"Nowhere in the Bible does it say..."

...that some action, inaction, thought, or activity is right or wrong solely because it isn't expressly mentioned by name in the Bible. What do I mean?

Yesterday in church, a male friend of mine made the point that, "Nowhere in the Bible does it tell husbands to hold their wives accountable to submit," the implication being that husbands are not permitted to hold their wives accountable for their duty to submit. This gentleman agreed that wives have a duty to submit, but he argued that it is the Lord's place alone to hold the wife accountable.

This issue, of submission, is but one example of the dangers associated with my friend's flawed method of interpreting the scriptures. Guess what else the Bible does not expressly say:

• The Bible does not say that “abortion is wrong” (it does, however, say that murder is wrong);
• The Bible does not say that “a pastor may discipline his flock” (it does however provide for church leaders holding the members accountable and for church resolution of conflicts between believers – see Matt 18);
• The Bible does not say that women must “separate and cleave” from their families (though this is implied by that same message to men);
• The Bible does not say “thou shalt not lie” (but it does say not to “bear false witness/give false testimony”);
• The Bible does not say that men and women must “obtain a legal certificate of marriage from the secular government” (but it does say that believers must subject themselves to the secular authorities – see Rom 13:1).

There are myriad of activities the Bible does not expressly permit or forbid, at least not in so many words. For instance, the Bible does not expressly tell us to refrain from water-boarding small children or from eating poison ivy.  The Lord obviously intended the Bible to give us principles by which we can live our lives and know the Truth, and it is up to us to apply these principles to new situations.

The Bible identifies the nature of sin and the opposing nature of righteousness. Certainly, examples were included to help our understanding, but the Ten Commandments were never intended to be the end to all moral judgments. They were the beginning – the genesis of our understanding of sin and righteousness.

We must take what we have learned from the Bible and apply it, logically, in our own decision-making. To simply state that, “The Bible doesn’t say…” as evidence for any conclusion, is insufficient. That can never be the end to our thinking process. Otherwise, we will commit a host of sins with the flimsiest of excuses, “The Bible didn’t say I couldn’t leave that man to die in the streets – I didn’t kill him.” What of the Good Samaritan? Do the principles in that story not require us to aid those in need?

We are under a duty to ask the question, “Does this activity or thing we are contemplating align more with our understanding of sin or our understanding of righteousness as taught by the Bible?” Applying this logic to my friend’s argument, we must seek God’s intention regarding the roles of husbands and wives in marriage. Saying that the Bible does not command husbands to hold their wives accountable for submitting does nothing to aid in the evaluation of whether husband should or should not be holding their wives accountable in this fashion.

In reaching my own conclusions, I cannot ignore that the Bible has given husbands authority over their wives, albeit with specific instructions and restrictions for how to exercise that authority. Often, I wish that I could ignore this reality. The world would be simpler for me, if I did not have authority as a husband: it comes with a never-ending array of duties and responsibilities. One of those duties, I believe, is being a spiritual leader in my home by holding my wife, family, and myself accountable for our Biblical duties. As Joshua said centuries before me, I am proclaiming that, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). As a husband and father, men have the duty to make that proclamation a reality (more than words).

The Bible enumerates specific commands to husbands concerning how they treat their wives, and husbands must fulfill these duties. The Bible also enumerates specific commands to wives concerning how they treat their husbands, and wives must fulfill those duties. Along these lines, I will now explain my understanding of the scripture as it relates to submission between husbands and wives (with the understanding that all Christians are to have a submissive spirit, generally).

Simply put, the word "submit," as used in Ephesians 5 (just picking a relevant passage here), means to subject one's own will to that of another. When Christ submitted himself to the Lord, he subjected his decisions, judgments, and desires to the authority and will of the Lord. Certainly, Christ had reservations and concerns about going to the cross (e.g. “Lord … take this cup from me…”), but there was no sin, as Christ subjected his judgment and will to that of the Lord. Christ was crucified as a result of submission.

No one considers this to be a negative thing, likely due to the perfect nature of the parties involved (God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son). However, the Word of God requires wives to submit to their husbands as to (in the same fashion as) the Lord:

"Wives, submit [ne subject] to your own [not necessarily other] husbands, as to [in the same way you submit to] the Lord. For the husband is the head [leader] of the wife even as Christ is the head [leader] of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything [not just some things] to their husbands" (Eph 5:22-23) (emphasis supplied).

This passage is extremely difficult for me. I have struggled with it for years, trying to interpret it with the mind of a man who grew up in a post-modern, secular society that believes “equal value” requires “identical roles” and options. How can a man and woman be equal when one is the leader and the other the follower? Of course, I ask myself whether the president of the United States has more constitutionally prescribed civil liberties than do I as an ordinary citizen? Of course, not: the president is subject to the same Bill of Rights as the rest of us, but he is still our leader.  Why would it be different with husbands and wives?

Now the friend I mentioned earlier, he is a man I respect and admire. Like me, however, he is not perfect. This man’s flawed logic has resulted in what I believe to be an incorrect interpretation of the Bible in this specific instance. I have been guilty myself of using this same flawed logic in times past. “The Bible doesn’t say something is a sin, so I can do it right?” I used to (and sometimes still do) rationalize in this way.

My friend argues that, because the Bible does not tell husbands to hold their wives accountable to submit, that husbands are therefore prohibited from holding their wives accountable. The Bible also does not tell men to refrain from tossing their children out into the streets, but it says a man who does not take care of his family is a scoundrel (1 Tim 5:8). The flaw in his reasoning is taking the mere absence of an express scriptural provision in the Word of God as a prohibition or as a permission.

Let me explain with an illustration. Many of us know the children’s hymn, "I'm in the Lord's Army." How would this dispute concerning submission play out in the context of an army?

Let us imagine, for a moment, that there is a certain general. This general commands an army, and he decides to establish some written rules and procedures to be followed by the officers and troops under his command. He provides every officer and soldier with access to these written rules and procedures. One of the rules he establishes is that all troops are to submit to the commands of the officers in the same way that those officers submit to the general himself – in everything.

Now let us suppose that there is a battle to be fought over a certain bridge in the jungle that is critical to controlling the surrounding region. Suppose also that one of the officers orders the troops to take the bridge despite strong opposition from the enemy. Now suppose that, out of fear, the troops hesitate to charge the bridge and that they begin second-guessing the officer. Suppose that the officer listens to the concerns of the troops but, after considering their concerns and the need to take that bridge, he orders them to charge forward anyway.

Suppose also the soldiers refuse to submit to the order to charge the bridge. Lastly, suppose that nothing in the general's written rules and procedures says, specifically, that the officer is authorized to demand that the troops submit to or to hold the men accountable for failing to submit.

Does the officer need the express, written permission of the general to demand that the troops charge the bridge, or does the written authority granted to him by the general imply that the officer has the authority to hold the soldiers accountable for refusing to submit to the officer’s commands? Remember, the general’s written, standing order is that the troops submit to the officer in everything.

Of course, in the military, the troops would be required to follow their orders of the officers with the understanding that they could approach the general (or another superior) to discuss any strongly held objections. The general has the authority to countermand the orders of any officer or to affirm those orders. Of course, husbands and wives are not (always) military personnel, but the analogy holds just as true in God’s army.

As I see it, God does not have to expressly provide that husbands may hold their wives accountable to submit. God has placed the husband in a position of leadership and authority over the wife. That's not a popular belief or position, but I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Biblical design ("wives should submit in everything to their husbands"). That position and authority confers upon the husband, as a leader, not only a right but a responsibility to hold his wife accountable, as his supporter and follower.

Leaders who do not exercise their authority are useless as leaders. However, it is important for a leader to know when and how to exercise authority responsibly and for the benefit of others.

God has placed restrictions on how husbands are to exercise that authority, always with a view to protecting their wives, and God has also ordered the husband to love his wife in the most complete way imaginable. If the wife has an objection to the husband's use of authority, then she has the option to approach the Lord and pray for an intervention, just as the troops in our example had the option to petition the general to intervene on their behalf with the officers. Ultimately, the Lord, just like our hypothetical general, has the authority to countermand the husband's leadership, or to affirm it. The husband cannot be a leader, logically, without exercising some authority and holding his wife accountable for respecting that authority.

The question is, when the wife prays to the Lord for intervention, and when the Lord does not choose to intervene (whether overtly or by convicting the husband to alter his judgment), will the wife submit to the Lord? Silence from the Lord is not abandonment or neglect. The Lord’s silence means that the Lord’s instructions stand: wives submit to your husband. Rather than changing this Biblical command, I believe the Lord answers the prayers of wives in this sometimes difficult position of being at odds with her husband by convicting the husband to reconsider his decisions. Other times, I believe the Lord convicts the wife to follow. Regardless, I believe that both husbands and wives occasionally ignore the convictions of the Holy Spirit when experiencing a spousal dispute. However, this is not cause for the aggrieved spouse to abandon his/her duty to the Lord. Wives should continue to submit, and husbands should continue to lead in love.

The Lord knows best, and when he does not seem to answer a prayer, his silence is the answer. That is not a technicality: the Lord knows when to intervene and when to let things play out. That is why the Lord is the general in our littler metaphor. If the husband or wife does not comply when the Lord convicts him/her, then I believe there will be consequences for defying a Holy God. The Bible tells us there is at least one negative consequence when a husband abuses his authority or mistreats his wife:

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding [i.e. patience, love, and grace] way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7) (emphasis supplied).

Wives, this is a scripture to share respectfully with your husbands. Submit to your husband, if not out of respect and love for him (which you are Biblically required to do), then for the Lord who has asked you to submit in this way. However, do be honest with your husband and remind him (holding him accountable) that he is commanded to love you as Christ loved the Church. Respectfully and lovingly, as a supporter, remind him that there are consequences to mistreating you, and that the Lord has decreed this: show him 1 Peter 3:7.

Difference in authority is not a difference in value. This is where many Christians miss the mark: the fact that a wife must submit does not mean she is less valuable to the Lord. That she, as the "weaker vessel," requires a strong leader does not mean the Lord loves or values her less than her husband. In fact, by providing her with a strong leader in her husband, the Lord has made additional provisions for her well-being beyond what has been provided for the husband. The Lord values all His children equally:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

God loves and values us all equally, and we are all one in His eyes. However, He has called us to different tasks and purposes. Husbands are called to lead. Wives are called to support and follow. Husbands are to love and protect, while wives are to respect and support. This does not mean women are less valuable. Leaders are worthless without their followers and supporters, unable to accomplish anything.

My friend's logic may have been flawed in concluding that a husband, as a leader, cannot hold his wife accountable to abide by her Biblical duty to submit, but he would be right to say that there are limits to how a husband may go about holding his wife accountable. 1 Peter 3:7 tells us, without reservation, that God will not hear a husband's prayers if he is failing to be understanding with his wife, to recognize her tender fragility, and to honor her accordingly.

This means that husbands may NOT use their authority as grounds to abuse their wives in any way. Certainly, a man should NEVER strike his wife, not with fists and not with words.  This is not Biblical.

Just as the Bible does not say that “husbands are permitted to hold their wives accountable for refusing to submit,” the Bible does not say that “husbands are prohibited from screaming at their wives in anger.” I believe, however, that the Bible prohibits men from screaming at their wives in anger (unlike screaming "look out for that bus," which is necessarily different). Husbands are called to, calmly and lovingly, be the spiritual leaders in their homes. We are called lead, first and foremost, by example. When our wives are failing in their duty to submit, we also have a responsibility to the Lord to see order restored in our home. We must hold our wives (and ourselves) accountable to abiding by the Lord’s design for family.

When leading by example is insufficient (and this is far less common than many husbands would care to admit), it is our duty to: (1) break out the scripture and discuss the matter, calmly and lovingly; (2) if our wives will not listen, then we must find and ask another believer, wise in the Word, to intervene; and (3) if that does not work, then we must take it before the church leadership (Matt 18). We do NOT harm, abuse, or take our wives to court seeking a divorce.

Christian counseling, mediation, or even arbitration may be necessary in extreme cases. The husband must remember to submit to the authority of a pastor, Christian arbitrator, or church leader who espouses a Biblical worldview and provides Biblical counsel/commands.

I hope this helps my friend and others with this difficult passage of scripture. It really isn’t all that complicated, but sometimes simple concepts are the hardest to swallow. After all, the terms “simple” and “easy” are no more synonymous than the terms “equality” and “authority.” Something can be simple and hard. Someone can have or lack authority and still be equal to another that has or lacks authority.

If nothing else, I hope those of you who read this will cease to argue what the Bible doesn’t say and start prayerfully considering and discussing what it does say, without preconceptions or agendas derived from social norms. Only then will we get to the Truth.

No spirit of fear...

Given the topic of yesterday's post, it is ironic that my dailybibleverse today (which I get every day via email) was 2 Timothy 1:6-7:

"For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."

Paul had, according to the New Testament, a gift: he placed his hands on a believer, and then that believer was imbued with a flaming overdose of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure precisely what the impact of this was, but Paul felt it necessary to remind Timothy to stoke that flame and remember that the spirit Timothy had received from the Lord was not one of timidity.

I cited this passage in my post about guarding your heart, and I received it back today via email. That fans my flame a bit, so I want to share with you the commentary I received with that verse:

The apostle Paul pulls no punches with his young protégé, Timothy. Even though Timothy was a timid man, Paul is reminding him that Christian leadership should
not be based upon a personality type, but upon reliance upon the Spirit of God. Each of us has gifts from God that He wants to use. Whether you are timid or aggressive, our hope doesn't come from our temperament, but from a gifting that is waiting to burst forth into flames as we take the time to fan it.

-Dave Whitehead, Senior Pastor, GraceNYC.org.

There is a lot to take away from this verse, but I think Whitehead points to an important truth: Christian boldness is not a personality issue. God calls all personality types to his service, and being a timid person (like Moses was, at least in the beginning) is no cause for rejecting the calling the Lord has given you. It's not our temperament but our faith that causes us to live boldly according to what we believe, and, for that reason, fear alone is not a good basis for any decision you make as a Christian.

Guarding your heart: it doesn't mean what you might think it means...

The following paragraphs are excerpts from a book I am writing, priumarily discussing dating, courting, and relationships from a Christian perspective. Indirectly, I touch on the issue of "guarding your heart," which is, perhaps, the finest example of Biblical misinterpretation one could find. I tthought that they might find a nice home here in this blog about truth.

The phrase “guard your heart,” while Biblical in its origins, provides a hint of truth upon which Satan has forged numerous lies concerning ourselves and how we relate to others. Certainly, Jesus (who is himself the Word of God), never advised use to hide from the world to guard our hearts. In fact he commanded us to go out into the world and bring the light to it (see Matt 28:18-19, the “Great Commission”).

I believe that the phrase “guard your heart,” much like the phrase “don’t settle,” is a tired and lonely expression that damages Christian relationships today. Quite frankly, this scripture has nothing to do with dating or relationships, and it is taken out of context more often than any other scripture with which I am familiar. Churches have been using this phrase, for years, to advise young men and women from engaging in activities that might cause hurt feelings, with dating being the chiefly prohibited activity.

Proverbs chapter four is a message from a father to his son concerning the need to get wisdom and live a life of light without straying from the path of righteousness and into a wilderness of evil. Verse 23, in the ESV, says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” However, in the (less literal) NIV translation, it reads, “Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from.”

This is great advice, but it is not advising Christians to hide from situations where our feelings might get hurt, and neither does it justify hiding from people we think might hurt us. It is certainly not attacking dating, courting, or relationships. The goal is to live our lives Biblically in those situations, to guard our hearts FROM EVIL and SIN. Even in the NIV, which is a less than literal translation (and therefore a less desirable translation in my opinion), the purpose for which this father advised his son to “guard your heart” can be concretely discerned by examining the verses that immediately follow. Here it is, in more detail:

“Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from. Don't speak with twisted words. Keep evil talk away from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead. Keep looking right in front of you. Make level paths for your feet to walk on. Only go on ways that are firm. Don't turn to the right or left. Keep your feet from the path of evil” (Prov 4:23-27, NIV) (emphasis supplied).

What wonderful advice this is, and what a shame it is that so many misuse this chapter to advance agendas other than what the inspired author intended. No one will argue the merits of the author’s words, but he was not advising us to avoid interacting with the opposite sex or to hide in a hole from the things in this world that might hurt our feelings.

Christianity merits boldness, not fear. In fact, our slogan should be: "Fear not!" Remember 2 Timothy 1:7:, "For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control." The Bible, in advising us to vigilantly keep our hearts (guard them) is referring to protecting them from sin, not from emotional suffering. In fact, to do God's work, sometimes we have to risk heartache. That's part and parcel of being bearers of the truth.

No deposit; no return...

In an effort to remember that this blog is primarily oriented on the Truth as applied to all areas of life (as opposed to just dating and relationships), I want to offer something different. First let me offer a confession to you:

I am not perfect. I do not give advice on this blog from a position of perfection. I have sinned many times already today, I am sure. If you are looking for advice or counsel from someone who has it all together, then you has better stick with the words of Christ. You won't find even the apostles to have been perfect or sinless, though that is the entire point of Christianity: none of us deserve mercy. God preserve us from justice. Praise God for grace.

That said, if you will listen to some advice from an imperfect man, then consider that you get a return, in this life, based primarily on what you invest. That is how God designed this world to work:

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Gal 6:7).

If you want to reap a harvest, then you must sow a seed. I don't know about you, but I feel as though I am not sowing enough good seeds in my life. I sowed seeds in the area of dating, and I reaped an amazing wife worth more than gold or jewels, but in so many areas of my life I fail to sow enough seeds to reap the harvest I am seeking. Why is that? We, as humans, are wont to let our emotions and flesh govern our thinking rather than our logic, reason, or, most importantly, the Holy Spirit.

Guess what? If you want to reap that job: start sowing some applications and networking. If you want to reap an excellent wife, then start sowing some seeds in dating and relationships. If you want to reap good friendships, sow some time in that area.

God controls and delivers the harvest, but he calls us to plant the seeds. What are you planting in your life, and what are you not planting that you should? This simple verse is universal in its application. It is probably the basis for that old saying, "You can't get something for nothing." Though God occasionally blesses us with absolutely no effort on our part, He usually requires some effort on our part - not to earn a blessing, but to please Him and to work within His design for this world.

I am going to make a concerted effort to sow more, and I hope that you will all do the same in all the areas of your lives.

A real toughie...

This verse is convicting for me: "A fool shows his annoyance at once,but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Prov 12:16, NIV).

I've been slow in posting during my first year of marriage, partly because my life has so radically changed (for the better to be sure). Regardless of how much I love my family and friends, this verse encapsulates the very heart of my problems when it comes to conflict: how quickly do I let my annoyance, anger, and other negative emotions show?

One of the things that makes a marriage (or any relationship) work, is learning to overlook an insult. When that isn't possible, it is at least pragmatic to keep our emotions internal? When does showing others our anger and annoyance truly improve the situation? It might help you win the argument by discouraging your opponent, but that discouragement will cost you the war at the expense of the battle: winning an argument is worthless if, in doing so, the relationship is damaged.

This verse should compel us all to be more patient with our loved ones. After all, who wants to be a fool?

No man an island...

"If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!"

-Ecclesiastes 4:10, NIV.

More than anything, we men love to believe that we can be an island unto ourselves, independent and self-reliant, but maybe that isn't so good a thing as it sounds:

"Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment" (Prov18:1).

We buy into the illusion, or perhaps the delusion, of our own independence, as if it is within our power to plan for every calamity and disaster. When we are relying on ourselves to succeed, then so often we fail to avail ourselves of the help God intended and purposed for us. Pride makes accepting help so difficult, but then pride precedes the fall does it not?

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor" (Prov 18:12, NIV).

We are living in a day when the pride of men is constantly being dashed by economic hardship, unemployment, depression, and failure. It is an awful feeling to fail at something, especially when you are trying so hard to be an island, refusing help from anyone or from anywhere that is offered.

It is foolish pride, though, to refuse the help the Lord sends our way. "Pity the man who falls and has no man to help him," the Bible tells us. Why do men have no one to help them when they fall? It seems pride is at least one major reason.

The best way to apply this truth is to consider yourself blessed when others

genuinely offer assistance. Sometimes assistance comes in the most obvious form: money. Other times, a man falls not from financial hardship but due to his own ignorance or foolishness, in which case his assistance may come in the form of wise advice/counsel or even a supportive ear. Sometimes reproof is the assistance we most need, but when it comes, do we cherish it or rebuke it?

You will most quickly find yourself standing again, following calamity, when you accept the help the Lord provides rather than looking for solutions from within yourself. Watch for genuine offers of assistance, and try to make the most of them. You can't do it alone, and, as a believer, you don't have to anymore. The Lord gave us each other, and the Lord gave us the Holy Spirit. Don't send them away then they arrive with your life line.

What is "stewardship" really?

Most of us have heard sermons and received instruction that we should be good stewards, but what is a "steward," and how does one become a good one? We all have some idea that stewardship relates to how we manage our property, but what is the Truth about good stewardship? What do all the sermons and instructions mean? Is this just another way for the pastor to get more of our money away from us during this financial crisis, or is this stewardship business really commanded by God?

First, lets take a look at a law from the Old Covenant (testament) that I recently received via email:

"And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:10).

Obviously, God is commanding property owners, especially those with crops, to use them in a certain way that cares for the poor and travellers, presumably accomplishing His will that they receive care/support/food from believers. Though it may sound like a sinful question, many believers might ask themselves, "What right has God to tell us how to use our property?"

"1The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Psalms 24:1-2).

"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you" (1 Chronicles 29:14).

The answer is that God owns the world and everything in it, including the people. He owns it because he created it. God invented the world, and so he has, essentially, a holy patent that never expires. Like a craftsman who builds a house on his own land with his own materials and labour, who can tell such a man what to do with the house or anything in it? Does the craftsman not own that house completely?

You may have worked all your life for your savings, your possessions, and your material wealth, but you did it using God's creations. At most, we have a license to use these things, but, ultimately, they all belong to God. Take our craftsman example: assume that such a man has a child, a son, and that he provides that son with a bedroom in the house he built. We call that room the son's room, but really it belongs to the craftsman. The craftsman, also a father, has given his son charge over that room and holds him accountable for his use, care, maintenance, and general management of the room he provided. What father has never told his son, "Clean your room!"? Also, what father gives his son $500 and says, "Son go buy a lollipop,"? The father wants his son to use what he is given wisely.

In the same way, God owns everything that he has created, and he grants us a license (or "permission" if you prefer) to use it. However, God has retained the right to govern how we use the material wealth and possessions that He has created. Like the craftsman, God will require us to give an account of our use, care, maintenance, and general management of the wealth and possessions that He has provided us. For us to ask what right God has to instruct us in the use of our material wealth and possession, this is no different than the son asking his father, the craftsman, what right he has to force him to clean the room. How completely ungrateful.

The Lord has instructed us that "true religion" is caring for those in need (see this post for scriptural evidence and citations). The Lord made caring for travellers and the poor a part of His covenant with the Jewish people (Lev 19:10). The Bible makes no secret that we are, as believers, "stewards" of God's possessions rather than the true owners of our own, and the Lord, as the master of those possessions, shall require us all to give account:

"1And he [Jesus] said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed" (Luke 16:1-3; KJV).

I cited the KJV because it uses "steward" where the ESV uses "manager." However, the two words can mean the same thing (they also can have different connotations). I have heard that, historically, the first recorded uses of the English word “steward” are from the 11th century, referring to an official who controlled the domestic affairs of a household. I do not have a citation that I trust as evidence for this, but it holds true with the Biblical usage. The root words stig and ward mean "house" and "keeper," respectively, which combined suggest that a steward is the "keeper of the house" (hence my example of the craftsman/father, his son, and the craftsman's house).

That is what we are - the keeper of our father's house. The Lord's house is this world, which he crafted himself with aid of no man. There was no man to offer aid. We are also a part of the Lord's house, created to be his stewards. After all, Adam was given charge over the Earth from the beginning, was he not? In Genesis 2:15, God put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it". In Genesis 2:19-20, God gave Adam leave to name every animal and beast. Adam was the first steward, but he did break the one commandment of the master: do not eat of this specific tree. When Adam was required to give account for his stewardship of the garden, God asked Adam whether had eaten of the tree. When Adam admitted this, God could no longer trust Adam to remain in Eden and refrain from eating more forbidden fruit. For that reason, both Adam and Eve were cast out (Gen 2:23-24).

Good stewardship is listening and obeying the will and commands of the master/owner. It does not end with money or material possessions. All that is belongs to God - even our bodies. Will we be good stewards? Praise God for Jesus Christ, that there is mercy and grace, because none of us perfectly listen or obey. Therefore, there are no perfect stewards. But neither mercy nor grace relieves us from our responsibilities.

If I leave you readers with only one thought, then it is this: no matter how wealthy or poor you may believe that you are, nothing belongs to you: stewardship is about how you use what you are given, not how much you have. In Luke 16:10, Christ himself said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."

Remember, in Mark 12:41-44, the widow gave more out of her poverty than the rich who gave out of their abundance. If you are rich and keep your money and wealth all to yourself, then you are a bad steward. If you are poor an give only the little you have to the Lord's service, then you have given much. In the same way, a believer who uses his/her talents only for personal gain has been a very poor steward of those talents, which also belong to the Lord! A person who strives to use his/her talents serve the Lord has been a good steward of them.

I will end this post by asking you to read Matthew 24:45-51. In those verses, Christ talks about the "good and faithful servant" as opposed to the "wicked servant" who watches over the master's household. I only realized very recently that the servant, as a master of the household, is a steward. When our master returns, will he put us in charge of many things, or will he "cut us to pieces" and assign us a place with the hypocrites? Salvation may be by grace, but Christ makes it clear that, in some fashion, our works, as stewards, will be judged. We will have to give an account to Christ upon his return.

Free Legal Tip No.2: what type of help do I need?

Do you need legal advice? Do you need counseling? Do you need pastoral care? Do you need a mediator/arbitrator? Do you need a financial or tax advisor? This post is about how to determine what type of professional services you may need.

We all hope that we will never need "professional help." Most of us, however, will need professional help at some point in our life. Since professional services rarely come free, most of us would prefer to pay for only those professional services we actually need, but how do we really find out what those are?

First, it would be wise to start by identifying and examining your needs/desires. If you are starting a business, then you probably do not need emotional or trauma counseling (unless you are really stressed out by the prospect of starting a new business), but you will likely need legal, business, and/or financial advice/services. On the other hand, if you are a soldier returning home with post-traumatic stress disorder, then trauma counseling may be just what you need most.

Second, it would be wise to research who offers professional services/counseling that addresses the needs/desires that you have identified. If you are suffering from a heart attack, then an attorney will rarely help with your physical symptoms. If, however, your heart attack began when your vehicle was struck by a drunk driver, then an attorney may be able to help you obtain funds to cover your medical expenses and vehicle damage from either the drunk driver, his insurance company, or from your own insurance company (under an uninsured/under-insured motorist claim, for instance).

Third, it's always a good idea to decide which professionals to see in what order. In our heart attack example, it's probably a good idea to see a heart doctor at the hospital to address your medical needs and stabilize your condition before you go see an attorney about getting money to
pay your medical bills.

This may all seem obvious, but we have used clear-cut examples. Sometimes the line between the services offered by professionals is blurry. For instance, what if your spouse served you with divorce papers because he mistakenly believed you cheated on him? Believers might seek pastoral counseling to decide what God's Word encourages them to do. Marriage counselors also may try to help married couples deal with the emotional and psychological situation, and attorneys (legal counselors) may try to help the couple negotiate the terms of their reconciliation or separation. Anytime a couple reconciles, separates, or divorce, there are legal issues involving their material possession, wealth, and how to share or divide them (depending on whether they are reconciling or separating). Mediators are also useful to facilitate agreements between the couple, and financial/tax advisors can help deal with economic considerations.

Does every married couple need the services offered by all those professionals? The answer is that, while it is not necessarily true that they will need all the aforementioned services, it is possible that they will need some or all of them. How does our married couple know which professionals they need to consult about their issues? Remember our 3 steps above, and give careful consideration to them: (1) identify and examine the issues/problems; (2) research what professionals offer relevant services; and (3) decide who to see in what order.

A few tips on the first step:

• Be thorough in identifying the issues (sometimes it is human nature to ignore painful issues);
• Examine them carefully to see whether they are physical/medical issues, emotional issues, psychological issues, spiritual issues, financial issues, business issues, and/or legal issues;
• Be certain not to try and limit issues to being just one type of issue when it might fall under several categories; and
• Prioritize the issues by importance.

Once the first step is complete, keep the following in mind when handling step no. 2:

• Research does not have to be complicated - check first with people you trust that may be able to refer a professional s/he used in the past that provides the services you need;
• The Internet can be a valuable resource, but it should not be the end of your search - try to talk to the professionals you find in person or at least on the phone before retaining their services;
• Your insurer/employer can often provide referrals, especially to professionals covered by any insurance policies/employment benefits;
• Don't forget to research professionals for each type of service you may need;
• Research price upfront;
• Ask questions of any professional you hire;
• Be wary of professionals recommending other professionals (i.e. are they paid for their referrals by the recommended professional?);
• Get second or even third opinions/estimates;
• Get your agreement with the professional in writing; and
• Seek wise counsel.

Regarding step no. 3:

• Make certain you are in a healthy physical/spiritual position first;
• Prioritize your goals - sometimes certain things (especially in the legal and financial/business realms) have to be done within a certain time-frame or you lose/waive some right or thing, while other things that may seem most important to us can be handled just as well after seeing to things that involve time constraints;
• Keep an eye on the cost of services you receive (it rarely helps to get half of the services you need because you failed to budget for or negotiate services that you can actually afford or finance);
• While counseling for your mental and emotional health is great, do not let your legal rights go unprotected or otherwise expire while seeing a mental health professionals (otherwise you are just going to add more stress to your already impaired mental condition - remember that your psychologist does not necessarily understand that your legal rights may be waived by inaction or delay);
• Try, if you can, to think ahead and plan for the long term.

Example1: If you are chemically dependant on drugs, you may not want to get into trouble with the authorities, but you need to seek medical help first. Legal advice does little to help dead people (even estate planning must be completed, typically, while you are still alive). However, if the doctor says your condition is stable, you might want to delay checking into that rehab clinic for substance abuse counseling until you have spoken with an attorney (you might want to know, for instance, whether entering rehab will constitute a confession of illegal drug use that can subject you to criminal penalties or cost you your job). Also, talking to a financial advisor might be a good way to find out if financing that rehab clinic will put you into bankruptcy. There may be more cost-effective alternatives to that clinic in Beverly Hills you heard about on Entertainment Tonight. Also, will your treatment expenses be deductible on your next tax return?

Example 2: If you have kids, one of whom is disabled, and you are not in good health, then you probably need to consider estate and tax planning (I don't advise anyone to wait until their health is bad to do estate planning). First, you need to be alive long enough to do the planning, so check with your physician first. Second, your condition (and also the disability of your child) is a red flag that you might need to do some medicaid planning (tricky stuff). Attorney offer estate and medicaid planning advice/services. Some estate planning attorneys will do your gift/estate tax and other tax planning themselves, especially if it is a smaller estates. Other times, the attorney may need to consult a tax professional or accountant when planning your estate. However, accountants and tax professionals cannot do your estate plan alone, so it's best to go to the attorney first. If the attorney will need to consult with another professional, then you may want to inquire about the costs involved. Perhaps you can negotiate the fees or even recommend a more cost-effective provider. Finally, you may need to consult with a mental/emotional care provider (i.e. counselor, therapist) to deal with the stresses and anxiety of planning your estate (some people are really disturbed by the process of planning for death). Your church elders/pastors, if wise and faithful, can likely help you in different ways at every step of this process (by recommending professionals, by praying with you, and by helping you weigh the options).

***Disclaimer: I am an attorney, but I am not YOUR attorney, meaning that the advice in this blog post is general advice for the masses and not tailored to anyone's specific needs/concerns/issues. I advise anyone with a legal question or a conflict to speak with an attorney and give that attorney the benefit of all the facts. Obviously, the best legal advice will come from a skilled and trustworthy attorney fully acquainted with the situation you are facing rather than someone offering legal tips on a blog.

A wise man seeks wise counsel (no. 1).

I found a website discussing the relationship between wisdom and accepting advice from a Biblical perspective. In doing so, I found the following scriptures:

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise" (Proverbs 12:15). "By pride comes nothing but strife, but with the well-advised is wisdom" (Proverbs 13:10). "The ear that hears the rebukes of life will abide among the wise. He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke gets understanding" (Proverbs 15:31). "Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise in your latter days" (Proverbs 19:20).

The point these scriptures make, when read together, is not to take every piece of advice that you receive as proven fact/truth. However, these scriptures send a solid message that it IS wise to listen to wise counsel. In other words, it is wise to consider the advice of those wiser or more learned than ourselves before we make decisions or take actions. That advice does not free us of the need to purposefully consider our decisions/actions before taking them. However, prayerfully contemplating the counsel you receive on a subject, make the wisest decision or take the wisest action.

Remember, wisdom often comes with age (Proverbs 19:20 - "...wise in you latter days"). I am smarter than some who are older than I am, but I am often less wise. Perhaps I am wiser than some who are older, but it is generally true that, the longer a person lives, the more experiences that person has, the more opportunities that person has to grow in wisdom. Granted, not every person older than me has seized the opportunities that he or she has received, and some of older persons may even be foolish. Remember, wisdom comes from the Lord first, so if you meet an older person who does not have the Lord in his/her life, then that person has chosen to avoid wisdom in every moment of his/her life. Always look for wisdom in the Bible first: if a person contradicts the Bible, how wise can that person truly be?

However, a person's age, at a minimum, is a good indicator of how much exposure that person has had to wisdom. Those who have lived long lives and accepted the opportunities for growth afforded to them by the Lord could be a wealth of wisdom and good counsel. While my parents, for instance, are reasonably intelligent people, I am sure neither of them has anything on Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin. It is my parents' wisdom that compels me to seek advice from them before so many others that may or may not be smarter. My father is a pastor, and my mother was my first Sunday School teacher. I know that every piece of advice they give me comes from a person who has sought wisdom from the Lord for many, many years. Those learned in the Word usually make the best advisors, meaning that they tend to give good advice.

Why does this matter? Whether you believe it or not, none of us knows everything. None of us has everything, and none of us can do everything. We all are imperfect, and we all need help from time to time. The Word of God teaches us that, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise." Why would anyone think that s/he is always right? Pride. "By pride comes nothing but strife." However, "... with the well-advised is wisdom."

Do you trust God? Do you trust the Bible? If so, then you should not trust yourself - not in all things. The Bible says that we do not know everything and that we all need to listen. Do you agree? If not, then there is no point in your reading any further - I cannot help you (only the Lord can). If you do agree, then ask yourself this: where do you go for advice? Who do you turn to with your problems? Who do you listen to? Are your advisors wise counselors? Are you willing to give heed to someone else's judgment before your own, even where you disagree?

In my own life, I recently sought advice from a church elder regarding how to handle a situation that I did not feel fully equipped to handle alone. The elder agreed to take over the situation, and my load was greatly decreased for seeking his advice. Other times in my life, I have chosen to follow my own judgment. Sometimes that was wise, and, at other times, it was just stubbornness.

At this stage in my life, however, I take comfort in knowing that I need to be intentionally considering whose judgment is wisest to follow, and the answer is not always mine. It really helps me to get through each day knowing that I am not trying to live my life by my wisdom alone. If you let it, that process will give you comfort. There is an expression that I am fond of: "no man is an island." I think that fits well here. All believers are connected together as the body of Christ. We are the Church - capital "C" - and we work best together. That is how we were made.

UPDATE: See the second article in this series here.

Update regarding our earlier post on sexual immorality.

I recently read a blog about the former Regent dean of students I referenced in our earlier post on sexual immorality. Cited below is a comment I made at that blog in response to the absolute hatred being slung at Christians by the commenters. The source of this hatred? Because one Christian, formerly a law professor and dean, has stumbled, the world believes that Christians are hypocrites. Please, if you read my response to the commenters below and have an opinion, feel free to express it in the comment section below.

"I think it is important to remind people that Christians (those who actually follow Christ's teachings) profess to be neither perfect nor without sin. In fact, to be saved, one must admit that he is a sinner in need of Christ's sacrifice to pay the penalty for that sin.

Every sin is an offense against God. Every single one, no matter how great or how small, and sitting in a jail cell does nothing to undo that offense in the eyes of the Lord. There is nothing a human being can do, on his or her own, to reconcile or "make amends" with God.

Stephen McPherson has admitted to sinning against God and to breaking the law of man as well. The jail time will pay his debt to society. Only Jesus could pay his debt to God.

Being Christian is not about being righteous or sinless. It is about admitting that you are a sinner struggling with temptation to do evil and accepting Christ's blood as the sacrificial price to cover each time you fail in that struggle.

Stephen McPherson is no hypocrite. By being a Christian he is a self-professed sinner. Though his sins may be reprehensible, they are not unforgivable. He was forgiven the moment he accepted Jesus.

I do not approve of what he had admitted to doing with those girls, but he will be punished, and it is not my place or your to judge him. Rather, we should forgive him because we know that we have also sinned, though perhaps in different ways. If you ever want to be forgiven, then you must first forgive. At least, that's the Biblical perspective."

Sexual immorality in the Church: should sinners be pastors or leaders?

Priests and pastors are accused of sexual immorality at an alarming and ever-increasing rate these days. I attended Regent University School of Law, a Christian institution, and one of its former dean of students has pleaded guilty to sex crimes. A newer minister at my church was recently dismissed after confessing to adultery.

So, what do we take away from this? From reading recent blog entries, it appears that the secular community views Christians as hypocrites because some Christians sin in the area of sexual immorality. How can this be when we know God is not fond of hypocrites (reference Matthew 23)?

I believe that every sin committed by a believer is evidence in support of the need for Jesus Christ. After all, why would believers need Christ's sacrificial grace if we didn't sin? We aren't hypocrites when we sin - we're just honest examples of Christians incapable of fulfilling the law on our own and in desperate need of God's mercy, which is new each day (Lamentations 3:22-23). So, when a man stumbles, even when he causes harm to a child, this is not an excuse to lose faith. Instead, it should renew our faith in God's message: that even the best man is fallen and needs the saving grace and mercy the Lord has provided through Jesus Christ.

So, do we punish evil? Certainly the laws of God and of men must be enforced, and justice must be done. However, does that excuse us to condemn/excommunicate/hate the sinners? I suggest that we show mercy to those who stumble if we expect to receive mercy ourselves. I believe there is a verse for that, but it escapes me at the moment.

It is when we believers attempt to cover up or hide the fact that we sin that we are truly being hypocritical. Instead, we need to accept that believers sin, and, when the secular world says: "See - the Christians sin too," we need to address that by saying, "you have better believe we sin, and we know it, but praise the Lord we have Jesus to save us from it!"

Lets not, as the Church, judge the sinners (unless we are also judges) or focus on appearing perfectly righteous (which we aren't). Rather, lets focus on admitting we all sin and struggle against it. Perhaps then non-believers, also sinners, will feel welcome in the church building, comforted by the knowledge that they are surrounded by other sinners looking for mercy, forgiveness, and especially grace - just ... like ... them.

So, lets be slow to judge, quick to forgive even the most controversial/taboo sins, and accepting of imperfect people. We all believe (supposedly) that even a murderer can repent and be saved, but how many would go so far as to invite them to church? What if the murderer came and felt called to preach? Can Jimmy Swaggart, who was caught with a prostitute, continue to preach?

Show me a perfect preacher. Show me a preacher without sin. My father is a pastor, and he would tell you that he is far from perfect, but he knows that the people he preaches to need to hear about his struggles/experiences overcoming temptation and sin. People don't need a "perfect" preacher any more than they need a Pharisee to stand behind the pulpit. They need honest, real ministers with real experiences who they can relate to, that have something relevant to say about their daily struggle to live a life accepting to the Lord, unstained by the world (James 1:27).

One of the most amazing messages I ever heard preached was from a former pornography addict named Gene McConnell who came close to raping a woman before the Holy Spirit convicted him to release her. He spoke at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting I attended at WSU, and the power of his message gives real, genuine hope to the men and women afflicted by pornography and sexual crimes, made only more potent by his personal experiences and testimony. So, should a man with a weakness for sexual immorality be preaching to college students on that subject? You bet he should.

Just read the comments on this blog about his message at OSU here (not appropriate for children). Note that this blog may or may not be endorsed by Gene (I found it through Google). Some of the student comments are particularly alarming:

• "While I agree 100% with the basic message, I wasn't impressed with some of the content. Frankly, hearing about many of the disgusting things the speaker has done in his past was a bit more than I bargained for."
• "Everything and anything, if done to excess can be harmful. I enjoy viewing porn, just like I enjoy drinking alcohol and other such things. That does not mean I am addicted to either or that my behavior is harmful. People that go around the country preaching the evils of porn are just pathetic. "

It is scary that there are people actually defending porn after hearing Gene's message and that others, who are believers, are too fearful to face the truth. Gene is a man who loves the Lord and has checked his pride at the door to share his sinful past with those men and women suffering from the "Power of Porn." I know several men at WSU were released from bondage after Gene's seminar. I embraced one friend who cried for almost 15 minutes as we prayed with Gene. He was the last guy I would have expected to have a problem with porn: he could have had any woman he wanted, a Bible study leader, etc. Did I feel betrayed that he, a Christian, had sinned? Of course not. He was struggling, but he was also a true believer all the same. Condemning a man for sinning is the height of hypocrisy.

I agree most with this comment regarding Gene:

• "Powerful. transparent. A message to those who thing this is too much info: powerful battles require powerful messages, and this one delivers."

So, the next time you look down on a Christian, be it a priest, a pastor, or just a friend, for sinning in an area the Church finds to be taboo, consider this: what sins have you committed that the other believers would frown on if they knew of them? What if the tables were turned?

So, should sinners be allowed to preach/lead/teach? I sure hope so, or we are all going to be short a few pastors/leaders/teachers. Sinners like Gene have great testimonies, and Gene's message proves that there can be victory over sin for men, not just Christ. Sure, we all believe that Christ conquered sin on the cross, but he didn't do it just as an example. He conquered sin so that we might be free!

I charge you all: bring back the sinners you have cast out from your church buildings. Remember that the real Church is the body of Christ, composed of believers, who are all sinners. Casting out a man or woman for committing a sin, even a taboo/sexual sin, is hypocritical and a bit looney toons.

That's just my take, though. Listen to Gene's message and judge for yourselves whether you want sinners behind the pulpit and in the classroom.

God bless you all.

NEWS: Obama v. Rush...

See President Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh here. See Limbaugh's response here.

Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?

Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.

Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.

It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.

NEWS: Rev. Lowery gives racist benediction.

*bumped*

Read the story here. Read an interesting blog post on-topic here.

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Rev. Lowery said (emphasis supplied).

**For a complete transcript, click here.

I am terribly disappointed by these words that, if taken literally, imply that we live in a time that my entire race is wrong, having failed "embrace what is right." I realize that many Americans have been judged solely based upon the colour of their skin. Now all Caucasians join those ranks. The deliverer of the benediction for President Obama, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, has asked our president to help this nation "work for that day when ... white will embrace what is right." Omitting the other clauses in his rhyme does not alter the meaning of the words quoted. In fact, they are just as awful.

I have felt judge exclusively by my skin colour before, but never by anyone whose opinions had any weight with me. Now, the man who gave the inaugural benediction has judged all white Americans wrong because they are white. I found that remark to be offensive, and I hope President Obama will condemn this man's bigoted statements publicly.

EDIT: It's odd how the native American population has not raised a ruckus over being referred to as "the red man." I am certain that, if a white person said anything that Rev. Lowery did, then he would be called a racist. As such, this story has become the basis for my new motto: "I am white (racist)." This is apparently the Rev. Lower's way of thinking, at least. I would get a T-shirt printed, but that might qualify as a hate crime?

NEWS: Pray for Ted Kennedy.

Read the report here.

Excerpt:

"The Obamas then repaired to the Capitol's Statuary Hall for a traditional luncheon before this afternoon's inaugural parade.

"During the lunch, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fell ill and was rushed away for treatment. Kennedy, 76, who was diagnosed last year with brain cancer, apparently suffered a violent seizure and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, officials said."

"Obama paid tribute to Kennedy at the end of the luncheon. 'I would be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him,' the new president said."

Now, I am a conservative. I do not support Senator Kennedy's ideals. However, I believe he deserves our prayers. There is no such thing as a "good man," and we all fall short in different areas. Please, a Christian is only as good as his/her mercy: pray for Ted Kennedy.

Clarification...

Regarding the political news posts today, I do want to make it clear that I am giving my respect and prayers to President Obama. Please see Romans 13:1 if you need a reason to join me in praying for our new president. I do not believe that Barack Obama would be president against God's will. That does not mean that he is right on every issue, but as Christians we should support and pray for our leaders.

For those of you who supported the president during the election, please do not be offended by our news posts. I am a self-professed right-winger, and I think Rob would say the same thing. All people are welcome here, however, regardless of their political views. Comments that disagree (politely) with a post on this blog are welcomed.

That said, if I believed in omens, then the news today would not call for optimism. The Obama presidency began with a flubbed oath (regardless of who is to blame), a bigoted benediction, and the most expensive inauguration in history. Fortunately, I put no faith in omens, only in the Lord, who never leaves us nor forsakes us.

Movie Review: "Punisher: War Zone"

SCORE

-3 out of 5-

CREDITS

• 
  
  Frank Castle: Ray Stevenson.
• 
  
  Jigsaw: Dominic West.
• 
  
  Loony Bin Jim: Doug Hutchison.
• 
  
  Micro: Wayne Knight.
• 
  
  Directed by Lexi Alexander.
• 
  
  Produced by Lionsgate films.

PREFACE

The Bible:
"[L]earn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause" (Isaiah 1:17).

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39) (words of Christ).

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:44-45) (words of Christ).

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Romans 12:19).

The world:

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done. "
-Leonardo da Vinci

"He who studies evil is studied by evil."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "
-Edmund Burke

"The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil."
-Cicero

"They say, 'Evil prevails when good men fail to act.' What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
-Yuri Orlov, "Lord of War"

"Yield not to evils, but attack all the more boldly."
-Virgil

REVIEW

"Punisher: War Zone" is a film largely about stylized violence. The violence is so gruesome, the language so offensive, and the story so dark that I cannot endorse this movie. The target audience of this blog are saved Christians searching, as I am, for how to live a life pleasing to God and how apply His truth to the circumstances that confront us. Obviously, the protagonist in the Punisher leads a life that no Christian in this world has ever chosen to live. But then, how many Christians in this world have experienced the circumstances he has? For that reason, while I will not endorse or recommend this movie to any of you, neither will I tell you to refrain from seeing it. The point of this review, and any review on this blog, is to enable you to make that call for yourself.

Story: This film is not about violence for the sake of violence, even if it may seem that way at first. To understand the story, you need some background to the character. Frank Castle is an American veteran who, upon returning home from war, expected to find peace with his family. Instead, one day, while walking through Central Park, Frank and his family witness a mob execution, and his his wife, son, and daughter all become collateral damage in a war that the government and police were not, in Frank's estimation, truly fighting.

Those familiar with comic book on which this movie is based know the rest of the story well. For those who do not: the murderers were not brought to justice, so Frank tracked down the killers of his family and exacted revenge, but he did not stop there. A soldier by trade, Frank's reaction is to do what he does best: he declared open war on crime. Politicians talk about "justice," "due process," and "rights" when referring to crime, while they use terms like "collateral damage," "acceptable losses," and "strategy" when referring to war. Frank's family having become collateral damage in a mob war, decided that he had one last war to fight, so he pursues the enemy and victory with little caution for his own life. His goals are two: punishing the evil amd protecting the innocent so that no more families become "collateral damage." It ceases to be about revenge: Frank has killed everyone even remotely responsible for the deaths of his family before the movie even begins. Rather, Franks seeks to exterminate or "punish" evil. Thus, the Punisher is born.

The story of how Frank Castle became the Punisher is amazing, with a lot of emotion fueling it, but that is not what this movie is about. This movie is about the after effects. The origin of the Punisher is almost too much for a movie to convey (which is where the last adaptation arguably failed). Having once worked with crime victims as a prosecutor, I can tell you this: no movie can truly capture their pain. Rather than attempting to do this, the movie shows Frank's gruesome past in brief flashbacks, giving us but a glimpse of his painfult motivations.

We do not, however, need to fully understand Frank's pain to understand why he would want justice. This movie is not about justice either, though. It is about punishment, and you will be punished throughout the entire movie as you witness admittedly evil men tortured, maimed, and killed with a measure of brutality that only an obsessive sociopath could deliver. The questions the movie presents a Christian viewer is, can you understand why Frank Castle goes so far beyond justice, meaning can you understand what would drive him to compulsively kill criminals without remorse? Can his actions be justified in the Word?

Those of us who could relate to Frank's pain do not have the military training and mindset that Frank has. Had Frank been a philosopher, perhaps he'd have tried to make sense of the tragedy from a logical perspective. Frank was once in training to be a priest before the war; had he continued down that path, perhaps he would have turned to God to make sense of his loss. A person's reaction to pain is largely governed by his past experiences. People use what they know of the world to make sense of it. I think Christians are in the best position, perhaps, as we look, ideally, to the Bible to make sense of such pain.

Frank, nevertheless, was a marine. More to the point, he was part of a special forces unit, meaning he was used to making sense of the world and evil from behind a rifle. For good or for ill, this movie is about his application of the art of war as a solution to the threat of crime. When politicians use terms like "war on drugs" and "war on crime," they mean increased police measures and prosecutions, not vigilante killings. When the Punisher uses the term "war," he means it literally, and he uses military weapons to fight the enemy. In pursuing his war, Frank cuts himself off from the rest of the world, denies himself any human pleasures or fleshly pursuits, and dedicates himself to being the most disciplined soldier to ever walk the earth. Every night, he kills men that he judges to be evil, leaving us to question idf his judgments amount to justice, revenge, or something else.

PROS: And this is why the movie is about more than just violence for the sake of violence - you will have to ask yourself what you believe about crime and punishment. What does the Bible say about it? What does the world say about it? Does your government truly pursue justice, and does our system of enforcing the law and punishing criminals truly go far enough? I have placed some quotes in the preface of this review to aid you in contemplating these questions, possibly without need for watching this film.

The moment I realized this movie presented these questions and just how much it made me ponder them, was the moment I decided to write this review. That moment came when I read the quote from Isaiah 1:17 above: "Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow" (NIV, the one above is ESV). Without revealing too much of the plot, there is a moment in the movie where the Punisher kills a criminal who turns out to be an undercover agent of the FBI, leaving behind a widow and fatherless son. One could observe that Frank has done to this FBI agent's family precisely what was done to him by the mob: they are now collateral damage in a war, only this time it was Frank's war. The movie is largely about Frank's moral struggle with whether to continue the war as the Punisher, or to lay down the skull permanently (his symbol, worn on his chest).

The movie is incredibly well-acted, directed, and produced, and it is quite faithful to the Garth Ennis run of the comic, which will please most existing Punisher fans. It looks like it had a large budget, though I suspect it did not. "Punisher: War Zone" provides a different perspective of crime, punishment, and justice through amazing visuals, a well-choreographed use of stage violence, and the ongoing commentary of police officers, victims, criminals, and the accomplices of all. If you can get past the violence long enough to think about the plot, then it will really make you think about the meaning of justice versus vengeance, and whether punishment is synonymous with either of them.

CONS: I said that the commentaries of the characters will make you think. Unfortunately, the commentary most needed to analyze the ethical questions the movie presents is absent: Frank's. I suppose a by-product of being a disciplined solider is that you are a man of few words, who lets his actions speak loudest. However, as a fan of the comic, I recall Frank having an inner-monologue that gave at least some flesh to his thought processes, motivations, and reasoning. Like the comic, Frank doesn't negotiate or explain himself to the criminals he punishes, but the missing "thought bubbles" that served as Frank's narration in the comics prevent us from sharing Frank's pain and experience in the movie. The result is that a brilliant story is lost in a sea of violence that will distract most viewers, casual or otherwise, from the subtle themes and plot points woven into the film. For that reason, most will deem the violence pointless.

The violence is not the only thing in the movie that seems high-quality, though. The cinematography is amazing, and given that most of the movie occurs after dark, that is an accomplishment. Remember Tim Burton's "Batman" (1989)? The movie was so dark that it was hard to watch. Punisher does not suffer from this. Why is this a con? Because what you see so well is so gritty and ugly that you come out of the theater nauseous. The movie does not give its viewers a second to breathe.

The rare, brief pauses from the violence and cursing are shot in environments so gritty (i.e. sewers) or suspenseful (i.e. a widow's home, a graveyard) that they are also hard to stomach. Perhaps, as Roger Ebert said of the movie "Aliens," which suffers from a similar ailment, this was what the movie set out to do, in which case I have to applaud it. It does this well. The question becomes, though, can most audience members handle it? I think not. So the movie was destined to become a box office flop (though I predict high DVD sales). It is a victim of its own, built-in shortcomings. This story and its characters are not going to appeal to the general public.

The movie does not qualify as a "revenge flick" because it goes so far beyond revenge that you forget that Frank ever had a "score to settle." In fact, the movie takes place 5 years after he got revenge. That ship has sailed. Neither is this movie a harmless "action flick" like "Transporter." This movie is not the usual "comic book movie" either. Unlike "Iron Man," it is not based off of a comic written for the young. Legally, one is supposed to be 17 or older to buy the Punisher comics relevant to the movie.

It sought to do something different. While brave, that makes it a niche film. At most, it can hope to categorized as a "cult classic," or perhaps it will fall into a new genre with "Sin City," another comic-based movie that you would never want to take a kid to see.

This movie does what it set out to do, but do not take women or children to see it. I read online that a man took his wife to see this, and she cried for the rest of the night. The movie's use hardcore violence and profanity must be weighed against the only good thing it does: forcing those of us willing to watch it closely to reevaluate what we think/believe about vengeance, justice, crime, and punishment.

Final thought: This film is a movie for guys with some time to themselves, making it good for rental/purchase on DVD. Watch it alone, though. Anyone you invite to watch it with might hate you later for inviting them. Beware: unless you have read the Punisher comics by Garth Ennis (also graphically violent and gritty), you may be missing out on a lot of the context that makes the movie worth watching at any rate. My own interest in the comic and the movie are born out of my personal interest in criminal law - an interest many do not share. As an alternative, try the "Count of Monte Cristo": it's a decent revenge flick with little cursing, light violence, and a positive ending.

Bottom line: 3/5.

Welcome Rob

Just a quick welcome to Rob, who will be a regular contributor to the blog now. Read his first post about C.S. Lewis' perspective of Heaven at our new web address: http://appliedtruthandinterest.blogspot.com/. Hopefully we will also have postings from guest authors as time rolls along. For now, I hope all you thousands of readers enjoy reading what the two of us have to share.

The View of Heaven from Earth

Thanks to John for the chance to post on his blog. This has been on my mind lately and I appreciate the chance to write some things down.

Our view of Heaven is an important aspect of our Christian life. As the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both say, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Is Heaven our treasure?

I know until recently I hadn't given Heaven a huge amount of thought. Even now my thoughts go to the standard vision of puffy clouds and people in white robes with halos and harps. The sarcastic jibe "pie in the sky" is not so far from how I tend to think about Heaven.

The clouds-and-harps view may, for all I know, be close to literally accurate. However it's important to reflect on the idea of Heaven. Is it just a really nice place that we like so much we don't want to fight? I believe this had been my idea of Heaven for a long time: a place which has such lovely scenery and such nice music and activities that it will make us happy to reside there forever. War, pain and suffering would not exist there for the same reason that civil strife doesn't erupt on the beach in Hawaii.

However I've come to think of this as a very limited view of Heaven. How often have we ever been truly happen for very long? When has anything really made us happy for longer than a week or so? If a really fantastic resort is the best Heaven can offer, how long could it possibly be before we got bored?

The main impetus of my changed thinking on the subject has been the great 20th century Christian writer, C.S. Lewis. If you're thinking "The Narnia guy?" then you've got the right man. If you weren't aware he wrote a series of brilliant Christian books, you are now, and I recommend a visit to your local book store.

In The Problem of Pain, Lewis describes his view of Heaven like this:

There have been times when I think we do not desire heaven; but more often I find myself wondering whether, in our heart of hearts, we have ever desired anything else. You may have noticed that the books you really love are bound together by a secret thread. You know very well what is the common quality that makes you love them, though you cannot put it into words: but most of your friends do not see it at all, and often wonder why, liking this, you should also like that. Again, you have stood before some landscape, which seems to embody what you have been looking for all your life; and then turned to the friend at your side who appears to be seeing what you saw - but at the first words a gulf yawns between you, and you realize that this landscape means something totally different to him, that he is pursuing an alien vision and cares nothing for the ineffable suggestion by which you are transported. ... Are not all lifelong friendships born at the moment when at last you meet another human being who has some inkling (but faint and uncertain even in the best) of that something which you were born desiring, and which, beneath the flux of other desires and in all the momentary silences between the louder passions, night and day, year by year, from childhood to old age, you are looking for, watching for, listening for? You have never had it. All the things that have ever deeply possessed your soul have been but hints of it - tantalizing glimpses, promises never quite fulfilled, echoes that died away just as they caught your ear. But if it should really become manifest - if there ever came an echo that did not die away but swelled into the sound itself - you would know it. Beyond all possibility of doubt you would say 'Here at last is the thing I was made for.'

I find the idea of a "secret thread" connecting all the things we love to be very profound, and it rings true in me very deeply. I imagine a mosaic, in which every great beauty or love we've ever experienced is simply a tiny tile. We experience only the smallest glimpse of this mosaic at a time, and only in the most powerful of our experiences; yet if we were to see the whole we would know with certainty what it was.

This leads me to wonder, if humans are mere "moist robots" (as the atheist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, calls us) what need is there for this mosaic? Where does it come from? Why should we each have differing interests? Wouldn't society be easier to hold together if we all shared the same loves, if we could express ourselves fully and be understood fully? The Christian answer, as I see it, is this: We are each a unique expression of some infinitesimal part of God, unique and valued equally in the eyes of the Creator.

This mosaic, the perfection we yearn for, is not to be found on this Earth. What we desire is the fulfillment of our unique souls, to attain finally and fully the beauty and love we feel for these objects. And where do beauty, goodness, and love come from? They all find their ultimate expression in God, from whence they came. Thus to attain the beauty of the mosaic is for our uniquely shaped souls to be filled to the brim with the God who is the source of beauty.

I believe this answers a possible concern about Heaven -- what place or experience could constitute perfect happiness for everyone? Perhaps being with God uniquely satisfies each soul, in the way that is perfect for each. Lewis, in a different book, compares each soul to a lock which God fits into in a unique way. God represents an infinite set of keys, one for each soul.

I find this to be a truly amazing thought. Imagine the sense of awe you felt at the sight of an amazing vista, or the transcendental feeling you get from certain music -- if these are just glimpses through dirty glass at the source, how awesome must the source be!

Heaven, then, far from being a particularly nice resort, is instead the ultimate expression of the desires of each soul. This brings me to a few final questions that seem to be answered by this view of Heaven.

With the resort image in mind, I wondered why there would be no marriage or family in Heaven. Wouldn't you want to spend time in the perfect place with the people who you care about most? Now, though, I believe that there is no need for marriage or other sorts of special relationships because all the needs and desires which give rise to our most intimate relationships (the need for companionship, or to be special to another person) will find their complete and perfect fulfillment in God Himself.

I've also wondered how there can be people with no strife or pain between them. All acts of evil, however, come from some sort of need or desire -- the desire for money, or safety, or companionship, or even the desire for pleasure itself. If all our needs were truly fulfilled, then we would have nothing to fight about.

I certainly can't say for sure that this view of Heaven is the correct one; God grant me that if I'm wrong that I should find out. Still, I think it helps me to understand the ideas involved. A man lost in a cave who sees the tiniest spot of light is joyful for the light itself and the respite it provides from the darkness; but how much better to see the sun!

Race and Culture in Politics and Religion

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).

Was there no racism or sexism in the world Paul lived in at the time he wrote the scripture above? Of course there was. If memory serves, and I could be mistaken, then Galatians was written contemporaneously with Caligula's rule of the Roman Empire, which was famous for making slaves of men of all races. Slaves were also forced to risk their lives as both gladiators and prostitutes in Rome to increase the girth of their masters' purses. So what did Paul mean?

"You are all one in Christ Jesus" was a deliberate departure from a world filled with slavery and prejudice. Remember, "The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).

So, it is clear from scripture that, insofar as God is concerned, we are all equal. So why, for instance, would wives be called to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)? Because, being "equal" does not make us the "same." There are obvious and significant differences between men and women, which only begin with anatomy. No one would look at a hammer and a nail and imply any inequality. Certainly, they are not the same thing, but what can one do apart from the other?

I almost hesitate to say it, but there is some truth to that same principle when it comes to races. You know, I have to tan in the sun if I don't want to look sickly, because I am as pale white as they come. Does that mean I am less valuable to the Lord than a latin or black man? Of course not: that would be absurd. Does God love me any less because I can never become pregnant? Does he love my wife less because she can never make herself pregnant?

You see how silly it is to try and sell someone on the argument that we are all the "same" in the eyes of the Lord. Make no mistake, however, because we most certainly are all EQUAL in the eyes of the Lord. We all have an equal inheritance with the Lord, provided we choose to accept it.

I specifically want to discuss racism, which from the passage above is clearly against God's design. Without taking one kernel of truth away from that statement, it is important to remember that differences are also a part of God's design. If we are true to that, then we must accept those differences and realize that they do not make us more or less equal. They are just a part of God's plan.

So why, if we are all equal, do so many people hate others based on their race, culture, or gender? To put it simply, some people are stupid. Notice that I did not say ignorant? I don't buy, in the world we live in, that people cannot figure out that this sort of hatred is wrong. They know it, but they are just too stupid to care. They cannot live with those differences alluded to earlier. Mankind quickly learned from the example of the snake in Genesis, that which is different can kill you quickly, cause you to fall. Still, to assume this is true of everything and everyone different, is stupid.

So how do you confront such stupidity? I do not claim to have the answers, but I can tell you one thing: if you try to blow out a fire, you may just make it worse. Eventually, a fire will burn out on its own, when it has expended all its fuel. If you blow on it, though, you are just providing the oxygen it needs to survive. Better to smother a fire than to blow it out.

Racism is like a fire of hatred that needs desperately to be smothered. Giving attention to a racist is much like blowing on a fire. They thrive on the conflict, and when they see organizations and people fighting so hard against them, then they feel justified in their efforts and beliefs. Racism, and similar forms of hatred are perpetuated in the same way as violence in the middle east. Every attack provokes a reaction, and each reaction makes the opposing side feel that it has struck a chord, landed a major blow, and gained publicity for its cause. Similarly, fighting the racist does nothing to change matters. If you cannot change the heart, then the racist will forever remain a racist. It is engrained deeply in his faulty world view. You cannot convince a man to abandon his hatred through reason. Rather, you have to find a way to introduce love to counter the hatred.

People in this world who cling to and spread hate want a public forum. I believe they want publicity, even if it is bad publicity, so that they can spread their hate-mongering to others. This is true: hate, like fire, spreads fast. As those living in California realize, it's often hard to find enough water fast enough to stop a spreading fire in the forest. Similarly, it is difficult to find enough love fast enough to stop the spread of hatred.

I have learned that there are substantial differences between human races, but we are all still human, are we not? Often, those differences are sensitive topics, and so they are ignored. Other times, those differences are given more attentiaion than they deserve. Personally, I find the notion of hate crime legislation, for instance, to be particularly ludicrous. After all, a crime against a person is a crime. To commit that crime, a person was motivated by hate or, at a minimum, indifference. Whether that hate/indifference was motivated by racism makes little difference. In the end, the result is the same: a perpetrator and a victim.

To segregate perpetrators (treat them separately, differently from other perpetrators) based upon their racial motivations, inevitably ends up segregating the victims too: if Joe attacks Alice for being black and Sue, who is Asian, for no reason, and if Joe then receives a greater punishment for attacking Alice, then Sue has been treated differently because of her race. See how it spreads so easily? What did Sue do to deserve this forced segregation? She was, after all, just as much a victim as Alice, was she not?

By treating our hypothetical perpetrators and victims differently, we have forcibly segregated them all. In doing so, we have stooped to the level of our hypothetical perpetrator Joe: treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin.

The solution to racism, sexism, prejudice, and other hatred is beyond my ability to craft. Thankfully, it is not beyond God's. What I can tell you is this: adopting the methodology of the haters is not the solution. We, as Christians, cannot afford to support legislation and public policies that elevate one type of human being over another. That is simply wrong.

I have not forgotten my earlier point: there are differences between people who are, nevertheless, equal in the eyes of the Lord our God. So, why do these differences not require different treatment in laws and policies? Because that would deprive them of their right to equal treatment under the law.

Whether it is affirmative action legislation that affords minorities increased access to jobs over other races, or whether its segregation laws that send a minority race to the back of the bus, different restaraunts, and different stores, we cannot afford to start commanding different treatment of races by law. Ex-Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, once commented that statistical research showed most violent knife crimes in London were being committed by black youths. Should a law have been passed, then, to impose a curfew on black youths only?

Certainly not. It does not matter whether this method would be effective either: the objection is that we Christians have a duty to fight against inequality. Christ encouraged his disciples to accept the Gentiles in addition to the Jews and to afford them the same rights. I disagree with any legislation targeting a specific race to exact a cost or to confer a benefit. The ends never justify the means.

Rather, the Church needs to lobby for a government that supports equal rights (that's right - I am implying tha the Church should get involved in politics - another blog, another day folks). The differences between race and gender are not something that can be micro-managed by the government. The government should make rules that all must abide by.

The first amendment ensures freedom of religion and expression for a reason: government is not able to play "morality police." Sure, sometimes it tries, but the government cannot fix social issues such like racism with the stroke of a pen. Society, and the Church in particular, must accept responsibility and attend to them. Dealing with differences between race, gender, and culture is something that people must sort out for themselves. The government's duty is to achieve a safe enviornment for human beings, as a people, to interact and work through their differences. Elected officials cannot legislative love and acceptance.

The Church, however, can preach it, teach it, and live by it. We believers can spread love and equality by sharing the gospel. The truth is, no born again believer can legitimately read the Bible to promote racism. As the gospel spreads, and as believers embrace the truth of which Christ testified, hatred must die. No person can both truly accept Christ and also hate men because of their race. That would be an untenable contradiction.

So, it is time to stop introducing race into politics and government, where there is no hope of victory/success. Rather, it must be attacked at its source: hatred. You cannot change the mind of a racist by arguing with him that he is wrong. Instead, show him the Word of God. Share with him the love of Christ, and that CAN transform him.

More than once I have wandered into the "wrong" part of town. Men with dark faces stare at me, on a public street, as though I were a trespasser. The white colour of my skin makes me unwelcome in certain places. Those same people who stare at me with hatred, however, will likely find that the colour of their skin makes them unwelcome in places where mine is accepted.

Would it solve this problem to pass a law that says all races may use any public street in any neighborhood? Newsflash: the law already says that. So how do we fix it? Well, I don't believe I have ever been stared down by someone of another race, out of hatred, in church on Sunday morning. The reason? It does not synch with true Christian beliefs.

So, obviously, we need to get those beliefs out of the church building into the world where all this hate lives and breathes. Talking about racism does nothing to solve it. Talking about hate does nothing to solve it. Walking in love, sharing the gospel, and reaching out to lost souls, however, does.