Maybe you saw the video of Zach Wahls giving his testimony speaking before a House Subcommittee on the marriage debate. If not here it is...
It was very well worded and presented. On Jan Mickelson's radio show today he masterfully "Reverse engineered" Zach's speech by deconstructing his arguments line by line. Here is the LINK to Jan's Blog on this. By the way, Jan Mickelson not only proves that he truly is the Jedi Master in this, he also happens to be one of the keynote speakers for our upcoming Real Men Conference on February 18, 2011 at Rising Sun Church of Christ. Register today at realmeniowa today!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Word Choices and Heart Matters
It isn't uncommon to hear Pro-lifers referred to as "anti-abortionists" by those in the media while those who support abortion are not referred to as "anti-life," they are simply "Pro-choice." Recently, Michael Reagan, was upset by those in the media who labeled him as a "conservative" radio talk show host, but in the same segment wouldn't describe his brother as a "liberal" talk show host when they were both being interviewed.
Dave Price is a local media personality that I like and respect, to be honest. I don't agree with him all of the time, but find him to be generally fair in his treatment of subjects, that is, until a very recent segment he did where he let his own liberal leanings show through.
He was covering the current debate in the Iowa State House over the marriage amendment. In his story, Price said that "Republicans were working to provide a more "narrow definition" of marriage in Iowa." I wrote to Dave Price and told him that I felt that his use of the phrase "narrow definition" was not only unfair but it was a revelation of where he actually stands on the issue. Of course, he defended his use of the term and wrote about it here.
Here's my contention with describing the Republican position as providing a "narrow definition" of marriage. Why not describe the Democrats as attempting to provide a more "broad definition" of marriage? That is exactly what is occurring, by the way. Republicans cannot provide a more narrow definition because the historical definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman for life. So in all actuality the Democrats are the ones trying to revise the definition of marriage.
Media personalities like Dave Price remind us from time to time that our words matter. The word choices we employ reveal our hearts. Christ Himself said, "What comes out of our mouth comes from our hearts." (Matthew 15:18) I believe that the majority of media personalities, including Dave Price, have liberal leanings and their word choices reveal what is really in their hearts concerning their true feelings on the subjects they cover.
Even though Dave Price may disagree, his heart was revealed this week in his word choice. He believes that the current redefinition of marriage by the Iowa Supreme Court is the acceptable one and any attempt to reinstate the historical definition of one woman-one man marriage is "narrow" in nature.
Remember, folks, we can't give ground on this debate. Terms and word choices really do matter. We are not the ones redefining marriage. The definition of marriage is unchanged. Marriage is one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life. There is a small (albeit very loud) segment of the population of this state that is attempting to "broaden" the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. But we are no more or less narrow than we ever were by guarding the true definition of marriage yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:14)
Dave Price is a local media personality that I like and respect, to be honest. I don't agree with him all of the time, but find him to be generally fair in his treatment of subjects, that is, until a very recent segment he did where he let his own liberal leanings show through.
He was covering the current debate in the Iowa State House over the marriage amendment. In his story, Price said that "Republicans were working to provide a more "narrow definition" of marriage in Iowa." I wrote to Dave Price and told him that I felt that his use of the phrase "narrow definition" was not only unfair but it was a revelation of where he actually stands on the issue. Of course, he defended his use of the term and wrote about it here.
Here's my contention with describing the Republican position as providing a "narrow definition" of marriage. Why not describe the Democrats as attempting to provide a more "broad definition" of marriage? That is exactly what is occurring, by the way. Republicans cannot provide a more narrow definition because the historical definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman for life. So in all actuality the Democrats are the ones trying to revise the definition of marriage.
Media personalities like Dave Price remind us from time to time that our words matter. The word choices we employ reveal our hearts. Christ Himself said, "What comes out of our mouth comes from our hearts." (Matthew 15:18) I believe that the majority of media personalities, including Dave Price, have liberal leanings and their word choices reveal what is really in their hearts concerning their true feelings on the subjects they cover.
Even though Dave Price may disagree, his heart was revealed this week in his word choice. He believes that the current redefinition of marriage by the Iowa Supreme Court is the acceptable one and any attempt to reinstate the historical definition of one woman-one man marriage is "narrow" in nature.
Remember, folks, we can't give ground on this debate. Terms and word choices really do matter. We are not the ones redefining marriage. The definition of marriage is unchanged. Marriage is one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life. There is a small (albeit very loud) segment of the population of this state that is attempting to "broaden" the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. But we are no more or less narrow than we ever were by guarding the true definition of marriage yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:14)
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Rearview Living
I have a long driveway compared to some homes. To back out of my driveway each morning I rely heavily on the help of my rearview mirror. A rearview mirror helps drivers keep an eye on what is behind them, and especially when you are backing up, this is very helpful. Safe drivers keep a frequent eye on their rearview mirrors.But staring at your rearview mirror while driving means you won't stay on the road for very long. Not too long ago, I passed a car wreck and was looking back at the wreck in my rearview mirror as I looked away from the rearview mirror I realized I was about to plow into the back of the car in front of me. I had to slam my brakes to avoid a crash.
The point is that a good driver knows how to discern the right amount of time to look back while staying focused on what lies ahead. The very same lesson is true in our lives.
The apostle Paul writes in Philippians 3:13-14, "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."
It is very helpful, at times, to look back on our lives. God can use your retrospection - good times and bad, the painful memories as well as the delicious one, the hard lessons learned and the hard victories won. But, as Paul stresses, staring into your past is hazardous. When we become too focused on where we've been, we lose track of where we are going. We get off course, and we may end up running into something.
Jesus told a man who was wanting to follow him but first wanted to bury a family member before he did in Luke 9:59-62, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." The true disciple of Christ is one who doesn't stay focused on the past.
Some side rearview mirrors have a label on them that reads: Warning: Objects may be closer than they appear. I believe we should heed Scripture's warning about staring into the rearview mirror of our lives. It will derail us from our journey. Our ultimate destination lies ahead, not behind.
One of the very best things you could do in your life is to stop staring at, focusing on, or being overwhelmed by past events in your life. Start looking at your journey ahead in Christ Jesus!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Don't Judge A Kiwi By Its Cover
Some consider the kiwi to be the ugliest fruit. It's outside is rough and tough and tasteless. But the inside of a kiwi is bright and colorful and deliciously sweet. Just like the kiwi, what we see on the outside is seldom an accurate indicator of what's on the inside.I understand dressing appropriately for certain situations. Some schools require dress codes. Certain office jobs require business casual. I understand these things. But isn't the church supposed to be different?
As Arron Chambers wrote in his book, Eats With Sinners, "I just refuse to clothe the grace of God in a suit or a dress and require that lost men and women meet a dress code before they can meet Jesus."
Just because someone doesn't like wearing a tie to church doesn't automatically mean he doesn't love God. It might just mean that he hates ties, or he might just like breathing and the free flow of blood to the most important organ in the body!
Chambers wrote about a young man who couldn't wait to go to church so he could praise God with other Christians. He had just completed a six-month tour with the Navy in Iraq and had much to be grateful for - three months into his mission, he'd been rescued from the ocean after being knocked off the ship. So he put on a nice polo-style shirt, a nice pair of shorts (he'd been in uniform for six months and was ready for a break), and a pair of sandals and he headed to a church.
He arrived late because he was from out of town and didn't know where he was going. The service was well underway and packed when he finally made it, so he grabbed the first available seat, on the back row next to a well-dressed older couple.
During a break in the singing, the older woman leaned over to him and whispered, "Next time you come to our church, you need to dress more appropriately." He sat there stunned and no longer joyful.
Tears of sorrow welled up in his eyes. After sitting quietly for a few minutes, he leaned over to the woman and politely whispered, "There won't be a next time." He left the service and went back to his ship discouraged and brokenhearted.
The Word of God says in 1 Samuel 16:6-7, "The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." In James 2:1-9 we are commanded to not show favoritism because of how people dress or look.
There are so many good things we miss out on when we only focus on the external. Just think, if we only chose fruit based on their appearance, no one would ever enjoy a wonderful kiwi!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Arguments I've Heard Recently Favoring Homosexuality
Let me start out by saying that contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is not only right about the issue of homosexuality even though it's teachings may be old...they are obviously VERY relevant to this current fallen culture. I am not a fearful homophobe clinging to God and my guns, I am a rational Christian who does not accept the terms of the current debate over homosexuality and its acceptance as normative in our day and age.
Those in support of the acceptance of homosexuality have stated that Bible is not clear in it's view of homosexuals. On the contrary, I believe it couldn't be any more clear.
The Law of Moses said, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; c.f 20:13). The Old Testament (OT) also condemns "sodomites," which were male temple prostitutes (I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7).
The New Testament is just as clear on this issue as is the Old Testament. In the first chapter of Romans Paul wrote of the many evils mankind has engaged in while suppressing the knowledge of God that He has revealed to them (Romans 1:18-21), one of which was homosexuality. Paul plainly declared: "Because of this [the suppression of truth resulting in idolatry] God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Although homosexuality is not named as such here, the act of homosexuality is clearly described. It was in judgment that God allowed men and women to have sexual relations with the same sex, and they received in themselves their due punishment for such indecent acts.
While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10, NET).
In a recent email debate, a person arguing for homosexuality said to me, "Jesus does talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps as a church leaderyou should contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested, 'making much of that which cannot matter much to God.' "
This argument fails on two grounds. First, the major premise of the argument is flawed. The argument goes like this:
P1 Any issue Jesus is silent on must be morally acceptable
P2 Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is morally acceptable
Is it true that any issue Jesus did not speak to is to be considered morally acceptable? A cursory reflection on the notion reveals that this is not a true premise. Jesus did not speak to the issue of incest, rape, drug abuse, wife beating, and gay-bashing. Are we to conclude that these acts are morally good? Clearly not. We cannot determine the moral nature of an act by the mere observation that Jesus did not address the issue. Jesus did not speak to every moral issue there is to speak to.
Secondly, from the Christian perspective what is moral or immoral is not based solely on what Jesus said or did not say. While we are very interested in what Jesus had to say, we use Scripture as a whole to determine how God feels about various moral issues. When we examine the whole of Scripture we find a very clear portrait of God's take on homosexuality.
This comprehensive approach to morality makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview for two reasons:
1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. This means that every word in the Bible is equally authoritative. The teachings of one individual in one book cannot be given more weight than another individual's teaching in another book. Jesus' words hold no more authority than Paul's or Moses'
2. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The same God who spoke in the OT is the same God who became man in the face of Jesus Christ. It would be a mistake, then, to argue that since Jesus did not speak against homosexuality that God is not concerned with the issue, for it is clear that God did speak to the issue.
I have also had individuals tell me to my face that the sin of Sodom was due to the inhospitality and NOT the sexual perversion rampant in the city. I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this notion, because I am not aware of any. While it is true that Sodom was not judged only for its immorality (Ezekiel 16:49-50), from the Biblical narrative it is clearly the main reason. Jude 7, for one, makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion. The focus of the Genesis narrative is their sexual perversion as well.
Besides, the inhospitality that the men of Sodom exhibited toward the visiting angels could not have been the cause of their destruction because God had determined to destroy Sodom prior to this incident.
Furthermore, while Biblical scholars and historians recognize that inhospitality was much more serious in the Ancient Near East than it is to Westerners today, do we really believe that God would destroy two whole cities for having bad manners? What could explain God's execution of mass capital punishment on these people? Amazingly enough we find in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality was deserving of the death penalty. There is no prohibition in the OT against inhospitality, yet alone death as a prescribed form of judgment against it. The argument of inhospitality is further weakened by the fact that the inhospitality of the Sodomites is only implied in Genesis 19. The only thing explicitly stated in the text is the Sodomites' homosexual behavior. It would only make sense that this was made explicit to highlight why it was that God had determined to destroy these wicked cities.
It has been argued with me that if Christians wish to take the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality seriously, they also need to take its prescription for punishment seriously: death. The fact that Christians do not believe homosexuals ought to be put to death indicates that we do not consider the Biblical teaching on homosexuality to be entirely authoritative, and thus have no basis on which to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is authoritative either. I believe that is the gist of your argument.
This argument fails on two grounds: logical, Biblical. From a logical perspective, at best such a point would only demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent in their application of the Biblical teaching. The real problem, however, is Biblical.
The Bible is clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. While there are some similarities between the two covenants, this is not one of them. The Law of Moses was a contract between God and Israel to govern their life in the land of Canaan, both spiritually and politically (a theocratic kingdom).
The New Covenant serves an entirely different purpose. The New Covenant governs our spirituality, not our politics. While the New Testament is clear that God has ordained human government to punish evil and commend the good (Romans 13:1-7) it does not speak to how that punishment ought to be carried out for particular moral crimes, or the degree of punishment. It would seem that those decisions are given to the state. It is clear, however, that under the New Covenant sins are not punished in the same way they were under the Mosaic Covenant because the New Covenant is a spiritual, not a political-social covenant.
It would be a mistake, then, to say that as a Christian, I am not obeying my own Scripture, or being arbitrary in what parts of the Bible I keep. Each passage of Scripture must be evaluated within its historical and covenantal context, and be applied appropriately.
Not all commands in Scripture apply equally for all people and all times (but are specific to a covenant), whereas others do. For example, while I am not obligated to build an ark, I am obligated to abstain from murder. Christians do not believe in exercising capital punishment for homosexuality because we are not under the covenant that once prescribed such a punishment. Christians are not ignoring those Old Testament passages, but are properly interpreting them within their context and applying them appropriately. The same goes for the dietary laws, and the garment laws that are typically referenced in this dicussion as well(Romans 14:1-7, 20; See Galatians 3:19-26; 4:8-12; Colossians 2:14-17).
I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, if not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.
Those in support of the acceptance of homosexuality have stated that Bible is not clear in it's view of homosexuals. On the contrary, I believe it couldn't be any more clear.
The Law of Moses said, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; c.f 20:13). The Old Testament (OT) also condemns "sodomites," which were male temple prostitutes (I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7).
The New Testament is just as clear on this issue as is the Old Testament. In the first chapter of Romans Paul wrote of the many evils mankind has engaged in while suppressing the knowledge of God that He has revealed to them (Romans 1:18-21), one of which was homosexuality. Paul plainly declared: "Because of this [the suppression of truth resulting in idolatry] God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Although homosexuality is not named as such here, the act of homosexuality is clearly described. It was in judgment that God allowed men and women to have sexual relations with the same sex, and they received in themselves their due punishment for such indecent acts.
While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10, NET).
In a recent email debate, a person arguing for homosexuality said to me, "Jesus does talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps as a church leaderyou should contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested, 'making much of that which cannot matter much to God.' "
This argument fails on two grounds. First, the major premise of the argument is flawed. The argument goes like this:
P1 Any issue Jesus is silent on must be morally acceptable
P2 Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is morally acceptable
Is it true that any issue Jesus did not speak to is to be considered morally acceptable? A cursory reflection on the notion reveals that this is not a true premise. Jesus did not speak to the issue of incest, rape, drug abuse, wife beating, and gay-bashing. Are we to conclude that these acts are morally good? Clearly not. We cannot determine the moral nature of an act by the mere observation that Jesus did not address the issue. Jesus did not speak to every moral issue there is to speak to.
Secondly, from the Christian perspective what is moral or immoral is not based solely on what Jesus said or did not say. While we are very interested in what Jesus had to say, we use Scripture as a whole to determine how God feels about various moral issues. When we examine the whole of Scripture we find a very clear portrait of God's take on homosexuality.
This comprehensive approach to morality makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview for two reasons:
1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. This means that every word in the Bible is equally authoritative. The teachings of one individual in one book cannot be given more weight than another individual's teaching in another book. Jesus' words hold no more authority than Paul's or Moses'
2. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The same God who spoke in the OT is the same God who became man in the face of Jesus Christ. It would be a mistake, then, to argue that since Jesus did not speak against homosexuality that God is not concerned with the issue, for it is clear that God did speak to the issue.
I have also had individuals tell me to my face that the sin of Sodom was due to the inhospitality and NOT the sexual perversion rampant in the city. I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this notion, because I am not aware of any. While it is true that Sodom was not judged only for its immorality (Ezekiel 16:49-50), from the Biblical narrative it is clearly the main reason. Jude 7, for one, makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion. The focus of the Genesis narrative is their sexual perversion as well.
Besides, the inhospitality that the men of Sodom exhibited toward the visiting angels could not have been the cause of their destruction because God had determined to destroy Sodom prior to this incident.
Furthermore, while Biblical scholars and historians recognize that inhospitality was much more serious in the Ancient Near East than it is to Westerners today, do we really believe that God would destroy two whole cities for having bad manners? What could explain God's execution of mass capital punishment on these people? Amazingly enough we find in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality was deserving of the death penalty. There is no prohibition in the OT against inhospitality, yet alone death as a prescribed form of judgment against it. The argument of inhospitality is further weakened by the fact that the inhospitality of the Sodomites is only implied in Genesis 19. The only thing explicitly stated in the text is the Sodomites' homosexual behavior. It would only make sense that this was made explicit to highlight why it was that God had determined to destroy these wicked cities.
It has been argued with me that if Christians wish to take the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality seriously, they also need to take its prescription for punishment seriously: death. The fact that Christians do not believe homosexuals ought to be put to death indicates that we do not consider the Biblical teaching on homosexuality to be entirely authoritative, and thus have no basis on which to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is authoritative either. I believe that is the gist of your argument.
This argument fails on two grounds: logical, Biblical. From a logical perspective, at best such a point would only demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent in their application of the Biblical teaching. The real problem, however, is Biblical.
The Bible is clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. While there are some similarities between the two covenants, this is not one of them. The Law of Moses was a contract between God and Israel to govern their life in the land of Canaan, both spiritually and politically (a theocratic kingdom).
The New Covenant serves an entirely different purpose. The New Covenant governs our spirituality, not our politics. While the New Testament is clear that God has ordained human government to punish evil and commend the good (Romans 13:1-7) it does not speak to how that punishment ought to be carried out for particular moral crimes, or the degree of punishment. It would seem that those decisions are given to the state. It is clear, however, that under the New Covenant sins are not punished in the same way they were under the Mosaic Covenant because the New Covenant is a spiritual, not a political-social covenant.
It would be a mistake, then, to say that as a Christian, I am not obeying my own Scripture, or being arbitrary in what parts of the Bible I keep. Each passage of Scripture must be evaluated within its historical and covenantal context, and be applied appropriately.
Not all commands in Scripture apply equally for all people and all times (but are specific to a covenant), whereas others do. For example, while I am not obligated to build an ark, I am obligated to abstain from murder. Christians do not believe in exercising capital punishment for homosexuality because we are not under the covenant that once prescribed such a punishment. Christians are not ignoring those Old Testament passages, but are properly interpreting them within their context and applying them appropriately. The same goes for the dietary laws, and the garment laws that are typically referenced in this dicussion as well(Romans 14:1-7, 20; See Galatians 3:19-26; 4:8-12; Colossians 2:14-17).
I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, if not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Elijah's Great Run
Preaching through the life of Elijah, we encountered the incredible story (that is almost mentioned in passing) of Elijah running ahead of Ahab’s chariot all the way to Jezreel. It only takes up one verse, the last verse of chapter eighteen of 1 Kings.
The power of the LORD came upon Elijah and, tucking his cloak into his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel. -1 Kings 18:46 (NIV)
There are many who scoff at stories like this in Scripture and say, “It is physically impossible for a human to do something like this.” Bill Maher, comedian and well-known atheist, has referenced this story in comedy routines saying it is just another reason why he rejects the Bible as a myth.
Did you realize that doctors and scientists said it was impossible for a man to run a mile in less than four minutes? They said that our bone structure was wrong and wind resistance was too great and our lungs did not have adequate power as well as the human heart could not take that kind of stress and you would die in such a foolish attempt. It is an impossible dream to try to run a mile in under four minutes.
But 25 year old Roger Bannister didn’t listen to the experts.
He endured thousands of monotonous laps around the same university track. Bannister was determined to shape his body and his mind. On May 6, 1954 at Oxford University in England Roger Bannister was the first known human to run a mile in under four minutes.
I say known because Elijah may have well been history’s first. Since that historic day in 1954, one of the greatest sports achievements ever, 955 runners have achieved the same impossible dream as Bannister did. In fact, those runners have beat the four minute mile over 4,700 times now.
The next time someone you see on television scoffs at something in the Bible, just remember how impossible the four minute mile USED to be. Scripture affirms for you and me this timeless truth:
For nothing is impossible with God. –Luke 1:37 (NIV)
The power of the LORD came upon Elijah and, tucking his cloak into his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel. -1 Kings 18:46 (NIV)
There are many who scoff at stories like this in Scripture and say, “It is physically impossible for a human to do something like this.” Bill Maher, comedian and well-known atheist, has referenced this story in comedy routines saying it is just another reason why he rejects the Bible as a myth.
Did you realize that doctors and scientists said it was impossible for a man to run a mile in less than four minutes? They said that our bone structure was wrong and wind resistance was too great and our lungs did not have adequate power as well as the human heart could not take that kind of stress and you would die in such a foolish attempt. It is an impossible dream to try to run a mile in under four minutes.
But 25 year old Roger Bannister didn’t listen to the experts.
He endured thousands of monotonous laps around the same university track. Bannister was determined to shape his body and his mind. On May 6, 1954 at Oxford University in England Roger Bannister was the first known human to run a mile in under four minutes.
I say known because Elijah may have well been history’s first. Since that historic day in 1954, one of the greatest sports achievements ever, 955 runners have achieved the same impossible dream as Bannister did. In fact, those runners have beat the four minute mile over 4,700 times now.
The next time someone you see on television scoffs at something in the Bible, just remember how impossible the four minute mile USED to be. Scripture affirms for you and me this timeless truth:
For nothing is impossible with God. –Luke 1:37 (NIV)
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Other World
Today my family participated in the annual Life Chain event. This is the 23rd year it has been organized. As usual it was our family but the boys had one of their buddies come along. It really does sadden me that so many people don't seem to care.My sons asked an individual at church today if they were attending and their response was that would mean they would miss their Sunday afternoon nap (which apparently is an unacceptable suggestion). Wow! Standing up against murders of convenience or missing a nap. I can see why the nap was the easy choice.
Because it is hard to stand up against a culture that thinks you're crazy for thinking that an unborn child has rights. It isn't easy to face the car horns and middle fingers and shouts of the pro-death crowd (which is just about everybody these days).
But as I preached this very morning I have to remember that God is never outnumbered! No matter how many voices who have swallowed the blue pill (Matrix reference) are loudly attempting to drown out the voices of those who have swallowed the red pill...I have to remember: God can do much with little.
One totally dedicated life is all God needs to change entire nations! (See the life of Elijah - 1 Kings 18) I am still sad to be surrounded by so many "Christians" who are addicted to the blue pill. They love their connection to this world but are slightly intrigued by the other world. So to scratch the other world itch, they show up on Sundays very faithfully.
But what they don't know is that the other world isn't far away. It's here. It's everywhere. It is simply veiled by all that we can see and feel. But all that we can see and feel is not real...it is a great illusion! And the master magician Satan loves to keep us in awe of it.
If we could only have our eyes opened like Elisha's servant then we would know just how close (and real) the other world really is! I guess I just need to keep praying that God will open the eyes of the "Christians" I know who have a blue pill addiction!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)