The Multi-layered Problem of Abortion in America

    

    The year was 1953. The average cost of fuel was 28 cents per gallon, while the average cost of a house was just slightly above $18,000. The post war economy was booming and the vast majority of the men went to work to support their family, while 2/3 of the women stayed home and raised their children. Prayer and Bible reading were still allowed in public schools. School shootings were unthinkable, and the teacher's worst complaint was kids chewing gum in the classroom. 

    To be sure, we don't need to be disillusioned by thoughts of the "good ole days." The 50's definitely had issues, namely in the area of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South. But one thing is undeniable, whether white or black, the family unit was the bedrock of society in America. More than three out of every four children grew up with both their father and mother in the home. So it comes as no surprise that no one was out passionately protesting in favor of abortion, or holding up signs saying that abortion is a human right, or "my body my choice". At best they wouldn't have been taken seriously. At worst they would have been seen as crazy. It would have been unthinkable in the mind of the American family. 

    However, 1953 was the year that everything changed. In December of that year Hugh Hefner released the first issue of Playboy magazine. The first issue featured Marilyn Monroe and quickly sold out of the 50,000 copies of the original printing. Hefner didn't even date the magazine because he wasn't sure that there would even be a second issue. He didn't know if it would sell, or if there would be a public backlash against such open lewdness. He had no idea that his magazine would become a multi-million dollar empire. 

    Now, I'm not so naïve as to believe that sexual sin wasn't taking place prior to Hugh Hefner. It was. However, it wasn't celebrated. Pre-marital sex was seen as taboo and immoral. Hefner changed all of that. His whole life was dedicated to presenting a persona of the "bachelor life." Playboy changed sex from an intimate, procreative union between a husband and wife into a pleasure act. If you get hungry, you eat. If you're in the mood, you have sex. Sacred wedlock was being challenged by a doctrine of care free, commitment free, "guilt free" sex. 

    It is no coincidence that less than a decade after the release of Playboy that the sexual revolution of the 60's blew in like a hurricane. All of this, coupled with the release of the first FDA approved birth control pill in 1960 was a perfect storm. Not only were people buying into the idea of commitment free sex, but now they could do it without the fear of unwanted pregnancy. "The pill" changed the game in that it separated sex from procreation. The idea of getting married, having children, and raising a family was becoming more archaic by the year. 

    But as we know, the pill isn't full proof. This created an avalanche of unwanted pregnancies. Babies are the enemy of the bachelor life. Babies mean responsibility, dedication, commitment, financial burden and sacrifice. That simply can't be tolerated in such a loose society. So what could be done about that? Enter Roe. 

    I keep using the word "coincidence", but I think that the reader is clearly seeing the sequence here. But it is no coincidence that immediately following the sexual revolution of the 60's that Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973, making abortion a constitutional right. Prior to that time, such a legal opinion would have been scorned as pointless and evil. But thanks to the sexual revolution, abortion was now in high demand. There is no doubt that cultural pressure, and the new epidemic of fatherless babies played a major role in the SCOTUS' decision. 

    A few facts about Roe need to be pointed out. First, the whole case was based on a lie. The attorneys for Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) claimed that she was pregnant due to being gang raped. Roe admitted years later that this was a flat out lie. Her attorneys played on the heart strings of the SCOTUS. How could she be expected to carry and give birth to the child of her rapist? Even is she had been raped, and even if SCOTUS concluded that Roe should not have to carry the child of her rapist, it doesn't follow that abortion on demand should become a constitutional right. (A side note; because SCOTUS took so long to pass Roe vs Wade, Roe gave birth to a daughter and gave her up for adoption. No one knows where she is or even if she is alive. No one even knows if she or the adoptive parents know that she is Roe's child.) 

    Even in this brief history of the sexual changes in the U.S., it is clear that abortion is a multi-layered problem. It is also clear that abortion is evil. There is no way to sugarcoat it. Everyone knows that it is the death of a baby in the womb, a baby with its own DNA and heartbeat. Abortion is a crime against nature itself. A mother's natural instinct is to risk her life if need be, in order to protect her children, not to kill her own flesh and blood while in the womb. 

    It is for this reason, among many others that we can rejoice that Roe vs Wade was reversed this past Friday after almost 50 years. Even apart from its sinister implications, Roe vs Wade was just a bad law. Regardless of where someone falls on the issue of abortion, we should all agree that we don't want the SCOTUS reading things into law that simply aren't there. The word "abortion" isn't found anywhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Nor is it implied. And nobody would attempt to claim that our founding fathers could have envisioned such a thing. When the judicial branch begins to invent law instead of simply interpreting it, we're all in trouble. 

    The reversal of Roe vs Wade is a huge step in the right direction, but it's extremely naïve to think that the battle is now over. The question is, what do we do now? I will attempt to answer this question with another question, why is abortion so celebrated and revered? Think about it. Even if a woman had an unwanted pregnancy and she went to get an abortion, why not just do it and keep it hush hush? The reason is that in the last 70 years, the culture has bought into the idea that marriage and motherhood are forms of slavery, and abortion offers a way to break those chains. Women now believe that it is honorable to work for an employer for 40 plus hours a week, but slavery to serve her husband and children. Abortion also provides freedom for men to be promiscuous without the fear of having to step up and be a father. In this way abortion is seen as liberating and empowering. 

    This is why we can't simply trust the reversal of Roe vs Wade to end abortion in this country. The depravity of man will find a way. Abortion is a multi-layered problem that requires a multi-faceted approach. So again I ask, what is the church supposed to do now? For starters, we need to fall on our face and repent for over a century of apathy. The reason that the church is losing the culture war is because we're the only side that hasn't figured out that we're actually in a war. This war can't be won at the ballet box alone. Again, we must change the culture. 

    We must ask God to help us do the following things. First, Christian men must grow a spine and be willing to go against the flow of culture. Single men need to respect women and treat them as sisters. Commit to honoring your future wife by saving yourself for marriage. Refuse to be a slave to pornography and commit yourself to purity by God's grace. Married men need to be the prime example of faithfulness, commitment and love towards their spouse. We need to be the priest of our home and lead our families in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We need to love and cherish our daughters so that they won't fall for the first goofball that pays them some attention. There is a famine of strong, Godly men in this country. We need to make family great again. Make marital sex great again. Make church attendance, family devotion, and public service to the Lord great again. 

    Single women need to respect themselves and be confident of their value in Christ. If a man isn't willing to commit his life to you in marriage, respect you, love you, work a job and care for your needs, and be a father to your children, don't go to bed with him. Married women need to teach their daughters that the most empowering thing that a woman can do is to raise her children. It’s unthinkable that the church has bought into the feminist idea of women keeping up with men to the point that they have come to feel ashamed about literally the only thing that women can do, that men can’t, bringing life into the world. In all of human history, there has never been a single man that has given birth to a child. What greater place of power and influence could there be? There has never been a king, president, doctor or anyone else that didn’t have a mother who brought them into this world. 

    It would have been unthinkable even a hundred years ago for a woman to hire someone to murder their children in the womb for the purposes of independence, career or anything else. So either today's feminists have it completely wrong, or they are literally the only ones in history to get it right. I’m going with the former. Only the modern feminists would celebrate a woman for working forty plus hours a week for an employer, and yet criticize that same woman for choosing to have children, and opting to raise them and serve her husband instead. 

    I will say it again. WE MUST CHANGE THE CULTURE. It won't happen over night. But we must make steps to call a spade a spade, live God's truth and defeat the lies of the enemy. Think about it. Our culture glorifies laziness, lewdness and a lack of moral courage as "empowering". We must change the narrative. How did this country come to the conclusion that commitment free sex is empowering, but committed marital love is weak and undesirable?  Why is sacrifice seen as slavery, but selfishness is seen as courageous? Why is sacrificing your own child seen as heroic, while sacrificing for your child is seen as degrading? This backwardness is highlighted well in a recent interview with Stevie Nicks. Think about the insanity of what is being said here. 

    In a recent interview with The Guardian, famous Fleetwood Mac singer and abortion rights advocate, Stevie Nicks, talked about the early days of her career when she was dating Eagles singer, Don Henley. She became pregnant in 1979 and chose to have an abortion. This is what she had to say about that event, “If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away.” Earlier in this same interview she stated that “Abortion rights were my generation’s fight” The incredible irony in these statements is that Nicks is bragging about her empowerment, based on something that she couldn’t do. She openly admits that she could not raise a child because she was a slave to drugs, and to her career. This isn’t a story of empowerment, it’s an admission of weakness. The story would have been much more powerful and praise worthy if Nicks had gotten clean and been a mother to her child. What a story of empowerment that would have been. However, instead of taking a chance of sacrificing her career, she chose to sacrifice her child on the altar of her career. 

    Forty one years later, the glory days of Fleetwood Mac are long gone. In fact, it’s been almost two decades since they released a studio album. Now at age 72, Nicks lives alone and childless in her Santa Monica mansion, when she could be enjoying a house full of grandchildren.  

    The mistake that Nicks and the feminist movement make is that they equate empowerment with the ability to make a choice, instead of the moral fortitude to make the right choice. The renowned German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel wrote extensively about this form of “empowerment”. He said, “The common man thinks that he is free when he is allowed to act arbitrarily, but this very arbitrariness implies that he is not free.” In other words, the truly empowered person doesn’t need permission or popular support in order to make their decisions. Their choices are based on internal convictions, rather than external circumstances. This is very telling, considering that the very essence of bondage is to be controlled by external circumstances. Yet, feminists have found a way to champion this bondage as a form of empowerment. Hegel went on to say, “A person who does something perverse gives the greatest prominence to his particularity. The rationale is the high road which everyone follows and no one stands out from the rest.” Put into modern terms, if the decisions that we make are dictated by immediate gratification and the easy way out, or if our movement is backed by the media, the vast majority of academia, and society as a whole, then we’re not the resistance. To walk down the smooth path in lockstep with popular opinion regardless of its morality, and then claim the empowerment status of a martyred rebel is the epitome of arrogance and hypocrisy. This is real bondage. Again, we have to change the narrative and promote healthy, honorable goals. 

    Yes, we need vote for serious pro-life (anti-abortion) leaders. Yes, we need to hold those leaders accountable. Those things are great, but if that's all that we do, we are just cutting the head off of the weed. WE MUST CHANGE THE CULTURE. As a church we must get out of the four walls and get busy preaching the gospel. The gospel is the only thing that has the power to change hearts and change the culture. The church also needs to consider ways in which we can help women, adoption, supplies, support, etc. Let's not spike the football over the reversal of Roe vs Wade and not be willing to help. Rise up Church! Let's be the church. Abortion is a multi-layered problem, the church needs a multi-faceted approach. Be the resistance. Save yourself for marriage, have babies, raise them in church and preach the gospel. The Biblical family must make a come back or we are fighting a losing battle. 

 

The Pursuit of Happiness in an Unhappy World

                                                       

 Introduction

Happiness, we all want it. People all over the world can take opposing sides when it comes to just about any issue, but not happiness. We are all united in our desire to be happy. The question is how can happiness be achieved? This is yet another issue on which people find themselves divided, what makes a person happy. 

One thing is for sure, a person’s worldview will dictate their pursuit of happiness. It will also greatly influence the way in which counselors instruct their clients as to how to find happiness in this unhappy world. Secular psychology teaches a “doctrine which fervently insists that man is the highest being, the central event in all of history.” In this case, the client would most likely be instructed to dismiss any concept of guilt, sin, or repentance. Instead, they would be encouraged to pursue all of their heart’s desires as long as it doesn’t bring harm to others. To the secularist, the pursuit of individual happiness is the greatest good. 

In complete contrast to secularism, the Biblical worldview holds that God Himself is the highest being and that our happiness comes from our pursuit of Him. Dr. Larry Crabb writes;

     “The wonderful truth is that when we devote all of our energies to the task of becoming what Christ wants us to be, He fills us with joy unspeakable and a peace far surpassing what the world offers. I must firmly and consciously by an act of my will reject the goal of becoming happy and adopt the goal of becoming more like the Lord. The result will be happiness for me as I learn to dwell at God’s right hand in fellowship with Christ.”

The secular worldview also holds to the belief that people are nothing more than the sum total of their parts. Humans are only material and therefore have no eternal soul. Because of this line of thinking, many secularists reject theology as a valuable tool in counseling, or the pursuit of happiness. However, the truth is that everyone has a theology of some kind. There isn’t a single person who doesn’t have some sort of moral code of what they perceive to be right or wrong. All people have an innate sense of justice and injustice. Everyone attempts to make sense of their suffering. So the issue isn’t whether or not theology plays a role in how people view problems and suffering in their lives, the question is what does their theology teach and how can that theology affect their happiness. Dr. Norman Wright said; 

      “A person’s theology will affect how he or she copes with a crisis. Our lives are based upon our theology, yet so many people are frightened by that word. Our belief in God and how we perceive God is a reflection of our theology. Those who believe in the sovereignty and caring nature of God have a better basis from which to approach life.”

Dr. Wright and his wife cared for their mentally retarded son until he died at the young age of twenty two. Mrs. Wright also battled cancer for several years (she eventually died of brain cancer in 2016, five years after the publication of this book), so he isn’t speaking from an ivory tower. Their theology and faith in God got them through those excruciating times.

The purpose of this paper is to define and describe biblical salvation, as well as to prove that Christian theology provides the best and only foundation by which to find true and lasting happiness. A biblical worldview is the only coherent avenue by which to understand anthropology, hamartiology and soteriology. Man isn’t simply a machine that must be repaired, but a living soul that must be brought into a right relationship with the Creator. 

The Theology of Salvation

Biblical terms like “save” and “salvation” beg the question, “saved from what”. The answer is very simple, we need to be saved from the penalty and power of our sin. “Sin must be understood from a theocentric or God-centered standpoint. At its core, sin is a violation of the Creator-creature relationship. Man only exists because God made him, and man is in every sense obligated to serve his Creator.” The word “sin” is actually a legal term because “sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4).  We have all broken the law of a holy God, which means that our sin is a legal offense against Him. This explains why many of the salvific words in scripture are also legal terms. Justification, adoption, atonement, propitiation, imputation and redemption are all legal transactions (more on these later). 

This also raises some other questions (good theology comes from asking questions and finding biblical answers), are all people sinners, and if so, why. The sad reality is that every single person is born a sinner. David said, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).  According to the ferociously holy standard of God, there is no such thing as a good person. In fact, everyone is born a slave to their sinful flesh. “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:8)

The reason that we are all born sinners with a rebellious bend toward God is because of the sin of Adam, the very first man created by God. Man was created in the imago dei (the image of God). But when Adam disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he died spiritually, along with the entire human race after him. The imago dei was greatly marred in mankind. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12). This is known as the doctrine of original sin. Original sin isn’t a reference to the actual sin of Adam, rather it is the effect of that sin upon his descendants. Sin and death passed to everyone. At face value, some have called into question the fairness of original sin. However, Adam acted as our federal head. He was our representative. In other words, we would have disobeyed God in the garden just like he did. That’s why “in Adam all die” (I Corinthians 15:22). 

Original sin is proven by the fact that everyone dies, including babies. “For the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 5:12). If everyone was born neutral and without a sin nature, then surely some would have chosen not to sin against God, but such is clearly not the case. Murder, rape, drugs, war, prisons, cemteries, genecide, slavery, child abuse, etc; the worldwide results of sin and evil are so obvious that everyone is forced to wrestle with these issues and come up with some type of answers as to the origins and prevalence of evil and suffering. 

This is where secular psychology falls flat on its face. Secularism has no coherent answers to the problems of evil and suffering. The negative fallout from this cannot be overstated. If humanity's greatest problem is misdiagnosed, then perceived cure will be wrong. J.C. Ryle wrote; 

“There are very few errors and false doctrines of which the beginning may not be traced up to unsound views about the corruption of human nature. Wrong views of the disease will always bring with them wrong views of the remedy. Wrong views of the corruption of human nature will always carry with them wrong views of the grand antidote and cure of that corruption.”

Imagine a scenario in which a man comes in for counseling. After the greetings and the formalities are over, the man admits that he is greatly depressed. Upon being further questioned by the counselor, the man admits that he is sexually attracted to children. He wants to act out his fantasies, but he is afraid that he will get caught and this has led to his depression. 

In this scenario, the modus operandi for the biblical counselor will be very simple. They will take the Word of God and show this man that his thoughts are evil and sinful in the eyes of a Holy God, that there will be serious consequences for acting out on his fantasies, and that God will judge him accordingly. The counselor could then take him to the cross, show him his need for the new birth in salvation, and explain to him that nothing short of Christ will satisfy him.  

On the other hand, the secular counselor has a big problem. For starters, they have no objective standard by which to call anything good or evil. If they try to claim that sexual activity with children is wrong, it begs the question, wrong by what standard. If the counselor attempts to claim that sex with children is wrong by the laws of that society, the simple reductio would be to bring up examples like the Holocaust or Slavery in America. As a society, Nazi Germany decided that it was an honorable thing for Jews, Gypsies and the mentally handicapped to be killed. The Nazis called them “useless eaters” and “life unworthy of living.” America as a society thought that the slavery of Africans was a good thing. Later on when slavery was outlawed, the South still practiced Jim Crow laws that dehumanized black people. Were these things morally right just because they were legalized and practiced by society? Honesty requires us to answer “no”. Consistency requires that we have an absolute, objective standard by which to do so. This isn’t a problem for the Biblical counselor. The same God that wrote a moral law within our hearts, also wrote it on papyri. 

Once someone comes to grips with the fact that their biggest problem is that their sin has separated them from God and that their idols can never satisfy, then the solution becomes much more beautiful. God is so Holy that He must punish sin. But God is so loving that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ (the Second Person of the Godhead) to shoulder our punishment for us. Christ was born of the virgin Mary. So He walked the earth as the God-man, fully divine and fully human. He lived the sinless life that God’s law requires, the life that we could never live. He died on the cross, bearing our sin, and taking the wrath for that sin so that we might be saved and reconciled to God. He rose from the dead on the third day, which proved that God the Father was completely satisfied with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The Substitutionary death of Christ is good news for sinners because they can “know with certainty that they will never be punished for their sins.”

On the part of the sinner, the only thing that they must do in order to be saved from their sin is repent and trust in Christ and His finished work for salvation (Mark 1:15, I Thessalonians 1:9). They must be willing to turn from their sin and dead works in order to follow Christ. Repentance and faith are two inseparable sides of the same coin; they occur  simultaneously at conversion. 

Abundant Life in Christ 

While man’s responsibility in salvation is rather simple, God’s part in salvation is a bit more complex. There are several things involved in salvation that must be examined. One important thing to remember is that while there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun upon death, salvation in Christ is much more than a ticket to Heaven. The benefits of the cross are both eternal and immediate. If someone views salvation in Christ only as a means of gaining entrance into Heaven, then they won’t understand what the cross means for them right now. The only way to truly be happy and free in this life is to understand our position in Jesus Christ. We will now examine the different aspects of Christ’s work on the cross and what they mean for those who are in Christ. 

Imputation- Imputation means to “charge to one’s account, or to lay to one’s charge.” There are three types of imputation in scripture; Adam’s sin imputed to us, our sins imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race when he fell in the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:12). Our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross (I Peter 2:24). Christ’s righteousness is imputed to a person when they are brought to believe the gospel, by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). What this means for the sinner that he is clothed in the righteousness of Christ. This is why the sinner is guaranteed to go to Heaven. It’s also why we don’t have to bear the burden of our own sin, or the pressure of being “good enough” for God. Christ was good enough in our stead.  

Atonement- To atone means to “cover over, usually with a blood sacrifice.” This has to do with the second kind of imputation. Christ atoned for our sin at the cross. This principle is seen even as early as Genesis chapter three. Immediately after Adam and Eve fell, the Lord in His grace sacrificed an animal (possibly a lamb?) and covered Adam and Eve’s nakedness and shame with the skins of that animal. This was a picture of the ultimate and final sacrifice that Christ would make on the cross as the Lamb of God. Historically, the atonement is known as the great exchange, Christ exchanged our sin for His righteousness. “He was made sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (II Corinthians 5:21). This means that for those who are in Christ, their sins are covered and forgotten, never to be brought up again by God. 

Justification- is “the act of pronouncing righteous, an acquittal.” Justification deals with the third kind of imputation, Christ’s righteousness applied to those that believe. This means that the sinner will be presented righteous before God at the judgment. However, justification is also the bedrock on which people can find happiness and wholeness in this life. Justification defeats the false belief that “I must meet certain standards in order to feel good about myself.” Justification frees us from the performance trap and the fear of failure. “God has given us a secure self-worth totally apart from our ability to perform. We have been justified, placed in a right standing before God through Christ’s death on the cross, which paid for our sins. But God didn’t stop with our forgiveness; He also granted us the very righteousness of Christ.” From our justified position, we have the freedom to serve the Lord with a grateful, forgiven heart. In other words, we don’t work in order to save ourselves, we work because we are saved. 

Reconciliation- means “to change from enmity to friendship, to reconcile.” For those who don’t know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they are at enmity with God (John 3:18, 36). To live a life alienated from the God of the universe is an empty, meaningless life. However, Christ has reconciled us to God by His death and resurrection (Romans 5:10). This takes us from being an enemy of God to being a friend of God. It also frees us from the false belief that “I must be approved by certain others to feel good about myself (self-worth = performance + other’s opinions).” If someone is convinced that they are fully approved of God through the work of Christ, then they won’t be devastated by the negative opinions of others. Through reconciliation to God, people can overcome the fear of rejection. 

Propitiation- is “an appeasing” of God’s wrath. Many people, even Christian’s think it’s a virtuous thing to beat themselves up about everything. However, the truth is that when someone continuously beats themselves up over things that Christ was already beaten for, it’s really a subtle way of saying that the cross isn’t enough. When a person understands that Christ expiated their sin and took God’s wrath in their place it releases them from the false belief that “those who fail are unworthy of love and deserve to be punished.” This attitude is a breeding ground for self-condemnation. It is true that our sin has made us unworthy of God’s love, and worthy of judgment. But because of the propitiation of Christ we have been made worthy. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (I John 4:10). Christ can set a person free of the fear of God’s punishment through His propitiation. 

Regeneration- is “the spiritual change wrought in man by the Holy Spirit, by which he becomes the possessor of a new life.” Regeneration is the supernatural work of God in which He causes us to be born again, giving us a new heart and calling us to faith in Christ. In regeneration, God doesn’t make bad people into better people, He makes the spiritually dead to live. Regeneration destroys the lie that “I am what I am, I cannot change, I am hopeless.” The Apostle Paul gives such great clarity as to what regeneration accomplishes in the heart and life of a believer; “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:3-7). Regeneration makes us a new creature in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17) and sets us free from the shame of our past.

Conclusion

For the Biblical counselor, both man’s greatest problem and man’s greatest need are clear. People are great sinners who need a great savior. This isn’t the end all, be all, but it must begin here. A person who is in Christ is a new creature. They have gone from death to life, sinners to saints, from enemies of God to friends of God, and even adopted into God’s family. This foundation provides an endless source of joy, comfort, forgiveness, acceptance, hope and confidence in death. Even in our shortcomings, God promises to sanctify us by making us more like Him (Philippians 1:6)

The secularist can offer no such hope. They have no objective standard for truth, good or evil. They can’t even offer hope or help beyond this life. The motto of an honest secularist is “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” And while we can learn some valuable things from secular psychology, we cannot start with their humanistic foundation. 

Perhaps no one encapsulates this healing and freedom in Christ anymore than Charles Spurgeon when he said; 

     “Oh, there is, in contemplating Christ, a balm for every wound! In musing on the Father, there is a quietus for every grief and in the influence of the Holy Spirit there is a balsam for every sore. Would you lose your sorrows? Would you drown your cares? Then go plunge yourself in the Godhead’s deepest sea; be lost in His immensity; and you shall come forth as from a couch of rest, refreshed and invigorated. I know nothing which can so comfort the soul, so calm the swelling billows of grief and sorrow; so speak peace to the winds of trial, as a devout musing upon the subject of the Godhead.”

Bibliography 

Beeke, Joel and Smalley, Paul M., Reformed Systematic Theology, Volume 2: Man and Christ (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2020)

Berenbaum, M. "T4 Program." Encyclopedia Britannica, September 10, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program.

Crabb, Larry, Effective Biblical Counseling: A Model for Helping Caring Christians Become Capable Counselors (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977 )

MacArthur, John , Mayhue, Richard, eds. Biblical Doctrine; A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2017)

McGee, Robert S., The Search For Significance (Houston, TX, Rapha Publishing, 1990)

Spencer,  Duane Edward, TULIP; The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Publishing, 1979)

Spurgeon, Charles, The Immutability of God; New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 1 (preached January 7, 1855)

Thayer's Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 1996)

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 1996)

 Wright, Norman, The Complete Guide to Crisis and Trauma Counseling (Bloomington, MN, Bethany House Publishers, 2011)

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988)

The Weakness of Retribution Theology

 

    Retribution Theology is a term that few people know, but it's a principle that everyone recognizes and understands. In simple terms, RT is the belief that people ultimately get what they deserve. Good things come to good people and bad things come to bad people. I like to refer to RT as the "just desserts syndrome". If someone gets cancer or some other horrible disease, they must have done something to deserve it. If a person goes through a horrible tragedy such as losing a child or their house burning to the ground, they just got what was coming to them. Sadly, even many professing Christians believe such ideologies. 

    This subject is deeply personal for my wife and I, due to the fact that almost three years ago my wife developed a migrainous headache, accompanied with extreme back and body aches. She has suffered with this pain in varying degrees every second of every day since then. This condition has taken us all over the country seeking medical help, spending thousands, and moving 2,000 miles away to a drier climate that for a while helped her with her migraine triggers (although since August, even this relief has disappeared). 

    Over the past three years, we've had a lot of varying advice from well meaning people. We've been told that if we just had enough faith that my wife would be healed, or that anointing her with oil and having the elders of the church pray over her is a guaranteed fix. Someone even told us that the Lord's Supper is a "meal that heals". However, without a doubt, the most common thing that people have said to my wife actually comes in the form of a question, "Do you have any secret sin in your life that you haven't repented of?" There are actually a handful of people that bring up this subject almost every time they see or talk to my wife. Why? It's because their theology will not allow for suffering that isn't a direct result of a person's sin. Hence, RT. 

    Both the Old and New Testaments are full of examples of people who believed in RT. In fact, the Jews were (and are) notorious for believing in this error ridden theology. My mind goes immediately to John chapter nine when Jesus and the disciples came upon a man that had been blind from his birth. The ever inquisitive disciples asked Jesus, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" In other words, what did he do to deserve this? This is textbook Retribution Theology. 

    We find another example of this mindset in Mark chapter two, with the healing of the paralytic. Jesus was preaching inside a house that was packed with listeners. The paralytic man had four faithful friends (who obviously didn't believe in RT, praise God) that had hauled him up to the roof, tore open a hole and lowered him down to where Jesus was. When Jesus healed this man, He chose His words very purposefully. He said to the man, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." Why did Jesus say this? Well, for one reason the Jews and Pharisees would have automatically associated this man's condition with his sin. He must have done something to deserve this, but Jesus can forgive sin. The Pharisees responded to this by giving their most intelligent quote in the NT (they didn't say it, but only thought it), "Only God can forgive sins". Jesus essentially smiled at them and said, right you are. This was the second reason for choosing His words so carefully, to prove that He is God in the flesh. 

    Who can forget the story of Job in the OT. Within a very short space of time, Job lost his children, his wealth and his health. His three friends traveled from afar to come and comfort him. To their credit they sat with Job and kept their mouth shut for seven days before they spoke to Job. But it all went South when the conversation started. All three of them told Job that his trials were a direct result of his sin. Eliphaz broke the ice on this subject by saying to Job, "Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off? Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same." In other words, I don't know exactly why, but I know that you deserve this Job. 

    Some might be reading this and think, well it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, especially since there seems to be at least some element of truth involved. Retribution Theology is a really big deal. For the rest of this blog I will attempt to prove that RT is unscriptural and damaging for the following reasons. RT confuses the categories of consequences for sin, and trials from God. Retribution Theology has absolutely no room for grace. People who believe in RT will find absolutely no peace or anchor in their own storms because they will constantly be heaping self blame and guilt upon themselves. Lastly, RT will greatly effect how we view others in their suffering and how we minister to them. 

Retribution Theology Confuses the Categories of Consequence vs. Trial 

    It is an undeniable fact that ultimately, all suffering goes back to Adam's sin in the garden. Because of his disobedience, sin and death entered the world, resulting in the fall of the entire human race (Romans 5:12). Every time that we drive down the road in our car, we are constantly reminded of this truth every time that we pass a hospital, prison, nursing home or cemetery. The consequences of sin are all around us. It's also true that our personal sins have consequences. It is clear that drinking alcohol can lead to liver damage (and a host of other problems). Adultery can lead to divorce and a broken home. A loose sexual lifestyle can lead to STD's and/or unwanted pregnancy. All sin equals death. In many cases we can find clear links between sin and corresponding consequences, and this truth should not be avoided. However, even in these cases, grace must be extended. We too are sinners, and Christ extended grace to us with the command and the invitation to repent and believe the gospel. 

    Think about how Christ dealt with Matthew the hated tax collector, the woman taken in adultery, the woman at the well, Zacchaeus, Mary Magdalene, the thief on the cross, etc. In fact, you won't find a single time in Scripture where Christ dealt harshly with sinners, not once. He was honest. He never made light of sin or offered up excuses for immoral behavior. He told them to repent, but He was always loving and gracious. The only time that Christ got harsh with anyone was when He went off on the religious Pharisees who thought that they were above any kind of reproach. As we have seen, the Pharisees reeked of Retribution Theology. 

    Clearly, we understand the correlation between sin and consequence. However, is everything that we suffer as Christians a direct result of our sin? The answer is a resounding "NO". In the case of the blind man in John chapter nine, Jesus gave a clear answer as to why he was born blind. He told His disciples, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Christ wasn't advocating sinless perfection among this man or his parents. He was saying that they hadn't done anything specifically to deserve him being blind. This is an astounding statement from Christ. He essentially said that, I made Him that way so that when I passed by this way, he would bring me glory when I heal Him. 

    There may be some that cringe at the thought that God would create people less than "normal" for His glory, but the Scriptures are clear. When God told Moses to command Pharaoh to let His people go, Moses made the excuse that he wasn't a good speaker. The Lord responded with a rhetorical question "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11). Ask the blind man if he got a raw deal. The Lord healed him and used him greatly. His story was forever etched in Holy Writ, and now He is seeing Christ and the splendors of Heaven for all eternity! His blindness had nothing to do with his personal sin and everything to do with the sovereign plan of God. This is the difference between a consequence for sin, and a trial from God. Retribution Theology fails horribly in recognizing this distinction. 

There is Absolutely No Place For Grace in Retribution Theology

    Let's be honest, if we start talking about life in terms of what we deserve, we all deserve eternity in hell due to our sin against a Holy God. Anything North of hell is sheer grace and mercy. As Christians, it is the epitome of hypocrisy to judge our life in light of God's grace, and judge others based on what they deserve. The word "grace" literally means the undeserved favor of God. There term "deserved grace" is a misnomer, for there is no such thing. 

    For starters, we can't possibly even know all of the facts about a person's life to even be able to make the proper judgment about what exactly they deserve. Only God can do that. In the case of Job, the book opens by clearly defending Job's character, God Himself said that He was "perfect and upright, that he feared God and eschewed evil." Also, several times throughout the book it is stated that "in all this, Job sinned not." We also get a glimpse into the inner workings of Heaven. It was God that brought Job up to Satan, not the other way around. However, Job's friends simply could not imagine that God would allow these things to happen in Job's life unless there was some kind of secret sin involved. They were incapable of extending any grace to Job because they didn't think that he deserved any grace. This is why there is absolutely no room for grace in RT, because the moment that grace is deserved, it ceases to be grace.

    Think about the horrible implications of RT when carried to its logical conclusion. If grace is something that must be earned, what does this do to our relationships? What a strain for children having to earn grace from their parents, or wives having to earn grace from their husbands, or fathers having to earn grace from their children. But the ultimate tragedy is that RT teaches us that we must earn grace from God. Sadly, Retribution Theology has much more in common with the Hindu concept of Karma than it does the gospel of grace.  

    Unfortunately, there are pulpits all over the country who preach this kind of thing. Someone sent me a recent clip of a Baptist pastor making the statement that Job "made many mistakes" and that "God didn't want Job to worship in that moment, He wanted him to repent..... Job didn't repent until the end of the book, and God didn't restore him until he repented..... Job was always just one step away from the favor and blessings of God." Not only does this butcher the context, as well as the meaning of grace (earning God's favor), but it implies that Job got what he deserved, and only when he changed his behavior, did his situation change. Certainly, if one is truly living in sin, they need to repent. But if your go to theology when it comes to suffering is "if you would just do better, things would get better", it adds an incredible weight to someone who is already suffering greatly. This leads us into out third point. 

Retribution Theology Offers No Peace or Anchor During Times of Great Suffering

    Retribution Theology sounds great until you are the one in need of grace, a comforting word or a helping hand. Imagine the problem that Job's friends would have created for themselves if later on they had found themselves in a horrible trial. There is absolutely nothing that serves up a freshly baked humble pie like deep personal suffering. First of all, everyone who knew what they had said, and how they had acted towards Job would have immediately suspected sin in their lives. And after they inserted their foot into their mouth, there would have been no way to defend themselves. This is what Job nailed them with when he said, "He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." In other words, any fool can see that no one is exempt from trials and tribulations. Years ago I had a very wise preacher give me advice on preaching with grace from the pulpit. He said, "If you spend years filling your church people with gun powder, don't be surprised if they blow up on you down the road." Suffice it to say, don't be like Job's friends. 

    The second thing that needs to be considered here is, what are the natural implications for someone who really buys into RT, and find themselves in a trial. By their theology, they must have done something wrong. If they would just do better, than things would get better, right? Instead of taking comfort in the fact that God is working all things for the good, they can't help but feel as if they are being punished for doing something wrong. For those who are suffering, RT yields a never ending supply of self guilt and condemnation. This again shows how badly RT butchers grace. The flip side of being able gain God's favor by doing well, means that it is possible to lose God's favor when doing badly (even if the bad is only perceived). 

    The truth is that many times our suffering is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29), it is the will of God (I Pet. 3:17), and is working for our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28). God doesn't despise those with a broken heart (Psalm 51:17). In fact, He is drawn to them (Psalm 34:18). However, for the adherents of RT, there is no room for such graces, neither for themselves or others. They have absolutely no comfort or solutions to offer. 

Why is Retribution Theology So Popular? 

    I believe that RT is popular for one simple reason, the illusion of control. People want to feel like they are in control of their own destiny, their own suffering. If people think that as long as they try to do their best, that nothing bad will ever happen to them, it makes them feel good. It's all an illusion that will come back to hit them in the mouth, but it feels good in the moment. This is exactly what Job said to Eliphaz, "For now ye are nothing; ye see my casting down and are afraid." It's intimidating to watch good Christian people suffer. It wakes us up to the reality that if it can happen to them, it can happen to us. People don't want God to be in control of their suffering. As Charles Spurgeon once said, "Men are comfortable with God being everywhere but on His throne." 

    Another reason that RT is so popular is that it's just easier to write someone off than it is to get in the fire with them. But we are commanded to "bear on another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal. 6:2) To those guilty of RT (probably all of us at some time and to some extent) we need to repent. To those who are concerned about whether their suffering is due to their sin or if they are in a trial, I would simply say, if you aren't directly violating Scripture, and God hasn't revealed the sin through prayer, I would take a deep breath and thank God for the trial. God doesn't play games with things like that. Our Heavenly Father knows how to chasten His children. He is a God who is full of grace and truth. 

    In closing, we have seen that Retribution Theology finds no place in scripture. The weakness of RT is that it falls completely short of grace. We must be aware of it and cast it aside, both for our sake and the sake of others. While you're at it, could you please pray for my wife Leah in her suffering? 

    

 

Two Kings and Two Kingdoms; The Comfort of Christmas

    It's Christmas Eve 2021. As I write this blog, I am sitting in the exact same place that I was two years ago on Christmas Eve 2019, the front porch of my in-law's house in Northeast Mississippi. However, things aren't the same as they were two years ago, not even close. I don't have to go down the list of how things have drastically changed both in America and abroad. There won't be a single person who reads this blog that hasn't been affected by all of the fall out from Covid in one way or another. 

    Now that we are two years into this, sometimes I wonder if we really even recognize how much we have been affected by everything that has transpired. However, the overall theme seems to be FEAR. Many are afraid of death. So it's understandable that they fear the virus, which has had a steady stream of attention from every available media source non-stop for two years. Others fear the lock downs, economic repercussions and the loss of their freedoms. While conservatives and progressives may have a different list of things that they are afraid of, make no mistake, both sides are afraid. According to a KFF survey, "During the pandemic, about 4 in 10 adults in the U.S. have reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, a share that has been largely consistent, up from one in ten adults who reported these symptoms from January to June 2019 (Figure 1). A KFF Health Tracking Poll from July 2020 also found that many adults are reporting specific negative impacts on their mental health and well-being, such as difficulty sleeping (36%) or eating (32%), increases in alcohol consumption or substance use (12%), and worsening chronic conditions (12%), due to worry and stress over the coronavirus. As the pandemic wears on, ongoing and necessary public health measures expose many people to experiencing situations linked to poor mental health outcomes, such as isolation and job loss." One can only imagine how those numbers have risen since this survey was done. 

    The question is, what do we do about all of this. I think the answers can be found in the Christmas story as presented by the gospel writers, Matthew and Luke. In both accounts we see a contrast between an earthly king and Christ the King. In both instances this tension caused fear and what seems to be unnecessary suffering. This tension between the two kingdoms have never ceased and I believe that we are seeing this tension play out right before our eyes in real time. The question is, which kingdom to you belong to. Where does your allegiance rest? 

The Kingdom of God 

    I believe that one of the most overlooked aspects of the Christmas story in Luke chapter two is the fact that the narrative begins with Caesar Augustus, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)  And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city." (Luke 2:1-3). There are two things that make his mention important, the contrast and the control. Augustus was the most powerful king in the world at that time. He is also one of the most prolific figures in all of history. Yet, he barely even gets a mention in the annals of Scripture. The only reason he is mentioned at all is to show that his decree that all of the empire should be taxed, was actually accomplishing God's decree that Christ should be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).  This all powerful king is mentioned in passing in order to contrast the real King in Luke two. This is a common theme in Scripture. For example, none of the Egyptian Pharaohs were deemed worthy to be named in Genesis or Exodus, but the Lord's servants are (Joseph and Moses). It is encouraging to know that God is concerned about the redemptive history of His people. After all, history is His-story. 

    Whether they realize it or not, the kings of the earth are always accomplishing the will of God. Some might say, but what about the wickedness of nation's and their leaders. There is a very important category distinction to make between the scriptural will of God and the Sovereign plan of God. Men disobey God's scriptural commands every day. However, the sovereign plan of God is never thwarted. Think about the cross. Was it not God's sovereign plan from eternity past that Christ should die for the sins of mankind? Is Christ not a lamb slain from the foundation of the world? So can we say that even in man's ultimate attempt to overthrow God, even to the point of murdering His Son, they were actually accomplishing His will? Of course. "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Psalm 115:3

    One other thing that needs to be noted about this census decreed by Caesar is how hard it must have been on Joseph and Mary. This decree forced them to travel several days to their birth place of Bethlehem while Mary was very pregnant. Conservatives in America tend to whine about government control (I'm as guilty as anyone), but imagine being forced to travel to your place of birth just to sign a census that will be used in order to tax you. For me this would mean that I would have travel from my current residence in Utah to Gainesville, Florida, which is close to a thirty hour drive (I don't even want to know what camel time would be). Yet, God's decree was being accomplished by the draconian measures of this earthly king. Keep this in mind next time an election or a bill doesn't go your way. 

The Kingdom of This World 

    Matthew's account of the Christmas story also begins with the mention of an earthly king, Herod. When the wise men rode into Jerusalem one night looking for the real King (Jesus), not only did it trouble Herod, but "all Jerusalem with him." Instead of being excited about the birth of the prophesied Messiah, they were troubled. Why? The answer is simple, the birth of a Jewish king meant war. Even though Rome controlled everything with an iron fist, economic prosperity was booming within the empire at the time of Christ's birth. Why mess up the status quo with talk of a new king? 

    Understanding this fact, Herod devised a plan to kill Jesus before he took his first steps. He told the wise men that when they found him, to share his location so that he could come and worship the new king as well. Of course, murder was on his mind, not worship. When the wise men didn't return, Herod decreed that all male babies in the province be killed. Whereas Caesar unknowingly accomplished the will of God with the census, Herod set his face against God and His Christ, seeking to murder Him. However, he did not succeed. The earthly kings will never conquer the King of kings. His plans can never be cancelled. 

    This conflict with Herod highlights the conflict between the two kingdoms of Heaven and Earth, good and evil, light and darkness. However, this conflict did not begin with Herod. It goes all the way back to the garden of Eden when Adam fell. God told Satan in the garden, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15). The seed of God are His children, the representatives of His kingdom on the earth, with Christ as their head. The seed of serpent are the lost, the kingdom of this world. 

    Notice that these two kingdoms are at enmity with one another. This is seen in Cain and Able, "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." (I John 3:10-12). This conflict is also seen in the building of the tower of Babel when Nimrod and the rulers of the world tried to erect a tower in defiance of God. We see this conflict between the Israelites and all of their many enemies. However, this conflict came to a climax at the cross when Christ defeated Satan, sin and death on behalf of His people. 

    The history of this conflict between the two kingdoms is one of violence and control. The kingdom of darkness can't live in harmony with the kingdom of light. This world hates God and His people. This conflict still rages today. However, because of the cross we aren't fighting for the victory, we are fighting from the victory. 

    The important thing to remember this Christmas and the coming year is that Christ came to the earth to give us hope. That's not something that we are hearing a lot from the media. Christ entered into His own creation to live a perfect life and die for His creatures, rising from the dead on the third day! He is seated now at the right hand of God the Father interceding on behalf of His people. Robert Murray M’Cheyne once said, "If I could hear Christ praying for me in the next room, I would not fear a million enemies. Yet distance makes no difference. He is praying for me." Make no mistake about it, we are on the winning side. 

Conclusion 

    One of my favorite books (there are some good movies as well) is The Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. I love the part when Scrooge is confronted by the ghost of Christmases yet to come and he is allowed to see his looming death and judgment. He begs the spirit for one more chance, that he will love his fellow man, ease the burdens of others and keep Christmas in his heart all year. Scrooge wakes up in his bed on Christmas day and realizes that he has been given another chance. Many Christians in America and abroad have been like Scrooge in that we have been absorbed by our own fears, prejudices and the desire to return to life as "normal". However, the American experiment is the historical exception and not the rule as it pertains to freedom and prosperity. No one owes it to us, and no one promises that it will continue. 

    The victory of the Christian life is not that this life will be easy and that everything will go our way. This is good news since it's safe to say that the conflict of the kingdoms is alive and raging once again here in America. It seemed to lie dormant for quite some time, but has once again surfaced. We are seeing an atheist take over of America. As Doug Wilson said, "Atheists can function in free societies, but atheists do not establish free societies. They establish societies which are hellholes." (Easy Chairs, Hard Words. page 32). However, like Scrooge, the children of the King must awaken and realize that it's a new day. Things may never go back to the way that they were, they may very well get much worse, and that's ok. We are on the winning side and we don't have to be afraid. 

    What we are seeing in America is the emergence of two gods, safety and freedom. I am very thankful for both, but they both make lousy gods. They also represent differing opinions as to what this earthly kingdom should look like. Don't get me wrong, I think that Christians should be involved in government. But we also don't need to get consumed with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We don't need to get so consumed with making this earthly kingdom so perfect that we forget to fight for the Heavenly kingdom. 

    Like Scrooge, my family and I have made some resolutions of our own. We have looked at the research and decided that we will not take a vaccine that A) will not prevent us from getting Covid B) will not stop us from spreading Covid to others and C) because we contracted the virus over a year ago, we have have natural immunity. However, we have also decided not to judge and degrade others who have come to a different conclusion. By the grace of God we will not live in fear of a virus, or fear of government mandates. We will love our neighbors regardless or their race, religion, political affiliation, or vaccination status. We will continue to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is the only hope for humanity. We will continue to cheerfully gather with the saints and worship the true and living God. Most of all, we will strive everyday to live in the joy of the Lord. The darkness needs to be confronted with light, lies need to be confronted with the truth of God's Word, hate needs to be conquered by love, fear needs to be overcome with faith and discouragement needs to be lifted by joy.  

    Children of the King should be the happiest people in all of the world. We should not be devastated when things don't go our way. We shouldn't be so fragile when our worldview is challenged. We should not be shocked when sinners sin. We should not trust in princes or place our affections on the things of this world. The hope of Christmas is that Christ came to this earth to save sinners, and all of the forces of hell couldn't stop Him, neither can they now. Rejoice child of God, we're on the winning side! Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. 

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm 2

My Thoughts on the KJV Debate Between Canupp & Cravatt

    I am a debate fanatic, especially when it comes to theological topics. The number of debate hours that I have watched over the last few years is staggering. You can ask my wife, I'm way too nerdy to be considered "normal". With that said, I was extremely excited when this debate was announced. It was almost like watching a college football game. I couldn't wait for it to start, I couldn't pull myself away once it started, and some of my preacher friends and me were texting our commentary through the whole thing. There also seemed to be a great deal of interest in this debate as the church was packed with many people who had driven from different states in order to be there. To my knowledge the online viewers never dropped below around 800 (counting both the BMBC and RFP stream). As of Saturday night, the video had over 15k views. 

    To begin with, I want to give props to Pastor Zorn and all of those that helped to put this on. This type of dialogue hasn't happened a whole lot within the IFB during my lifetime. Historically, theological debates have had a huge impact on the church throughout the last 2,000 years. Some of the greatest church confessions and creeds have come through debate (Nicea and Chalcedon come to mind). So again, I applaud Pastor Zorn and his congregation for stepping outside of the norm and putting this debate together. 

    Before I give a breakdown of the debate between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt, I need to give a full disclosure. I am a conservative IFB pastor and a King James man. To date, I have preached over 2,000 sermons in my life and have never preached out of anything but the KJV. I also have no intentions of changing Bible versions. However, I strive to be reasonable, balanced and gracious. I also don't lose any sleep over what the "brethren" think. 

    As a side note, although I have listened to all of them at some point through their sermons or podcasts, I have never met Cody Zorn, Nathan Cravatt, or Mitch Canupp. I want to say up front that from what I know of them, I have absolutely no reason at all to think of them as anything other than brothers in Christ who will be my neighbors in Heaven. I am rooting for them and their respective ministries, even though I would have areas of vehement disagreement with all of them. Therefore, there is nothing personal about this blog. With that in mind, let's break down the debate. 

The Moderator 

    I'll be honest, I was concerned about the level of hostility going into this debate. This is a very heated issue with passionate people on both sides. Not to mention that this debate was held at a KJVO church with a KJVO pastor, which isn't exactly a neutral site. Also, just days prior to the debate there was a video clip of Pastor Zorn floating around social media in which he told his church that Cravatt (although he didn't mention him by name) was coming to "take their Bible". He also warned them not to listen to Cravatt just because he sounds nicer than Canupp. There is no need to poison the well like this if they have confidence in the merits of their position.  

    I would go into more detail about what Zorn said in that video clip, but it would be pointless because to his credit, he looked like a different person on debate day. He seemed to treat Cravatt with respect and fairness (a point that Cravatt re-emphasized in a follow up video to the debate). I also thought that Zorn did a great job of keeping time and making sure that the debate stayed on track. I also agree with their decision to disable the comments on the FB live stream. After reading some of the comments on the RFP stream, I wish that they had done the same. 

    To my knowledge, I don't think that Pastor Zorn has ever moderated a debate like this. I have seen moderators who were much worse in other debates, so good on him. The only thing that would have made the debate format better is if they had allowed for cross-examination. That's really where the rubber meets the road in any debate. Perhaps there will be a next time. 

Full Stop

    After the writing, and prior to the release of this blog I came across yet another video of Zorn slandering Cravatt. This time it was in Sunday school at his church, the day after the debate in which he seemed to handle himself so well. In Sunday School he told the class that he hoped they were listening to the debate with "their spiritual ears and not just their physical ears." He also said that he hoped that they recognized that "brother Cravatt" was using certain "tactics" in order to seduce the bride. 

    I became pretty heated when I saw this, which inspired me to come back and add this one section before I release the blog. At least for this section, forget what I said about not being personal. When I wrote this blog I was very respectful and G rated. However, after these latest slanderous comments I am now going to just come out and say what every sane person is already thinking. This attempt to defend the KJVO position was the worst public embarrassment for the "fundamentalists" since the Scopes trial of 1925. They were out matched, out studied, out witted, out classed, and as Zorn said, we can only pray that no one actually heard the debate with their physical ears. I have heard MUCH better cases for the KJV in my lifetime. And to see the KJVO crowd get on social media and beat their chest over what happened on Saturday is embarrassing.  

    As a fellow IFB pastor, I would also like for pastor Zorn to clarify some things. First, is Nathan Cravatt a brother in Christ or a seducer of the bride, because he can't be both. Second, I would really like some specifics as to the seductive "tactics" that Cravatt used. Third, why the slander? I wish that Zorn would have just stayed classy like he did on Saturday. Why roar about Cravatt like Godzilla behind his back, and act like Barney the purple dinosaur to his face? It's a really bad look. As far as I know, humility is still taught in the KJV, unless it was removed between 1611 and 1769. 

    I have talked to half a dozen of my IFB pastor friends about the debate and we all share the same conclusion. That is, that this debate and the shade surrounding it does not represent us. I would like to think that it doesn't represent the majority of the IFB. This is fringe behavior, unbecoming of our Savior, and I want to apologize on their behalf. Now back to the original blog.     

The Stakes

    It is of critical importance to understand that there were actually two issues that were being debated. The first being the subject matter about whether the KJV is the only inspired word of God for the English speaking people. The second, and much larger issue (in my opinion) is how we are supposed to view other people that haven't come to a KJVO perspective. Let's be honest, this debate was so much more than a debate about the Bible. This was a clash between IFB and RFP cultures, in which two of their respective spokesmen went head to head. The question is, was this an epic clash of good verses evil, or simply a family disagreement between brothers in Christ? I believe this to be the central issue of the debate, regardless of whether someone holds a KJVO perspective or not. More on this later. 

Canupp 

    I believe that the fatal flaw with the KJVO side of this debate was that Canupp represents the most extreme, fringe element of the KJVO camp. He believes in at least some form of progressive revelation, that the KJV supersedes the revelation given in the Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV was translated from. This was emphasized in the debate when Canupp said that, "The language became purer and purer until God got it the way that He wanted it." Canupp also made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care for Hebrew and Greek word studies. However, according to Canupp this isn't a big deal because 90% of the world speaks English (When in reality, it's less than 20%). 

    As Cravatt pointed out, Canupp also made it clear from some of his podcasts and sermons that he has a hard time believing that anyone can be saved from reading or hearing a sermon from another version (a point that Canupp made no attempt to deny). At one point Canupp actually made the argument that people who use others versions are following Rome and as a result will be "bundled up" with the tribulation crowd. This is a round about way of saying that they aren't saved, which is a huge blanket statement. As I stated before, I am a King James man, but this is ludicrous. Not only do I not believe that, I don't think that the vast majority of KJVO's believe that. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who attended the debate would agree with that. I think that this was proven by the fact that one of the few rounds of applause that Cravatt received came when he said that the "epitome of legalism" is making KJVO a prerequisite for salvation. It's hard for a particular side to "win" a debate when their debater holds a much more extreme view on the topic than they do. 

    Now let's take a brief look at Canupp's main arguments. To be clear, it is possible to support a good position, and yet use bad arguments in an attempt to support that good position. Regardless of what one thinks about Canupp's position on the KJV, I would hope that they could be level headed enough to realize that many of his arguments were just bad. For starters, it seemed like he had trouble staying on topic. I know at some point in the debate he hit on Baptist heritage, Calvinism, forced vaccinations, head bangers, rock bands, the coming persecution in America, the tribulation period, liberalism and a partridge in a pear tree. It seemed at times that he was playing to the crowd instead of trying to win with content. I knew that this would be a temptation for him with such a "home" crowd. However, in a debate I want to hear the merits of the different positions concerning the topic being debated. 

    As far as his manner and methods, I don't think he used any notes. I also don't know whether or not he gave a single citation throughout the entire debate. If you quote, you must note. Otherwise it's just an assertion, and anyone can do that. I can't remember a single time that he rebutted Cravatt directly on any of the arguments that he made. He did attempt to challenge the assertion that King James and the KJV translators were a bunch of baby dunking Calvinists, but Cravatt had ample documentation to refute this false statement. This really looked bad considering that Canupp had just condemned the ESV for having Calvinist translators. 

    The two worst arguments of all however, were the "two cities" arguments concerning the manuscripts and the numerics arguments that he put forth. As far as the cities (Antioch and Alexandria) are concerned, it proves NOTHING about the quality of the manuscripts or the people that copied them. Without going into detail, I would say please do more research on those manuscripts and where they came from. As far as numerics go, the man actually said that "6 is the number of man, Romans is the 6th book that Paul wrote, and it has the word 'man' in Romans." Arguments like this aren't helpful to the KJVO position. Such a blind grabbing of straws comes across as being cultic. It's borderline gnosticism.

   Cravatt

    As I stated, I have my disagreements with Cravatt. But if we are talking about who won the debate based on presenting and defending their position, it has to be Cravatt. He obviously did his homework on Canupp and his arguments. He came prepared with a binder full of notes and quotes, as well as illustrations. He handled the Q & A really well, and stayed close to the debate topic. He also refuted Canupp several times on some of his baseless, citationless assertions. He came across as competent, passionate and compassionate. 

    From the opening statements it was obvious that Cravatt was trying to prove himself credible, by proving that he is in fact a Christian. He let everyone know that he believes all of the fundamentals of the faith just like the KJVO crowd. I thought that this was a brilliant strategy. It was also a sad indicator of just how far some of the fringe KJVO camp have gone in their support of the KJV that they look at non KJV Christians as if they are the apostates found in the book of Jude. I felt like Cravatt's strategy might have disarmed some in the crowd. 

    Perhaps the best thing that Cravatt did for himself was to attempt to show that the gap between he and the KJVO camp isn't as drastic as the audience would have thought prior to the debate. He clearly stated his position that the Word of God is "any translation that remains faithful to the intent of the original languages." No one in the KJVO crowd would argue with this, except to say that the only Bible that meets this criteria is the KJV. 

Conclusion & Take Aways

    Some might be confused as to how I can be a King James man and yet not get behind Canupp's arguments. I would simply say that his KJVO position and arguments are so extreme that they don't represent me or the the majority of the KJVO camp. Arguments such as those presented by Canupp do more damage to the KJVO position than men like Cravatt could ever do. Bad arguments don't help my position, and I don't need them to speak for or represent me. 

    Another thing that doesn't help the KJVO position is a lack of grace and common decency. In the Q & A session there was a woman who asked Canupp if her husband's salvation was in jeopardy because he was saved out of an NIV. Canupp completely brushed the question off and went on a rant about sacrificing truth for the sake of unity (insinuating that they had forsaken the truth). Again this is cultic behavior that true KJVO's should want to separate themselves from. If the IFB's would call out more of this silliness within our own ranks as I'm doing now, the RFP would run out of things to talk about. 

    So, will this debate cause any KJVO's to swap their Bible out for an ESV? I doubt it. Will any non KJVO's get rid of everything but a KJV? Not a chance. However, I think that if there is a win to be found in this debate, it is that Cravatt proved himself to be a brother in Christ and not some snake eyed, blood thirsty vampire of a heretic. If nothing else, he came across as sincere, honorable and human. It's easy to have a monologue about someone when they aren't there to defend themselves. It's quite another to have a dialogue with that person when they are in the same room. I hope that everyone can learn that it isn't compromise to show compassion to those with whom we disagree. I also hope we can come away realizing that we all really need to think hard and decide which issues are primary and which are secondary. Not everything is on the same level as the Virgin birth and the deity of Christ. The tension between Paul and Barnabas proves that there will be people in Heaven that just flat out get on our nerves. That doesn't make them less of a Christian. This debate wasn't just about the KJV, it was about Christian unity as a whole. If someone is truly our brother or sister in Christ, we should love them as such and not treat them as if they have leprosy. If our position is strong, we don't have to be so insecure. That's what I took away from this debate.  

    Update

    Within 30 minutes of the release of this blog, Pastor Zorn reached out to me via Twitter message. He said that he was willing to answer any questions that I might have and even volunteered to do an online interview in order to clarify some things. He stated that he does not believe that people can only be saved through a KJV, but are saved through the gospel of Christ. He also made it clear that he thinks Cravatt is a brother in Christ that he has serious disagreements with. As with anyone, Pastor Zorn and I have our disagreements, but I'm thankful that he reached out and we were able to talk about these things as brothers in Christ. You can watch the full interview here;  https://youtu.be/lNOSJfa-x98

    Immediately following the interview with Pastor Zorn, Nathan Cravatt reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to do an interview with him as well. You can watch that full interview here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Gg5ajHBrg