’s existence. Probability allows us to get on with the practical affairs in life.
 Faith, Locke maintained, is assent to knowledge derived from revelation rather than reason. Therefore, although highly probable, knowledge derived by faith can’t be certain. Reason must be used in order to measure the degree of probability of what we believe by faith. Using this criterion, Locke remained a Christian. In 1695, he published a treatise, The Reasonableness of Christianity, in which he claimed Christianity is the most reasonable of religions. But Locke didn’t believe the Christian Faith had added anything of importance to what could have been known by the proper use of reason.

 Others came along after Locke and drove a wedge between faith and reason, divorcing them. In the settlement, Faith was left impoverished while Reason drove off with all the goodies.
 Locke was followed by David Hume, who drew a border around empiricism prohibiting probability. Hume went so far as to deny cause and effect. Just because something has happened repeatedly in our experience, that doesn’t mean at some time and place it would do something else. All we can know for certain, Hume claimed, is what we are at this moment experiencing. Hume’s skepticism became a corrosive ideology that began to eat away at the foundations of Rationalism itself and led eventually to the philosophical underpinings of post-modernism, which denies absolutes and objective truth. In post-modernism, truth moves from being something that corresponds with what is real to a purely subjective, self-validating affirmation of personal preference, captured by a phrase oft heard on college campuses, “That may be your truth, but it’s not mine.”

 I’ve taken this route in speaking about Faith and Politics to set our context. An essay on Faith and Politics would not have been deemed necessary throughout most of history. Until the advent of Rationalism, people didn’t set faith in opposition to reason. Tell Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle the day would come when the intellectual tools they developed would one day be used to divorce faith and reason, and they  would have thought you a lunatic. Yet today, we’re told religious faith has no place in the public square. Faith must not intersect politics because, well, you know “Separation of Church and State.” If the Founders could see how that idea has shaped today’s political landscape, they’d start a Twitter-storm the likes of which has never been seen. Their worldview was profoundly shaped by both faith and reason because faith for them wasn’t an irrational “blind leap into the dark.” It was a reasonable response to the evidence their sense presented them. So they made frequent appeal to God and His ways in the Declaration of Independence. It was precisely because human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, with civil government given authority by God to safeguard those rights, that moved them to sever ties with England because it had abrogated its God-ordained duty.

 Following through on that understanding of rights and the transcendent basis of government, the Founders set about to apply principles of governance they gleaned from Scripture. A handful of historians have identified how the thinking of the Founders was shaped by the sermons they heard. It all combined to produce the US Constitution, a document that has been the model for dozens of other nations’ charters and has led to the greatest degree of personal liberty with the highest standard of living for the most people in the history of the world.
 Like those Greek philosophers who would be appalled at how their philosophical tools have been misused to divide faith and reason, the Founders would be speechless at how antagonistic modern society has become toward, not just the presence of faith in informing politics, but its necessity in doing so. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
 The opening pages of the Bible tell us of God creating human beings in His image and likeness. Our capacity to reason lies in that image. Reason quickly moves us beyond the “how of things” to the far more important “Why?” Why did God create the universe and human beings? That’s a subject for a different essay. What’s germane for this piece is the realization that there is a God to Whom we owe our existence. As a super-rational being, God had a reason for creating. That means we have a purpose. We don’t just possess reason; we have A reason. Life works best when it aligns with that reason. Ignoring it leads to ruin.

 God created us as social creatures, meant to share life together. For that to work optimally, some form of government needs to be established so that competing interests can be negotiated. Where there’s government, there’s politics. So God gives the mandate for civil government early in the Bible, in Genesis 9, just after The Flood. The mandate for human government is to protect the sanctity of human life through a system of justice.
 Later, when God gave Moses the Laws by which Israel was to operate, He repeatedly called them to obey because He was Holy. The Law was a reflection of His character and nature. Since human beings are created in God’s image, life is designed to function within the scope of its purpose. When it deviates from that, it doesn’t work. Obedience to God leads to human flourishing, while disobedience leads to diminishing.

 The place of faith in politics lies in connecting the unchanging God-ordained purpose for all things to the government’s task, to justly negotiate competing interests. Law will either be determined by the timeless guidelines provided by God in Scripture or by the arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.

 The Founders of our nation were profoundly shaped by a Biblical Worldview and sought to shape our national constitution on unchanging natural law. Their genius produced a system of personal liberty under law that has seen the highest standard of living, for the most people, of every class and station, for the longest period of time in history.

 What role does faith have in politics? A central role.
 
   [1] cf. Seven Revolutions, Aquilina, James & Papandera, James L. Image; New York
Faith & Reason, Searching for a Rational Faith Nash, Ronald H. Academie-Zondervan; Grand Rapids
The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great by Ben Shapiro Broadside Books

I’ve grown increasingly concerned by the inroads the Progressive Left has made into the Evangelical church, especially among young adults. The purpose of this essay is to challenge the idea of the Progressive Christian. You can either be a Christian or a Progressive but not both without pouring new meaning into what you mean by either.

What follows is not intended to persuade those who’ve already accepted the tenets of Progressivism. It is for the large number of Evangelicals who more recently have become aware of the leftward shift taking place in many churches and schools. We begin with a brief review Critical Theory, a core component of Progressivism. We then turn to consider how The Gospel’s doctrine of Justification by Faith is utterly incompatible with Critical Theory. We end with a look at the futility of Progressivism and how only The Gospel provides the solution to human need.

For a fuller treatment of Progressivism and its connection to Theological Liberalism, see my article Regressive Christianity.

A Question of Justice
Progressivism and Christianity have very different concepts of justice. We’ll consider Progressivism’s concept of justice, then Christianity’s.

Progressivism
Progressivism’s justice is derived from a philosophy called Critical Theory (CT). The Marxist roots of CT are revealed by its belief all history is the result of class-struggle between the Haves and Have-Nots, between the dominant and the oppressed.

In Critical Theory, the value of the individual is derived from their inclusion in a group. That value is not a matter of inherent worth as a human being so much as what justice is owed the oppressed group the individual is part of in terms of justice. The more oppressed a group has been, the more of a claim to retributive or social justice they possess. The group holding dominance in shaping culture is attributed less value with a corresponding diminished claim to justice. On the contrary, having received the privileges of dominance, social justice requires they lose privileges. Progressivism is a zero-sum game where, for a group to rise, another must fall. The more oppressed groups an individual is a part of, the greater their claim on social justice. This is called Intersectionality.

For our purpose, what’s important to note is where the value of human life lies in Critical Theory and the view of justice it imparts to Progressivism. It isn’t due to any intrinsic individual worth. It’s not derived from the nature of our origin, potential, or destiny. The individual only has value though of their inclusion in an oppressed group. It’s the group’s claim to social justice that gives it’s members worth.

Christianity
In Christianity, justice is a matter of being right with a holy and righteous God. The Gospel and it’s promise of salvation is fundamentally a question of justice. How can sinners be right with a holy and just God? How can the guilty be forgiven their moral and spiritual debt?

The doctrine of Justification by Faith lies at the center of the Christian Faith. It’s the belief that individuals are declared just by God through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. They do not attain justification by anything intrinsic to themselves. God does not set aside the guilt of personal sin because of special skill or talent, nor because they’ve compensated for wrong-doing by acts of penance or merit. Any good work they may do is already required, so it can hardly compensate for failure. It is precisely because no one can save themselves that Christ came. If salvation were possible by human effort, Christ need not and would not have come. That He did is sufficient proof there is no other way to be right with God and the demands of His justice to be met.

The faith that results in justification is exercised by individuals, not groups. Once an individual puts their faith in Christ and is declared righteous by God, they become a part of God’s family. To use a Biblical idiom, they become a son or daughter of God. But inclusion in this spiritual family is the result of individual faith.

In other words, salvation is individual, not collective. The appeal of the Gospel is for all people, but is appropriate only by individuals.

The Gospel says our value is determined, not by anything inherent within ourselves. It is external, not internal. It is derived from the fact that we are loved and valued by God. The individual does not obtain value by inclusion in a group or some special talent or skill they possess. Their utility to society does not enhance their worth. Their value lies in the fact of their bearing the image of God and the related potential of being in an eternally intimate relationship with Him. Martin Luther said, “Sinners are attractive because they are loved, not loved because they are attractive.”

How Many Groups?
The problem with Progressivism is that its view of justice is too low. It regards no justice but that of the interaction of social groups. Yet these groups experience egregious acts of injustice between their own members. The social justice of CT is derelict in that it ignores genuine justice, which is always and only centered on the treatment of individuals. Putting any adjective in front of “justice” is to make it unjust. Justice does right by the individual-person or it is no justice at all.

This is where The Gospel’s offer of justification by faith can heal our polarized world. It reverses the way in which we evaluate others. If a person’s value lies in a quality or feature they possess, or what group they’re a part of, it makes distinctions between people. Some are more valuable, others less so; and we’re back to the bigotry and racism that’s plagued every age. If, however, our value resides in God’s valuing us, we can’t make such distinctions. Each and every person has value and the dignity such value produces. Therefore, everyone deserves the justice of equal treatment, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or social utility.

Progressivism is destined to fail because its justice is conceived of only in human interactions. A concern for righteousness is nowhere to be found. Social justice is futile because there is no point at which it can be achieved. Once a dominant group is toppled from its place as chief cultural influence and systems are changed to ensure oppressed groups achieve social parity, it inevitably follows that another group will emerge as dominant and the cycle starts all over again. That is precisely the objective of Marxism’s class-struggle worldview that produced Critical Theory. Progressivism leads only to endless in-justice and revolution.

A great danger of Critical Theory isn’t that it demonizes those it regards as comprising the dominant culture so much as sanctifying the oppressed, any group not part of shaping the dominant culture. Critical Theory encourages the culturally-oppressed to regard themselves as victims whose experience of racism and prejudice secures for them a place of judicial privilege. Critical Theory’s form of justice becomes a matter of the treatment of groups rather than individuals. It matters not if an individual has ever experienced injustice, simply by their inclusion in a group, they are regarded as a victim of injustice at the hands of a hostile system, while those assigned to the group deemed dominant are guilty of injustice apart from anything they’ve done.

Conclusion
The Gospel provides no ground for the concepts of Critical Theory because it reduces humanity to only two groups, the lost and the saved. It says Jesus died to save sinners, a group from which all begin. People are saved by individual faith in Christ, not because they are members of an oppressed minority.

Christmas Traditions
A Biblical Perspective on the Celebration of the Birth of Christ

Each year many Christians are faced with the decision of what to do about the holidays. Should they celebrate with everyone else or refrain from celebrating because of the pagan origins of some of the practices associated with this time of year? For many, this is no minor dilemma. What follows is offered in the hope we may find that place of balance so essential to a healthy Christian life.

Believers began celebrating Jesus' birth in the Fourth Century. There was uncertainty over the correct date so they picked December 25th, a day which was already being used to celebrate a pagan religious holiday. As converts from paganism, they desired to distance themselves from their past. What better way to do that than to turn their love and devotion to the Savior while their neighbors were caught up in the errors of their pagan faiths?

In the early centuries, Christmas commemorated more than just Jesus' first coming as a babe to Bethlehem. It anticipated His Second Coming as King of creation. Believers looked backward with thanksgiving and forward in preparation. This forward-looking aspect of Christmas is seen in the observance of Advent, a four-week period preceding Christmas in which people pause to remember the meaning of the coming of the Savior.[1]

 What poses a difficulty for many Christians today is the realization many of the rituals of Christmas are a carry -over, not from the Christian traditions of Christmas, but pagan religious holidays. The Christmas tree, exchanging gifts, the Yule log, and a host of other practices come from a pagan source. The question immediately arises, "If these things are pagan in origin, should we engage in them?"

 Some sincere believers are convinced they should not. And if one's conscience is violated, then certainly, they should not observe these things. But let me suggest another way to look at Christmas and the rituals associated with it.

 The observance and celebration of holidays is something God ordained and commanded in the Old Testament. He instructed Israel to set aside special days as a time of remembrance of the great acts of redemption He worked in their history. Each year they were to cease from all other activity and remember His great salvation. Passover, Tabernacles, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement; all these point to what God had done, and what He promised yet to do. Celebration on special days commemorating God's promises was to be a regular and annual part of the life of faith.

 One of the commands God gave about these holy-days, was that when the children asked their parents what the day meant, the parents were to tell the children about God's mighty grace and how He works in the lives of those who call on Him. At the Passover table, filled as it was with so many strange dishes, it was only natural for children to ask why they ate those particular foods. At the celebration of Tabernacles, the entire nation was to move outdoors into lean-to shacks made of palm branches. In this way, they commemorated the wilderness wanderings and their living in tents. While fun for the kids, it would certainly raise their curiosity.

 So holidays had a two-fold purpose: 1) to regularly remind adults that God works in the affairs of his people, and 2) to train up the children in the knowledge and heritage of faith in God.
 The Early Church was mainly comprised of converted Jews. As we read the book of Acts, we see that they continued celebrating the holidays of Israel. But now, these special days were infused with new meaning and relevance. Those first Christians could see these special days as not merely a looking back to what God had done but to what God did in giving His only begotten Son, and in what He had promised He would do in the future.

 While the Jews have several major feast days, Christians concentrate their attention on two great times of rejoicing; Christmas and Resurrection or Easter Sunday. These two holidays are memorials of God's faithfulness and love. It is only right that we follow on in the tradition of faith by setting aside special days to remember and reflect on the greatness of God.
 The problem is that we find no specific instructions in the Bible on how to celebrate Christmas. Where such instruction is lacking, we may use sanctified-common-sense. This means we must avoid sin and walk wisely. We must also consider the dictates of our conscience. But let us each ensure our conscience is informed by truth.

 While it is true that most of the rituals of Christmas observed today have their origin in pagan practices, they do not have those associations today. People do not worship their Christmas tree. (Although, they may worship what's under it!) The dilemma we must address is this: Just what DO the rituals of this season mean? Why do we put a tree in our living rooms? Why do we decorate it? Why do we give presents and what is the meaning of the stocking? Who is Santa and how can he come down that chimney if he has cookies and milk at every house?

 While these things don't have pagan meanings for us, there is still a problem. The problem is that they have NO meaning. They are empty and void of content. Consequently, they are pointless, vain practices for most. Empty rituals make for a lifeless faith. Jesus was quite hard on the religious leaders of his day precisely on this point. They were going through the motions of religion, without any real meaning in their rituals. He didn't call them to stop their practices but rather to do them with hearts in tune with what they meant.[2]

 Rather than cast off the traditions of Christmas, why not re-infuse them with meaning so they become living object lessons of what this season is all about.

 This is the way we went abou tit in our home when our children were young. On Christmas Eve, we gathered round the tree and told them the Christmas story. The lights on the tree are a reminder of the stars that lit the field where the shepherds watched their flocks. Then suddenly, angels appeared to declare the birth of Christ. The star on the top of the tree reminds us of the star that guided the Magi. We told our children truly wise people still seek Christ. The round ornaments remind us that Jesus came because God loves the whole world. The colors of the ornaments; gold, silver, red and such speak of richness of God's gift and who Jesus came to shed His blood for our sins. The tree itself is a reminder that Jesus came, not to rule, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many on the cross of Calvary. (But when He comes again, He comes as King.) The evergreen reminds us that the love and promises of God are everlasting.

 We give gifts to one another as a reminder of the greatest of all gifts—Jesus. The stocking which was empty the night before Christmas is filled on Christmas morn, reminding us that when we were empty, Christ filled us with good things. We set out an extra stocking each year. This is Jesus' stocking. On Christmas morning, before we do any gift opening, we each put a hand into the stocking and pray, offering ourselves to God.

 Some people are leery of the whole idea of Santa Claus and as he is presented today, there is need for concern. But history tells us of a Nicholas who was so infused with the love and grace of God that he gave hand-made toys to underprivileged children in the Name of Jesus. This hero of the faith is worthy of recognition and emulation as we seek to spread the grace of God to those less privileged than ourselves. We can use the symbol of Santa, not as a icon of greed and getting, but as a godly example of grace and giving.

 This is some of the ways we infuse the real meaning of Christmas into the traditions of the holiday. If you like or are inspired by them, you are welcome to use them as you wish. Come up with your own and share them with your friends so that their experience of Christmas can be enriched.

 When it comes to the celebration of Christmas, let these words of the Apostle Paul guide our steps; "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."[3]
 
   [1] Dowley, Tim, A Lion Handbook of the History of Christianity Lion:Oxford pg 31
   [2] Matthew 23:23
   [3] Romans 14:5 

Introduction
While elections are important and Christians ought to be good stewards with their citizenship, being educated on the candidates and propositions, then voting with Biblical values, we mustn't get caught up in the religious-like fervor demonstrated by those who only hope is in politics. Our hope isn't in a party or platform. King Jesus owns it.

Here We Go Again …
Over the last couple of weeks, pundits have taken out, dusted off, and reused a line that gets play every four years. "This election is the most important/consequential in history/our lifetime." We heard it in 2016, 2012, 2008, etc.. We'll hear it again in 2024.

It may be each of these elections is indeed more consequential than the previous. That isn't easy to assess when we're so close in time to them. It will be for a later generation to determine if they were as vital as they were billed to be at the time.

It's the freighting of this election with such far-reaching importance that concerns me. The rhetoric of the campaigns is disturbing. Each side demonizes the other while casting their candidate in messianic terms. This is consistent with the secularity of the age. Politics has replaced the role of traditional religion.

A Little History
For hundreds of years following the Reformation, Europe's dominating ideological debate was between Protestants and Catholics. Few doubted the rightness of the Christian Faith. They only argued over how it was to be understood, and the Church was to be led. That continued through the Enlightenment when unbelief became a viable option for the first time. While it was an option, it remained a minuscule minority in the broader culture of Biblical theism. Unbelief, flying under the moniker of "rationalism," was found primarily among academics running educational institutions. They passed on their ideas to one generation of students after another until unbelief reached parity with faith. The Secular and the Sacred replaced Protestants and Catholics as the ideological poles of society.

The Current Scene
The 1960s is when Secularism moved into the dominant ideological place. Traditional religion began a fast descent, losing influence in the culture at a rapid pace. Because it's inherent in human beings to yearn for the transcendent, the vacuum left by religion was filled by politics. People need something to give them value; to make their life meaningful. People ache for significance. When a relationship with God is declared out of step with modernity, people seek purpose by joining a worthy cause or devoting themselves to a political agenda. Politics has become the religion of Secularism. And like the religious debates of yesteryear, politics is split into two distinct ideological streams; progressives and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.

It's no wonder these two camps cast their opponent in religious terms. One candidate is presented as a messianic figure who'll ensure a safe and prosperous future while the other guy is demonized and will end all life on Earth. (That last part was actually said in a recent campaign speech.)

Christians need to realize that while elections are important and who is elected is profoundly important; there's only One Savior. His name is Jesus. Our salvation is located in The Gospel, not a politician's promises.

The world won't end if "our guy" isn't elected, and the "other guy" is. It ends when God's unthwartable, unimpeachable plan says it's time for it to end. Not a moment before, not a second after.

[The following is taken from Barclay's commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, with editing]

There was a letter which preceded 1 Corinthians. According to the Revised Standard Version, in 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul writes: ‘I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral men.’ This obviously refers to some previous letter. Some scholars believe that letter is lost without trace. Others think it is contained in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1. Certainly, that passage suits what Paul said he wrote about. It occurs rather awkwardly in its context, and, if we take it out and read straight on from 2 Corinthians 6:13 to 7:2, we get excellent sense and connection. Scholars call this letter ‘the Previous Letter’. (In the original letters, there were no chapter or verse divisions. The chapters were not divided up until the thirteenth century and the verses not until the sixteenth century; and, because of that, the arranging of the collection of letters would be much more difficult.)

The result of the letter was that things became worse than ever; and, although we have no direct record of it, we can deduce that Paul paid a personal visit to Corinth. In 2 Corinthians 12:14, he writes: ‘Here I am, ready to come to you this third time.’ In 2 Corinthians 13:1–2, he says again that he is coming to them for the third time. Now, if there was a third time, there must have been a second time. We have the record of only one visit, the story of which is told in Acts 18:1–17. We have no record at all of the second, but it only took two or three days to sail from Ephesus to Corinth.

The visit did no good at all. Matters were only exacerbated, and the result was an exceedingly severe letter. We learn about that letter from certain passages in 2 Corinthians. In 2:4, Paul writes: ‘I wrote to you out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears.’ In 7:8, he writes: ‘For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it, for I see that I grieved you with that letter, though only briefly).’ It was a letter which was the product of anguish of mind, a letter so severe that Paul was almost sorry that he ever sent it.

Scholars call this ‘the Severe Letter’. Have we got it? It obviously cannot be 1 Corinthians, because that is not a tear-stained and anguished letter. When Paul wrote it, it is clear enough that things were under control. Now, if we read through 2 Corinthians, we find an odd situation. In chapters 1–9, everyone has made up, there is complete reconciliation and all are friends again; but at chapter 10 comes the strangest break. Chapters 10–13 are the most heartbroken cry Paul ever wrote. They show that he has been hurt and insulted as he never was before or afterwards by any church. His appearance, his speech, his apostleship and his honesty have all been under attack.

Most scholars believe that chapters 10–13 are the severe letter, and that they became misplaced when Paul’s letters were put together. If we want the real chronological course of Paul’s correspondence with Corinth, we really ought to read chapters 10–13 of 2 Corinthians before chapters 1–9. We do know that this letter was sent off with Titus (2 Corinthians 2:13, 7:13).

Paul was worried about this letter. He could not wait until Titus came back with an answer, so he set out to meet him (2 Corinthians 2:13, 7:5, 7:13). Somewhere in Macedonia, he met him and learned that all was well; and, probably at Philippi, he sat down and wrote 2 Corinthians 1–9, the letter of reconciliation.

A summary of the progress of the Corinthian correspondence . . .

• ‘The Previous Letter’, which may be contained in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1.
• The arrival of Chloe’s people, Stephanas, Fortunatus & Achaicus, & the letter to Paul from Corinth.
• 1 Corinthians is written in reply and is dispatched with Timothy.
• The situation grows worse, and Paul pays a personal visit to Corinth which is such a complete failure that it almost breaks his heart.
• The consequence is ‘the Severe Letter’, which is almost certainly contained in 2 Corinthians 10–13, and which was dispatched with Titus.
• Unable to wait for an answer, Paul sets out to meet Titus. He meets him in Macedonia, learns all is well and, probably from Philippi, writes 2 Cor 1–9, ‘the Letter of Reconciliation’.[1]

  [1] Barclay, W. (2002). The Letters to the Corinthians (3rd ed., p. 9). Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press

Scripture Isn’t A Wax Nose
In 1511, Erasmus warned of scholars who treated Scripture as though it was made of wax, something to be shaped into a form appealing to them. Five hundred years later, people still do treat Scripture like a wax nose.

Facebook isn’t the place people ought to go for reliable information. Anyone can say just about anything. They may present themselves as an authority or support their position by quoting experts. Be careful, because not everyone IS an authority and today you can find so-called experts to support just about anything.

Recently on Facebook, I posted then deleted a comment-thread on another person’s original post. I had made a comment on this person’s link to an article that misinterpreted Hebrews 10:25. My comment corrected the error. The author of the article replied to my comment by reiterating what was in the article I refuted. He simply repeated his error, ignoring the refutation. I replied by reiterating my original remarks. Then a few minutes later, took down the entire thread. It was clear my attempt to correct the author’s misinterpretation of Hebrews 10:25 was pointless. So why post it? Comments by others on the original post found support for their position in the misinterpretation. My attempts at correcting the error were only going to elicit further hostility. Having just taught on the need to avoid such division earlier in the day, I yanked my comment and thread that ensued.

But …

The exchange pointed out something that needs to be affirmed. While we need to safeguard unity, we cannot do so at the expense of God’s Word. We may disagree on the application of a passage, but we MUST NOT disagree on its interpretation.

The original article was a response to those churches that have chosen to return to normal services and the use of Hebrews 10:25 as a support for that. The author of the response said that verse does not support a return to services. Let’s consider the passage. The thought begins a verse before …

     And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the
     assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and
     so much the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:24–25

“Forsaking” is a verb that depends on an object. The text makes clear what is not to be forsaken is “the assembling of ourselves together.” Yet the author of the article said this was a warning against apostasy. He pointed out that “forsake” is connected to apostasy in other passages and that the overall theme of Hebrews is a warning against apostasy. All true. But hermeneutics requires the immediate context to be the prevailing influence in interpreting a passage. Hebrews 10:25 doesn’t say, “not forsaking the faith,” nor “not forsaking Christ.” It says, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” If the writer of Hebrews intended his readers to understand his exhortation as a warning about apostatizing, why state it so obliquely? The writer's larger concern was indeed to warn his readers not to apostatize, and understood the important way to ensure they didn’t was by calling them to not abandoned gathering. Apostasy is done in steps. One doesn’t go from being a spirit-filled believer on Tuesday to a hopeless apostate Wednesday. It’s a gradual slide from faith to unbelief, or as Hebrews itself says in Hebrews 2:1, they “drift away.” Abandoning assembling together was one of the steps on the path toward apostasy. Some had already taken it, as the verse says. Want to avoid falling away? Don’t give up on gathering.

The author of the article misinterpreting Hebrews 10:25 referred to some commentators as supporting his view. EVERY commentary I looked at, all thirteen of them, give the interpretation I just did above. I didn’t find a single commentary that supported the idea the verse is an exhortation to not apostatize. Not one. But, that misinterpretation removes a key support to the idea Christians ought to gather. So it’s latched onto by those who have an opinion, then find evidence to support it, rather than letting evidence shape their opinion.

I respect the right of people to have different views on churches re-opening. But please, don’t make stuff up to support your view.

Now, let’s turn things around and see why Hebrews 10:25 is indeed an important support to the idea that Christians need to meet. Precisely because Hebrews is written to Jewish believers under pressure to give up their faith in Christ, 10:25 points up the NEED for Christians to gather. The writer understood that gathering fostered faith and “vaccinated” believers against the wiles of the devil aiming to take them out. It was in the context of the assembly they could “consider one another to the end that they’d stir up love and good works.” And, knowing Jesus warned the end times would be marked by widespread deception, the writer said maintaining a commitment to assembling together needed to be renewed as the End drew near.

That yields a key perspective on government mandates prohibiting and limiting meeting. Satan knows the path to apostasy leads through abandoning fellowship. When churches stop meeting, it makes dropping out that much easier. We’re already seeing the effect of the lockdown as a recent poll by Barna makes clear. One-third of regular church attenders have dropped out of any participation in church since the crisis began.

The Church needs to meet. Christians need to gather.

By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. -- John 13:35

Jesus said the premier indicator people were His genuine disciples was love; a bond of mutual affection and respect that unified them as a distinct community. Since that’s a distinguishing mark of Jesus’ followers, we can expect the adversary to oppose it. It seems of late he’s pulled out all the stops in dividing the Body of Christ. The Covid-19 plague has been the lever he’s used to sow discord.

Right now across our Country, thousands of churches are grappling with what to do. The choices boil down to either complying with government lock-down orders or not. Those who stand on compliance due so because of their conviction Romans 13’s call to submit to governing authorities is the principle to follow. Those who call for a return to regular services see what they are doing less as non-compliance to the civil government as compliance to the higher authority of God, as Peter informed the Jewish High Court in Acts 5, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Here’s the thing; even those who call for compliance to government lock-down orders based on Romans 13, understand that compliance isn’t a blanket command. They acknowledge there comes a time when obeying God means disobeying man. THEY JUST DRAW THE LINE in a different place than those calling for non-compliance with the State in regard to when and how the church meets.

It’s that difference, on where to draw the line, that’s resulted in Satan’s opportunity to slip in and work division.

Different churches have different needs. Some congregations are older, others younger. Some facilities allow for larger meetings while others do not. So pastors and leaders decide what’s best for their flock and plan accordingly. Each pastor and church ought to be able to decide for itself what course to take without others sniping at them because they chose differently. Church members ought to do the same. The church that opens ought not be regarded as reckless or cavalier by those who don’t open. The church that decides to stay with online services ought not be regarded by those that open as fearful. Paul says it well in Romans 14:4; “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

The enemy would love nothing more than to use what is already a difficult and stressful time and turn it into a coup de grace by setting us at odds with one another.

I appeal to my brothers and sisters in Christ, and especially to church leaders, get God’s direction for your flock and do it. Then respect that what He’s calling you to do my not be what He’s calling others to. You want them to honor and respect your ability to hear and follow God. Do so for them.

We must not allow the enemy to divide us at this crucial time.

Luther's Moment  
Three and a half years after nailing his ninety-five points of theological departure from Rome, it was Martin Luther’s moment to stand. He stood before the greatest of Europe's rulers. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sat amidst the regalia of his august office, his stern gaze cast now on this recalcitrant monk. Representing Pope Leo X was the brilliant churchman, Johann von Eck, there to shred Luther's reportedly shoddy thinking. The room was filled with other luminaries of the Church and many of the most powerful of German nobility.

The day before, when Von Eck confronted Luther with a table full of books and pamphlets, asking him if he stood by all he'd written in the assembled documents, Martin hesitated. He wasn't sure he'd authored all of them. And some of his original ideas had evolved, grown more nuanced with more study and reflection. When pressed to respond, Luther asked for time to ponder his reply. The Emperor gave him till the morrow. Alone in his room, Luther slept little but prayed much and came to the firm conviction that even at the cost of his life, he could not waffle in the face of opposition. Truth was truth, regardless of whether or not others saw it. He did and would remain a faithful witness to it, come what may.

The next day, as the trial resumed, when Von Eck repeated the challenge, Luther replied,
Cycles of Declension & Revival
This was neither the first nor last time followers of Jesus have taken a stand in and for their faith. Many thousands have. Some to martyrdom. Others, like Luther, to lead movements of major reform.

The point is, because the Bible is true, there is a real spiritual contest underway in which the hearts and minds of men and women are the battleground. On one side is God and the Gospel, on the other is the devil and deceit. History is the long tale of this contest as it flows first one way, then the other. Periods of spiritual declension are followed by remarkable revival and a resurgence in spiritual vitality. But the opposite is also true. Periods of renewal are followed by decay.

One thing is certain. The Bible forewarns that the End Times, the Last Days, will be marked by widespread lawlessness and sin. Spiritual darkness will prevail until it reaches a crescendo of wickedness Jesus returns to halt and save the human race from accomplishing its obliteration.

“And unless those days were shortened,
no flesh would be saved;
but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.” –Jesus 
Matthew 24:22

That means in the long cycle of Declension-Revival, there will be a “Last Revival.” Some revival, whenever it is, will be history’s last. The question before us is – Is the Last Revival behind us or ahead of us? Has it already happened, or do we await it?

Students of revival know it is a sovereign move of God’s Spirit working profound conviction in His people. Sincere and deep repentance leads to the presence of God in manifest and palpable ways, bring even more repentance like a spiritual contagion that brings health rather than harm. Another feature of revival is that it is always birthed in and continued by concerted, committed prayer. Sometimes that prayer last years before revival comes. Other times it’s a matter of days. But there is no revival without prevailing prayer for it.

The kind of prayer that sees revival comes from people who align themselves with what they ask for. They don’t wait to act like they’ve been revived. They conduct themselves as though they’ve already been moved on by the Holy Spirit. They practice “revival without tarrying for it” though they do in fact, wait on God for what only He can do; send refreshing waves of His Spirit. But they have set themselves to receive the Spirit by aligning themselves as close to Him as they are able.

Our Moment
No matter what your eschatology (belief regarding End Times), because we know God is not willing that any perish (2 Peter 3:9) and that His people walk in the empowering of the Spirit, (Ephesians 5:18) we must pray for and live as though The Last Revival is yet to come. We must. How else can we be the godly influence Jesus said was normal for those who follow Him? (Matthew 5:13-16)

Jesus issued a challenge that comes squarely to us as to no generation before.

“When the Son of Man comes,
will He really find faith on the earth?” – Jesus
Luke 18:8

Surely Jesus intended this question to stir His people in every age to be found faithful, walking in the way of the Lord. It finds a special poignancy to those living in the Last Days.

As Luther stood on trial before his generation’s powerful elite, we face a culture recently co-opted by an ideology hostile to our Faith. The “culture war,” once a frequent topic of books and columns, is over. Secularism won. The Judeo-Christian worldview that birthed the modern world has been declared the loser by a media industry pretending neutrality while all the while allied with a secular ideology, working for its success. As much as Christians may lament their marginalization, they ought to remember, that’s where they began, as outsiders. Jesus’ words must steel our resolve.

“I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18

Churches across the Country have wrestled with how to respond to stay-at-home ordinances issued from every level of civil government, from the Federal to State and local governments. While the majority have complied with the shut-down by moving from on-site to online services, a few notable exceptions have made the news, stirring outrage from Christians and non-Christians alike. Many Christians consider such flagrant disregard for civil authority as unwise or perhaps a “bad witness” and that holding services is not “loving our neighbors.”

At Calvary Chapel Oxnard, we’ve complied with the requirements of State and County by cancelling on-site meetings and switching to online services. While California prohibits church gatherings, it has assigned the treasured imprimatur of “essential service” to streamed services.

Of growing concern is that as the lock-down has lengthened, the number of people being allowed to conduct these services has declined to the current number of seven. That edict was passed by the Ventura County Health Department the week before Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday, when our plans were already set.

That reduction, coming at the last minute, to what is for Christians one of the most important marks on our calendar, prompted me to return to a growing unease with the position civil government has taken toward churches during this crisis. It’s a concern I want to share with you because it could be an issue with the potential to do great harm to the Cause of Christ. That harm would come from a major rift among God’s people regarding our obligation to comply with the dictates of the State.

I recently shared on Facebook a post by a fellow pastor who supported Pastor Rob McCoy’s decision to hold a Communion service at his church in Thousand Oaks. By all accounts, even in news outlets typically hostile to Evangelicals, Pastor McCoy went about conducting the service in a way that well-exceeded CDC guidelines for social distancing. Replies to that Facebook post were either supportive or critical of Pastor McCoy. It became clear there is a diversity of opinion on the matter among people agreed on most other things.

What I noted among many of those who opposed Pastor McCoy’s decision was their appeal to Romans 13 and the Apostle Paul’s call that we be in submission to governing authorities. This was a consistent theme supporting their belief it was wrong for him to violate the stay-at-home order and conduct a Communion service for the members of his church and community.[1] We need to take a closer look at what Paul says in Romans 13 and the way the Church has historically understood it before appealing to it as justification for complying with the stay-at-home orders and before using it to criticize those who take a different track.

Paul gives the God-ordained function of government in this passage; to promote and safeguard justice. He defines the realm of government’s authority and the force it is given to enforce it. He describes what happens when someone deifies civil government. But Paul cannot be understood to commend an indiscriminate compliance with the dictates of the State. He knew obedience to an earthly ruler does not trump obedience to God. It was tension between those two the ultimate resulted in Paul’s execution in Rome under the reign of the Emperor Nero.

Certainly, government is ordained by God and it is to be obeyed—when it faithfully pursues its mission of impartial justice. When it jumps that track, the people of God are no longer called to obey. They are then required by a higher obedience to God to disobey the dictates of man. As Peter told the Sanhedrin when prohibited from preaching in Jesus’ name; “We must obey God, rather than man.”[2] But a general attitude of submission to civil government is to be maintained, even while disobeying a specific command. We see this in the humble way the Apostles responded to the Sanhedrin and Roman officials. They were never insolent or angry. Their disobedience was pitched less as a defiance of man as it was obedience to God. That’s the difference between a mere rebel and a genuine disciple. The rebel boasts in his defiance and disobedience. The disciple keeps His eyes on Jesus, trusting Him to reward his costly faithfulness.

Church history is filled with stories of those faced with the choice of obedience to God or man. Compliance with one meant defiance of the other. Today, we regard these people are heroes of the Faith.

The question before us is this—Does Romans 13 call us to an automatic, blanket compliance with civil government? The answer to that is surely, “No.” A careful analysis must be given to the interplay of our duty to God and the State. Yet in this moment, it seems some want to appeal to an indiscriminate application of Romans 13. Their position seems to be, “The government says no gatherings. So, no gatherings. To disobey is a both a bad witness and unloving of our neighbors because of the danger it puts them in.”

Question: At what point do we have to say to a government that keeps tightening social distancing guidelines? When do we say, “That’s enough” to those passing down what many see as increasingly abritrary ordinances? To mitigate the spread of the virus, we were told to limit gatherings to fifty, then ten, then seven.[3] At what point, what number, do we say, “Hold on”? When they say “Three”? “Two”?
The reaction of some will be, “Don’t be absurd. That won’t happen.” A year ago, those would likely say limiting gatherings to ten was absurd and would never happen. Yet here we are. The question needs to be answered: At what point does the follower of Jesus have to say to the civil government, “That’s enough. You are now infringing on our constitutional rights in the free exercise of our faith and our right to assemble.”?

On what justifiable basis is seven given as the number allowed for us to conduct online services? What science backed the original limit on gatherings to fifty, then ten? For weeks we were told to keep a six-foot boundary around us. Recently that was increased to thirteen feet. It ought to be obvious to all—these numbers are less the result of careful scientific research and more the attempt of politicians dealing with an inordinately difficult situation.

This becomes even clearer when we realize States have adopted different policies regarding church services. Some prohibit services while others regard churches as providing essential services on par with grocery stores and medical clinics.

As of April 2nd, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, consider churches as providing essentials services and so allow gatherings, while encouraging them to adhere to social distancing guidelines as much as possible. Five other states allow churches to conduct services that benefit others in need of physical, emotional, and spiritual assistance.[4]

 So, those States that prohibit any church gatherings cannot be said to do so on some kind of universally recognized and scientifically based evidence. We can sympathize with politicians and their desire to keep everyone safe. Yet we need to bear in mind, many of those making policy and setting guidelines have little care for the things of God’s Kingdom. Quite frankly, that is not their concern. But it is ours. And when public policy conflicts with the Kingdom of God, His people must respond.

So, where ought we draw the line that tells the civil government they’ve required us to do something we can’t comply with while being right with God?

It seems to me the crucial issue is this → That line will likely be in different place for different people. That’s where we need the chapter after Romans 13. In Romans 14, Paul warns Christians about getting into disruptive disputes over issues of conscience; morally gray topics about which God’s Word is neither black nor white. In these things, we must each live by a conscience informed by God’s Word and Spirit. What we must NOT do is judge one another when we see things differently.

Pastor McCoy’s conscience required him to provide a Communion service for his flock. In his stated reason for doing so he brought up the issue of “essential services” central to stay-at-home orders. Certain businesses are obviously essential; groceries and medical needs chief among them. But why are liquor stores, cannabis dispensaries, and abortion clinics deemed essential? In the recent rules issued by the Ventura County Health Department mentioned previously, while regular church services were deemed non-essential, bike shops were.[5] How can a bike shop and dispensary be deemed essential and the services a church provides its members, not? (By “services” I mean more than “worship services.” More on this in a moment.) In the eyes of many Christians, “Communion” is far more than a piece of bread and half an ounce of juice. It is a “co-unioning” with The Spirit and others, something not possible in the virtual space of the internet.

The Roman Catholic Church views the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Christ, by means of which grace is dispensed to the soul and salvation is nurtured and maintained. Without it, Catholicism says, one’s relationship with God is in jeopardy. How long can Catholics go under stay-at-home orders? As a Protestant, I don’t agree with the Catholic position on the Eucharist. But I support their right to hold their belief and to disregard the rules of man in favor of what they believe is the higher rule of God.

While going against the arguably arbitrary number allowed for gatherings, Pastor McCoy’s church fastidiously complied with social distancing guidelines. Many people agreed with his decision. Many others disagreed and did so vocally and vehemently. The issue we must wrestle with while carrying on our back and forth discussions in support of whatever position we’ve taken, is that we MUST adhere to the higher law of love and respect for one another. Name-calling or assuming someone is “stupid’ because he/she disagrees, grieves the Spirit of God. Go ahead and disagree. But when all is said and done, be sure your love and respect has been more apparent than anything else.

Finally, regarding services; to my mature brothers and sisters in Christ who have their spiritual feet under them and can do just fine in their walk with God by joining online services once or twice a week, please understand not everyone is in the same place you are. In a local congregation, there are many levels of spiritual development and maturity. There are some who need regular fellowship. They are finding this time inordinately difficult to navigate. Taking the attitude that they ought to “grow up and stop being so needy,” isn’t helpful. Maybe you don’t understand why some are so desperate for fellowship. Instead of being critical, go the other way and reach out to them with a call or text that affirms and supports them.
 
Acts of love are a great way to spray some spiritual Round-Up on the weeds of disunity.

On Thursday, October 10th in what was billed as CNN’s Equality Town Hall, then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke suggested churches and other non-profit organizations ought to lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage. Though O’Rourke has withdrawn his candidacy, his statement broached a subject that’s been garnering increasing attention; Should the tax-exempt status of religious groups be revoked? Atheists have long called for it. Adding fuel to the flame of debate is the Equality Act which many traditional religious groups oppose.

In arguing the 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., conceded in questioning before the Supreme Court that colleges and universities that oppose same-sex marriage could lose their tax-exempt status. “It is going to be an issue,” he acknowledged. Judging the winds of political change as now favorable, Beto O’Rourke made the revoking of tax-exempt status for churches and other religious organizations a part of his campaign.

If the Equality Act passes, the contest between the sexual revolution and religious liberty that’s run since the 60’s will be over. The sexual revolution will have won and religious liberty will be a thing of the past in the United States.

This won’t be the first time Christians are marginalized in the society in which they live. Historically speaking, the freedoms believers have enjoyed in the United States for the past couple hundred years is an anomaly. Even during the centuries in Europe when Church and State were joined hip and thigh, it was only a preferred sect that was accepted. Other groups were persona-non-grata. Religious liberty was something only enjoyed by those who towed the party (denominational) line.

Excuse me for getting personal, but a challenge we must address is this: If churches lose their tax-exempt status will you continue to give? It’s best to ponder this question now.

Let’s be honest—Some give because of the tax-break it yields. If that break were to disappear, they’d no longer give. Others give with dual motive. They know they ought to give to support the work of the church but also because of the handy deduction it provides. These may continue to give if that tax-advantage were to go away, but not as much or as often. Still others give with little thought to the deduction it affords. They may claim it on their returns, they may not. It’s a moot point to them. They give as an act of worship and will continue to do so whatever the IRS does.

Pondering what we’ll do if the tax-exempt status of our church is revoked due to its faithfulness to a Biblical morality of sex is an important consideration because it helps sort out the motive of our current giving. Knowing why we give now is important. We ought to give as an act of worship and obedience; an obedience shaped by love for the One Who gave all for us. That we are able to write off donations to non-profit organizations is a plus. It ought not factor into when, where, or how much we give.

There’s a saying, “Can’t see the forest for the trees.” It means an abundance of details can obscure the larger picture they’re all a part of. Such is the case with current events. We’re inundated with news from both the domestic and world fronts that seem disparate and disconnected. Stepping back and observing them from a Biblical perspective, there’s a consistent theme tying them together.

The final pieces are being set on the stage for the End Times.

Consider . . .

The quality of political leadership across the world is abysmal. The Canadian, British, Israeli governments are struggling to find their center. The partisanship of US politics threatens to tear it apart with a president under threat of impeachment. Japan, with the world’s oldest monarchy in its Emperor’s Chrysanthemum Throne, faces an uncertain future. Middle East leaders keep only a tenuous grip on power. The democracies of Europe face regular upheavals in wildly shifting electorates swinging from a far-left to radical-right.

What’s to be gleaned from this is the political fragility of our world and the obvious leadership vacuum across the board. It’s as though the world is being prepared to receive someone, anyone, who’ll step forward with a clear vision of a better day and a workable plan to get there. Voila: The Antichrist.

A picture recently appeared in the world press of three men shaking hands in front of the flags of their respective countries; Russian president Vladimir Putin was in the middle, flanked by Turkish President Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The picture was extremely provocative in light of the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 which speaks of an end-times collation led by those three countries that makes a surprise attack on Israel. This is the first time in history when these three countries have had warm relations with each other. The relationship between Russia and Iran has run hot and cold for centuries, usually cold. But Turkey and Russia have been classic opponents in a game of brinkmanship over control of the Middle East. As President Erdogan’s Islamist government has disconnected from Modern Turkey’s traditional appeal to Europe and the West toward a more Asian orientation, Russia has courted them. Turkey’s military, by many accounts the real power in Turkish politics, has now shifted its supply from American arms to Russian. A planned sale of American F-35 fighter jets has been suspended as Turkey now considers purchasing cutting-edge SU-57’s and SU-35’s from Russia.

Maybe most troubling of all is the radical redefinition in what it means to be human taking place across the world. The LGBTQ+ revolution isn’t just a “Western” phenomenon. It’s taken root in the Far East and those Asian nations seeking to emerge onto the world stage as viable players in the global economy and community. Gender, understood by civilizations and societies for thousands of years as synonymous with biological sex, has now been wrest from that verity and made into a mere social construct to be decided by each individual. Gender is now so fluid the individual may even flow between a multitude of various genders within the scope of a single day. Political correctness demands that before addressing someone, we ask them what pronoun they desire to be referred to by.

Illustrative of this moral insanity is the case of seven-year-old James Younger whose story you can read in The Texan. Caught in a bitter custody battle, a Texas court ruled in favor of sole-custody being given to James’ mother who supports his transition to being a girl named Luna. James’ father contends that when James is with him, he chooses to identify as a boy. The court, after contentious testimony from both sides in the debate, awarded the mother sole-custody and demanded the father affirm by all means possible his son’s transition to being a girl. Such legal enforcement of a scientifically-dubious but socially-hip proposition as transgenderism indicates how far the worldview governing modern society has shifted away from a Judeo-Christian worldview to a secular mindset.

The moral chaos and rank injustice that will ensue from Transgenderism’s paradigm-exploding impact on what it means to be human will unravel the ties that make society possible. History’s already shown, when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, oppression and ruin are the result.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Something always moves in to fill it. If a Holy Spirit revival doesn’t arrive to rescue us, a spirit of darkness will appear offering a new order that will appear a solution but is, in fact, a prelude to hell.

Politics has become the religion of a growing segment of the population.

The most rapidly growing demographic in America’s religious landscape is “Nones”; people who identify as holding no religious faith.[1] While they may not self-identify as such, they are spread across several other labels; atheist, agnostic, secular, materialist. Generally, they regard traditional religious faith as incompatible with science. There is no reality beyond that bound by space, matter, and time.

But a rejection of traditional religious faith doesn’t terminate the very human inclination to believe in something larger than the self. There is a persistent need to attach meaning and purpose to existence. A person may eschew religious faith while simultaneously embracing an ideology that credits them significance.

For many today, Politics is that ideology. It’s become a substitute for religion. They hold to their political beliefs with religious zeal, developing an “us versus them” mentality that vilifies those with whom they disagree.

When traditional religion held pre-eminence in people’s worldview, political discourse had the potential of being more polite because such interactions were shaped by a higher set of values and priorities. But when it’s politics itself that sets those values, discourse degenerates into sloganeering and intolerant rhetoric. Dialog flattens to loud monolog.

Jesus-Followers must be careful to not allow the elevation of “politics-as-religion” to shape the way they behave. Our political views ought to be a carefully reasoned application of the Biblical Worldview shaping all we are and do. Engaging in political discourse in a hostile public square in a way consistent with our relationship with Jesus requires a healthy dose of grace and the Holy Spirit.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/13/a-closer-look-at-americas-rapidly-growing-religious-nones/

In December of 2016, I wrote a blog post expressing my perspective on the then-recent sundering of the Calvary Chapel movement into CCA and CGN. Many pastors and members of various Calvary Chapel churches expressed to me either in person or via email their appreciation for the post as it helped clarify their position and gave them something to refer to others. The time has come when an update on the issue seems appropriate.

Now, four years into the split, we’ve had enough time to evaluate how the severing of the movement has affected the individual Calvary Chapel churches and fellowships. The members of the CCA Council with their regional leaders and the leadership core of CGN comprise a relatively small number compared to the total number of Calvary Chapel pastors who’ve wondered what both the philosophical and practical implications of the split would eventually mean. What it means is the focus of this new post.

From my admittedly limited perspective, the majority of pastors don’t want to “choose sides.” Only a small percentage have expressed the need to align with one side or the other of the movement. The majority prefer to hold allegiance to the ideal of the larger movement and at present don’t see a need to absolutely take one side against the other. What they dread is that CGN or CCA will require them to choose a side.

An analogy recently came to mind that I want to offer that may help in sorting out what’s going on. My hope is that the leadership of both groups would consider what follows. I think it will help us all get on with the larger mission of Calvary Chapel.

Many of us (Calvary Chapel pastors) feel like the children of divorced parents who shared joint custody. Each of those parents would prefer to have sole custody and believe they have a right to it but “the court” has declared otherwise. We’re not really sure why our parents split up. We’ve had some vague ideas, but apart from a few of us, we really don’t know. It’s best that our parents keep the real reasons to themselves so as not to prejudice “the kids” against the other parent. Each parent ought to be a good parent and not try to make the other look bad.

If over time, one of the parents moves off in an unhealthy direction, “the kids” can make a decision then about their on-going relationship. But as long as both parents continue to embody and promote the CC distinctives we love and embrace, we ought not to be made to have to choose one over the other, any more than the children of divorced parents ought to have to choose which parent to remain loyal to. A man with the spiritual maturity, discernment, and wisdom to be a pastor ought to be trusted to evaluate where his loyalty belongs. If he needs to be TOLD where he’s not cut out to be a pastor.

My parents divorced when I was in high school. It was a traumatic time for me and left emotional scars for many years. Due to the nature of their divorce, I lost my relationship with my father at a time when I needed it. It was only years later that it was restored. I don’t want a repeat of that now with Calvary Chapel. I love and respect people in both camps. I understand they see things differently and have split. I don’t know all the reasons and don’t care to. That’s for them to sort out. What I absolutely don’t want is for one to bad-mouth the other and demand that if I “really” love them, I’ll side with them. So …

To the leaders of CCA and CGN

Please don’t do that. Let the many of us regular Calvary pastors look to and honor both of you as leaders of our movement. Please don’t “discipline” us because we “hang out” with the other or invite them to speak at our church. Don’t assume we’ve rejected you because we post an article on their site or like one of their tweets or Facebook posts. We have two parents and it’s hard enough as it is being loyal to both that we don’t need to be made to feel like loving one is hating the other. You affirmed our roles as pastors in Calvary Chapel, so trust us to know when aligning with someone proves contrary to the interests of The Kingdom and Calvary Chapel’s unique position in it.

With the deepest love and affection for all my brothers in Calvary—Lance Ralston

At the end of one of the episodes of the TV miniseries Band of Brothers, as Easy Company is marching into the Ardennes Forest for what turns out to be The Battle of the Bulge, the soldiers coming the other direction warn them they are about to be surrounded by the enemy. Easy Company’s CO, Captain Winters replies, “We’re Airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded.”
The next month in the dead of winter was a grueling test of endurance as American troops went without winter clothing, subsistence rations, limited ammunition, and had to endure constant shelling that decimated their ranks. No one who endured the month long siege came out unscathed, physically and emotionally.

I recently remembered Captain Winters comment while listening to a news commentary podcast lamenting Christianity’s expulsion from the public square.

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16
“In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

For the first three centuries of its existence, the Church faced persecution, yet thrived. During the Middle Ages, the Church emerged from the catacombs to rise in prestige till it became a king-maker, commanding armies and vast wealth. It also became horribly corrupt. Yes, there were seasons and places where the Church maintained a modicum of faithfulness. But by and large, when Christianity is the favored worldview of the society it finds itself in, accommodation and compromise tend to blunt its edge as an advocate for the Gospel. Church leaders play politics and vie for power. Local congregations compete with each other rather than work together for the good of the Kingdom. When culture is hostile to The Faith, churches have to pull together to survive.

It’s no secret contemporary American and European society has shifted form an historical Christian worldview to a thorough-going secular worldview increasingly hostile to Christianity. While it’s easy to lament this turn and the harmful results we’re already seeing, followers of Jesus must remember this is where the Church started, in a hostile culture that hated it. In the end, hate always bows to love.