What a simple yet profound and indeed far-reaching piece of wisdom to young Timothy: “Flee youth-fill lust”. Youth: the point when one has not connected the dots, the important things seem unimportant, and a proneness to discard the future in the present. It is here where the seed of divorce and broken families are planted. It is said that the number one reason for divorce is money. This is only because we’ve ignored and dismissed the impact of youthful fornication on the glue of marital consummation. Multiple sexual partners erode a man’s ability to be faithful to his wife; because, he becomes addicted to the pleasure of pursuit, finding it difficult to settle down. On the other hand, multiple sexual partners destroy a woman’s capacity to trust her husband; because, every breakup is another deep wound of distrust. For men the images of every sexual encounter create a thirst for new encounters. For women the wounds of every relationship haunt you with marital insecurity. The high cost of pre-marital sex is marital integrity and a natural binding intrinsic only to knowing one person sexually. In Genesis chapter three, one principle consequence of sin is that it makes life harder. If our spouse was the only man or woman we had known, there would be no images, no addiction to the chase, no relational wombs and no marital insecurities. It would be the marital bliss and fulfillment we sought by getting married in the first place; an experience that can only be known by virgins.
Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Formula for the Strongest Marriage
Flee also youthful lusts but
follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord
out of a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22).
What a simple yet profound and indeed far-reaching piece of wisdom to young Timothy: “Flee youth-fill lust”. Youth: the point when one has not connected the dots, the important things seem unimportant, and a proneness to discard the future in the present. It is here where the seed of divorce and broken families are planted. It is said that the number one reason for divorce is money. This is only because we’ve ignored and dismissed the impact of youthful fornication on the glue of marital consummation. Multiple sexual partners erode a man’s ability to be faithful to his wife; because, he becomes addicted to the pleasure of pursuit, finding it difficult to settle down. On the other hand, multiple sexual partners destroy a woman’s capacity to trust her husband; because, every breakup is another deep wound of distrust. For men the images of every sexual encounter create a thirst for new encounters. For women the wounds of every relationship haunt you with marital insecurity. The high cost of pre-marital sex is marital integrity and a natural binding intrinsic only to knowing one person sexually. In Genesis chapter three, one principle consequence of sin is that it makes life harder. If our spouse was the only man or woman we had known, there would be no images, no addiction to the chase, no relational wombs and no marital insecurities. It would be the marital bliss and fulfillment we sought by getting married in the first place; an experience that can only be known by virgins.
What a simple yet profound and indeed far-reaching piece of wisdom to young Timothy: “Flee youth-fill lust”. Youth: the point when one has not connected the dots, the important things seem unimportant, and a proneness to discard the future in the present. It is here where the seed of divorce and broken families are planted. It is said that the number one reason for divorce is money. This is only because we’ve ignored and dismissed the impact of youthful fornication on the glue of marital consummation. Multiple sexual partners erode a man’s ability to be faithful to his wife; because, he becomes addicted to the pleasure of pursuit, finding it difficult to settle down. On the other hand, multiple sexual partners destroy a woman’s capacity to trust her husband; because, every breakup is another deep wound of distrust. For men the images of every sexual encounter create a thirst for new encounters. For women the wounds of every relationship haunt you with marital insecurity. The high cost of pre-marital sex is marital integrity and a natural binding intrinsic only to knowing one person sexually. In Genesis chapter three, one principle consequence of sin is that it makes life harder. If our spouse was the only man or woman we had known, there would be no images, no addiction to the chase, no relational wombs and no marital insecurities. It would be the marital bliss and fulfillment we sought by getting married in the first place; an experience that can only be known by virgins.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Spirit and the Bride Say Come
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
What an invitation? - to drink water. And I've found it somewhat difficult to drink water when one is not thirsty. I know we often flavor our water with sugar or perhaps lemon in order to make it palatable. However, this is only necessary because one is not thirsty. And when the scorching, searing, desert sun in the heated days of life have so sweated your brow as to leave you dehydrated of all of the waters of men you'll seek another fountain. And I been there, empty, depleted, to where all of the philosophies, the isms, the books, the back wood sayings of the country folk and the old timers provided no relief for my dry mouth, parched tongue, and chapped lips. I could say nothing to another because nothing had been said to me of any consequence.
I was in a conference when a fellow walked up to me and proceeded to tell me he was a prophet of God and continued to speak on and on about what the Lord was going to do - how he would curse this and bless that and all that there... and when he took a breath, I broke his monologue and asked, "What church do you belong to?" He answered, I used to belong to "Bishop so and so" and went back to his speech. I interrupted abruptly this time saying "I did not ask what church you use to belong to, I asked, what church do you belong to now?" He answered, "None! …but God is in my heart." I said, "If you don't belong to a church, God is not speaking through you." And there is a lot of fellows that are speaking today who have not heard the Spirit and the bride. They've heard the sayings of men; they've read all the books; and that is all they have some men and some books.
Well preacher how do you know they have not heard the Spirit and the bride? - Because they're message is not the same message as that of the Spirit and the bride. They have construed a message for itching ears rather than thirsty souls. They don't tell men what they need to hear; they tell men what they want to hear.
Well why does their preaching draw so many people? They draw people who are not thirsty with sweeten water. They foster cravings for their manufactured drink mix. They draw men who are not thirsty… They are not told that Christ is all, but that Christ is the means to all you want. They are told if you have not been able to obtain it, come to church and I'll tell you how to get it.
Thirsty people don’t need flavored water…. Thirsty people don’t need sugar…don’t need lemon… don’t need cool aid…. They don’t need a promise of earthly health and wealth… Thirsty people don’t need a lot of fanfare… they don’t need a great cathedral… they don’t need light and cameras… they don’t need professional singers… they don’t need a huge choir… but the running water is music to their ears, a melody to the heart, an ensemble to the soul.
And I heard the voice of Jesus say come! And I came to Jesus just as I was… In my weariness... In my woundedness... In my thirst... and I came... The spirit and the bride said come and I came... And He opened my dumb mouth... And I learn His dialect; I learned His language. And I spoke the same thing I heard... Come!!! Come ye who are thirsty... scorched... seared... parched... dried... dehydrated... The elders used to sing that song… Whosoever will let him come, let him come... Whosoever will let him come and be saved… Whosoever will let him come, let him come... and drink from the life giving stream…
What an invitation? - to drink water. And I've found it somewhat difficult to drink water when one is not thirsty. I know we often flavor our water with sugar or perhaps lemon in order to make it palatable. However, this is only necessary because one is not thirsty. And when the scorching, searing, desert sun in the heated days of life have so sweated your brow as to leave you dehydrated of all of the waters of men you'll seek another fountain. And I been there, empty, depleted, to where all of the philosophies, the isms, the books, the back wood sayings of the country folk and the old timers provided no relief for my dry mouth, parched tongue, and chapped lips. I could say nothing to another because nothing had been said to me of any consequence.
I was in a conference when a fellow walked up to me and proceeded to tell me he was a prophet of God and continued to speak on and on about what the Lord was going to do - how he would curse this and bless that and all that there... and when he took a breath, I broke his monologue and asked, "What church do you belong to?" He answered, I used to belong to "Bishop so and so" and went back to his speech. I interrupted abruptly this time saying "I did not ask what church you use to belong to, I asked, what church do you belong to now?" He answered, "None! …but God is in my heart." I said, "If you don't belong to a church, God is not speaking through you." And there is a lot of fellows that are speaking today who have not heard the Spirit and the bride. They've heard the sayings of men; they've read all the books; and that is all they have some men and some books.
Well preacher how do you know they have not heard the Spirit and the bride? - Because they're message is not the same message as that of the Spirit and the bride. They have construed a message for itching ears rather than thirsty souls. They don't tell men what they need to hear; they tell men what they want to hear.
Well why does their preaching draw so many people? They draw people who are not thirsty with sweeten water. They foster cravings for their manufactured drink mix. They draw men who are not thirsty… They are not told that Christ is all, but that Christ is the means to all you want. They are told if you have not been able to obtain it, come to church and I'll tell you how to get it.
Thirsty people don’t need flavored water…. Thirsty people don’t need sugar…don’t need lemon… don’t need cool aid…. They don’t need a promise of earthly health and wealth… Thirsty people don’t need a lot of fanfare… they don’t need a great cathedral… they don’t need light and cameras… they don’t need professional singers… they don’t need a huge choir… but the running water is music to their ears, a melody to the heart, an ensemble to the soul.
And I heard the voice of Jesus say come! And I came to Jesus just as I was… In my weariness... In my woundedness... In my thirst... and I came... The spirit and the bride said come and I came... And He opened my dumb mouth... And I learn His dialect; I learned His language. And I spoke the same thing I heard... Come!!! Come ye who are thirsty... scorched... seared... parched... dried... dehydrated... The elders used to sing that song… Whosoever will let him come, let him come... Whosoever will let him come and be saved… Whosoever will let him come, let him come... and drink from the life giving stream…
Monday, December 21, 2009
A Setting For A Coming
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:13-14)
Seeds of ambiguity have been sown among believers, as to whether Christians should observe the Christmas celebration. Some have gone as far as deeming it a pagan practice, yet a look at history will not affirm this. Christmas has its origin, not in paganism, nor in edicts of Emperor Constantine, but in the church. That's right! The church has always set aside a day to celebrate the birth of Christ. While no one knows the day that Jesus Christ was born, the day of observance was not first December 25th, but January 6th. Some say it was a syncretistic change of date, meant to merge Christian and pagan worship. However, history does not produce the outrage, debate, division, or bloodshed that such a motive would have occasioned. Rather history is more aligned with the idea that, in agreement, the church sought to counter pagan observances by moving the Christmas celebration. This seems clear not only by the absence of resistance, but confirmed by the fact that this was not the only holiday moved as a counter measure to pagan observances.
While history of this sort is very meaningful and one should be careful in either contradicting or abandoning the long standing traditions of the church, there is still a higher authority that sets forth a pattern of celebrating the birth of Christ.
The angels celebrated the birth of Christ, for they sang "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Not only did the angels celebrate the birth of Christ, but the shepherds celebrated the birth of Christ, "And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen." Not only so, but eight days after Jesus was born, there in the temple, Simeon the priest celebrated the birth of Christ saying, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." And after him, a widow who served continually at the temple, the prophetess Anna, she celebrated the birth of Christ, as she gave thanks "and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." About two years later, the wise men arrived at the home of Mary and Joseph and they celebrated the birth of Jesus, "and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Is this not a pattern of celebrating the birth of Christ to be imitated?
For 400 years God had shut up heaven. Since the prophet Malachi, there was no word, no revelation, no prophet, and no preacher. Isaiah described the conditional context of the advent of the Savior as a drought, dry and unfruitful ground, a land filled with crusting and cracking river beds. And then an emerging greenery came into view, a shoot out of the parched dirt, and the consoling sight of life, the hope of fertility.
This is the setting, circumstance, context, background of Christmas. The setting for the coming of Christ is the extended silence of heaven broken by the heralding voices singing angels. For the one who understands the setting in which the birth of Christ occurs, it not only commands the celebration of Christmas but it demands the celebration of Christmas. Moreover such shallow religion that does not affirm the celebration of Christmas, one may rest assured that it is neither biblical nor Christian.
Seeds of ambiguity have been sown among believers, as to whether Christians should observe the Christmas celebration. Some have gone as far as deeming it a pagan practice, yet a look at history will not affirm this. Christmas has its origin, not in paganism, nor in edicts of Emperor Constantine, but in the church. That's right! The church has always set aside a day to celebrate the birth of Christ. While no one knows the day that Jesus Christ was born, the day of observance was not first December 25th, but January 6th. Some say it was a syncretistic change of date, meant to merge Christian and pagan worship. However, history does not produce the outrage, debate, division, or bloodshed that such a motive would have occasioned. Rather history is more aligned with the idea that, in agreement, the church sought to counter pagan observances by moving the Christmas celebration. This seems clear not only by the absence of resistance, but confirmed by the fact that this was not the only holiday moved as a counter measure to pagan observances.
While history of this sort is very meaningful and one should be careful in either contradicting or abandoning the long standing traditions of the church, there is still a higher authority that sets forth a pattern of celebrating the birth of Christ.
The angels celebrated the birth of Christ, for they sang "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Not only did the angels celebrate the birth of Christ, but the shepherds celebrated the birth of Christ, "And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen." Not only so, but eight days after Jesus was born, there in the temple, Simeon the priest celebrated the birth of Christ saying, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." And after him, a widow who served continually at the temple, the prophetess Anna, she celebrated the birth of Christ, as she gave thanks "and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." About two years later, the wise men arrived at the home of Mary and Joseph and they celebrated the birth of Jesus, "and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Is this not a pattern of celebrating the birth of Christ to be imitated?
For 400 years God had shut up heaven. Since the prophet Malachi, there was no word, no revelation, no prophet, and no preacher. Isaiah described the conditional context of the advent of the Savior as a drought, dry and unfruitful ground, a land filled with crusting and cracking river beds. And then an emerging greenery came into view, a shoot out of the parched dirt, and the consoling sight of life, the hope of fertility.
This is the setting, circumstance, context, background of Christmas. The setting for the coming of Christ is the extended silence of heaven broken by the heralding voices singing angels. For the one who understands the setting in which the birth of Christ occurs, it not only commands the celebration of Christmas but it demands the celebration of Christmas. Moreover such shallow religion that does not affirm the celebration of Christmas, one may rest assured that it is neither biblical nor Christian.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A Sound Basis for Confident Living
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
The Psalmist, David here brings to mind a little child that talks big noise. The subjects of his rant and raving no doubt are left wondering, how and where did such a little person gained so much boldness, life, vigor and vitality? Only to realize that the child’s daddy standing there right behind him is the source of all of his boldness. ...And that is the case here in this psalm: None of the confidence, themed in this passage by the writer is self-sourced or self-sustained.
David declares His power; the Lord is light, liberty, strength and courage. Yet let us not fall victim to admiring the power without first examining the person. The first word that arrests my attention is "Lord". It begs the question, is this "Lord" lord of some, or Lord of All? While the use of the definite article is conclusive, a bit of rationale may provide for a more firm footing practically. If He were merely "a" lord, there may be other lords on His same level; on the other hand, if He were merely "my" lord, then He may not be able to master my enemies. However, since He is "THE" Lord; that is Lord of "ALL", then He can make the wicked cease and the weary rest.
It is His Lordship from whence His power flows through the life of the believer. David says, from Him I gain light, liberty, strength, and courage. He gives light to clearly see what I should do and that I'll be ok in spite of the limitations of my own sight, liberty to not remain under the bondage of fear induced by the rumors of my enemies, strength to press forward regardless of the apparent obstacles and obstructions that lay in my way, and courage to confidently employ this equipment in the realities of everyday life.
Yes one can consider the possibility of His promise, you can walk through the fire and the fire won't burn; you can walk through the flood and the waters won't overcome you; however, unless He is Master of all, one is hardly compelled to wager his life on such absurdity. Moreover if He is THE Lord, then He can temper the heat of the fire and the wetness of the water.
Thus the Psalmist rightly declares that when enemies realize that our confidence is in God fully, finally, and forever, they stumble and fall before the fight even begins. Then in verse 4 he moves to the application of the Lord's person and power as observed in this passage: a slim focus, a solitary desire, a single practice. He states it simply, "One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple."
My whole desire and duty is to stay in His presence. Isn't that simple, just make sure daddy is behind me.
The Psalmist, David here brings to mind a little child that talks big noise. The subjects of his rant and raving no doubt are left wondering, how and where did such a little person gained so much boldness, life, vigor and vitality? Only to realize that the child’s daddy standing there right behind him is the source of all of his boldness. ...And that is the case here in this psalm: None of the confidence, themed in this passage by the writer is self-sourced or self-sustained.
David declares His power; the Lord is light, liberty, strength and courage. Yet let us not fall victim to admiring the power without first examining the person. The first word that arrests my attention is "Lord". It begs the question, is this "Lord" lord of some, or Lord of All? While the use of the definite article is conclusive, a bit of rationale may provide for a more firm footing practically. If He were merely "a" lord, there may be other lords on His same level; on the other hand, if He were merely "my" lord, then He may not be able to master my enemies. However, since He is "THE" Lord; that is Lord of "ALL", then He can make the wicked cease and the weary rest.
It is His Lordship from whence His power flows through the life of the believer. David says, from Him I gain light, liberty, strength, and courage. He gives light to clearly see what I should do and that I'll be ok in spite of the limitations of my own sight, liberty to not remain under the bondage of fear induced by the rumors of my enemies, strength to press forward regardless of the apparent obstacles and obstructions that lay in my way, and courage to confidently employ this equipment in the realities of everyday life.
Yes one can consider the possibility of His promise, you can walk through the fire and the fire won't burn; you can walk through the flood and the waters won't overcome you; however, unless He is Master of all, one is hardly compelled to wager his life on such absurdity. Moreover if He is THE Lord, then He can temper the heat of the fire and the wetness of the water.
Thus the Psalmist rightly declares that when enemies realize that our confidence is in God fully, finally, and forever, they stumble and fall before the fight even begins. Then in verse 4 he moves to the application of the Lord's person and power as observed in this passage: a slim focus, a solitary desire, a single practice. He states it simply, "One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple."
My whole desire and duty is to stay in His presence. Isn't that simple, just make sure daddy is behind me.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
A Built in Prayer Partner
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26)
The Spirit helps us. What a prayer partner! A proper view of one's self must conclude that self needs help. A need for help is indicative of some sort of inadequacy, a weakness, a lack; here the scripture calls it "an infirmity." And if you don't know you are weak, God knows!!! The Spirit is not hired help. He is not help under our employ. He is the believer's built in prayer system.
In the verse the diacritical mark, the colon, makes "the weakness" an in ability to recognize one's own needs, "For we know not what we should pray for," Paul says. And how can we? I have often said, "If I knew as a young man what I knew today, how different I would be." But that is to know maturity without it; and such can never be. Maturity is the product of experience. And who can ask for the proper experience to bring about his maturation. But the Spirit stands between our pitiful prayers and God, interceding for us, with groans, pains, not that we will not utter, but that we cannot utter.
What person can request a trial? What man can partition God for pain? What believer could utter sincerely from his lips, "Lord, let me groan!" Yet groaning is what we need. Let me be the first to say, such an utterance is a chasm my prayers could never cross.
Yet in genuine efforts to offer comfort to hurting people, we've been there, put on the spot, with families and their love ones. They wanted prayer for the discomforts of life when we should pray for the comfort of death. They wanted prayer for the release of their criminal children, when we ought to pray that God will use the experience to deliver him from the demons that have brought him to this point. And many times in our own weakness and empathy, we submit those kinds of requests. But the Spirit will not accommodate the wimpy carnality of our flesh. The prayers of the Spirit will request for squash while I ask for cotton candy. The Spirit will pray for a mountain to climb, while I ask for a sliding board. The Spirit will pray for me to pump iron while I ask to blow feathers. I don't know what I ought to pray for, but the Spirit does. He utters prayers, on my behalf, in the throne room of God. Father, give him trouble and it will increase his faith. Father, give him pain and it will give him endurance. Father, make him wait and it will give him patience. Father, give him heaviness and it will increase his strength. Father, make him weary and tired, and he will learn to trust you.
Thank God for the Spirit, for His prayers. He searches me. He knows I am weak. He knows my praying falls short. And He utters in accordance with God's will for me. He utters what is most beneficial for my life. Thank God for the Spirit helping me, interceding for me, and uttering to the Father the need for trauma, trial, and trouble which I cannot utter for myself.
The Spirit helps us. What a prayer partner! A proper view of one's self must conclude that self needs help. A need for help is indicative of some sort of inadequacy, a weakness, a lack; here the scripture calls it "an infirmity." And if you don't know you are weak, God knows!!! The Spirit is not hired help. He is not help under our employ. He is the believer's built in prayer system.
In the verse the diacritical mark, the colon, makes "the weakness" an in ability to recognize one's own needs, "For we know not what we should pray for," Paul says. And how can we? I have often said, "If I knew as a young man what I knew today, how different I would be." But that is to know maturity without it; and such can never be. Maturity is the product of experience. And who can ask for the proper experience to bring about his maturation. But the Spirit stands between our pitiful prayers and God, interceding for us, with groans, pains, not that we will not utter, but that we cannot utter.
What person can request a trial? What man can partition God for pain? What believer could utter sincerely from his lips, "Lord, let me groan!" Yet groaning is what we need. Let me be the first to say, such an utterance is a chasm my prayers could never cross.
Yet in genuine efforts to offer comfort to hurting people, we've been there, put on the spot, with families and their love ones. They wanted prayer for the discomforts of life when we should pray for the comfort of death. They wanted prayer for the release of their criminal children, when we ought to pray that God will use the experience to deliver him from the demons that have brought him to this point. And many times in our own weakness and empathy, we submit those kinds of requests. But the Spirit will not accommodate the wimpy carnality of our flesh. The prayers of the Spirit will request for squash while I ask for cotton candy. The Spirit will pray for a mountain to climb, while I ask for a sliding board. The Spirit will pray for me to pump iron while I ask to blow feathers. I don't know what I ought to pray for, but the Spirit does. He utters prayers, on my behalf, in the throne room of God. Father, give him trouble and it will increase his faith. Father, give him pain and it will give him endurance. Father, make him wait and it will give him patience. Father, give him heaviness and it will increase his strength. Father, make him weary and tired, and he will learn to trust you.
Thank God for the Spirit, for His prayers. He searches me. He knows I am weak. He knows my praying falls short. And He utters in accordance with God's will for me. He utters what is most beneficial for my life. Thank God for the Spirit helping me, interceding for me, and uttering to the Father the need for trauma, trial, and trouble which I cannot utter for myself.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Apologize for Speaking the Truth
Nullified by the Weakness of One's Own Speech
When the sin of homosexuality is addressed, often Christians find the need to preface it with the notion "It is no worse than any other sin." Would those who say such things, say the same about murder, rape, etc... Do they really believe that all sins are the same? Of course not! What then is the reason for feeling the need to temper the truth with an apology? Is it compromise, sentiment, or fear?
A cop out! In other words, is it a way to not address the sin of homosexuality like many other blatant sinful practices by professing Christians are ignored in spite of Paul's clear directives, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat?" (1 Corinthians. 5:11) So is it just an attempt to normalize homosexuality in the grand cesspool of accepted sins in the church?
On the other hand could this be an attempt to tolerate homosexuality? "it is not really ok, but who am I to say so." The popular way of putting it today is "don't judge." This is born not of the "scripture" but of "sentiment." This same false sentimental spirit had invaded the carnal Corinthian church of scripture. And Paul was very clear that we are to judge, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians. 2:16) Jesus himself says, Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6.) How can one know that a person is characteristically a dog or a swine, if not by making a judgment? So is this an attempt to ignore the orders of the scripture to judge and not tolerate such behavior?
I am glad to say that I do not believe that either of the above rationales is behind this need to apologize. Yet this should bring no sense of relief as the actual reason for this lack of boldness is far more sinister. The homosexual proponents have so demonized the bearers of biblical truth until they have managed to always keep them on the defensive. The subtlety of this approach by the homosexual proponents has been most affective. This unsuspectingly puts those who stand on the offensive against this sinful practice on the defensive as though a wrong has been committed in speaking against it. So then those who have the power to turn up the temperature of the church and even influence the faulty rationale of the two groups above is demonized in the face of others every time his mouth is opened. Christians spend more time apologizing for the message than communicating the message itself. The result is that the Christian's power to influence others to join the fight is nullified by the weakness of his own speech.
It has appropriately been said that "The Gospel is an offense." Every Christian that bears this message has first been offended by it, only to experience true consolation in believing it. The truth is instead of the church boldly taking them to Mount Carmel challenging, ridiculing and discrediting their voice before the people, they have done so to the church's voice by forcing Christians to wrap their speech in apprehension rather than boldness. Believers must offend the world with great boldness and be willing to face the consequences of the offense. The efforts of Christians must not continue to be spent trying to avoid being seen in this unavoidable light of offense.
When the sin of homosexuality is addressed, often Christians find the need to preface it with the notion "It is no worse than any other sin." Would those who say such things, say the same about murder, rape, etc... Do they really believe that all sins are the same? Of course not! What then is the reason for feeling the need to temper the truth with an apology? Is it compromise, sentiment, or fear?
A cop out! In other words, is it a way to not address the sin of homosexuality like many other blatant sinful practices by professing Christians are ignored in spite of Paul's clear directives, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat?" (1 Corinthians. 5:11) So is it just an attempt to normalize homosexuality in the grand cesspool of accepted sins in the church?
On the other hand could this be an attempt to tolerate homosexuality? "it is not really ok, but who am I to say so." The popular way of putting it today is "don't judge." This is born not of the "scripture" but of "sentiment." This same false sentimental spirit had invaded the carnal Corinthian church of scripture. And Paul was very clear that we are to judge, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians. 2:16) Jesus himself says, Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6.) How can one know that a person is characteristically a dog or a swine, if not by making a judgment? So is this an attempt to ignore the orders of the scripture to judge and not tolerate such behavior?
I am glad to say that I do not believe that either of the above rationales is behind this need to apologize. Yet this should bring no sense of relief as the actual reason for this lack of boldness is far more sinister. The homosexual proponents have so demonized the bearers of biblical truth until they have managed to always keep them on the defensive. The subtlety of this approach by the homosexual proponents has been most affective. This unsuspectingly puts those who stand on the offensive against this sinful practice on the defensive as though a wrong has been committed in speaking against it. So then those who have the power to turn up the temperature of the church and even influence the faulty rationale of the two groups above is demonized in the face of others every time his mouth is opened. Christians spend more time apologizing for the message than communicating the message itself. The result is that the Christian's power to influence others to join the fight is nullified by the weakness of his own speech.
It has appropriately been said that "The Gospel is an offense." Every Christian that bears this message has first been offended by it, only to experience true consolation in believing it. The truth is instead of the church boldly taking them to Mount Carmel challenging, ridiculing and discrediting their voice before the people, they have done so to the church's voice by forcing Christians to wrap their speech in apprehension rather than boldness. Believers must offend the world with great boldness and be willing to face the consequences of the offense. The efforts of Christians must not continue to be spent trying to avoid being seen in this unavoidable light of offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)