Recently I went to service at a local Muslim Mosque.  A couple weeks ago I was asked to participate in a debate between myself and a Muslim Imam.  I went to the service and then talked with the Imam afterwards.  We are still working out the details for the debate, but I thought I would submit a post regarding my experience at the mosque.  The following comments could sound like I don’t see a difference between Islam and Christianity.  I assure you there are vitally important differences, but this post is about the experience not the theology.

I brought my friend Brian with me to the mosque.  Brian is preparing for the mission field and regularly has interactions with Muslims.  After we arrived and met our contact we entered the building where we immediately took off our shoes.  There is a part of me that like the idea of taking shoes off.  It reminded me of when Moses approached the burning bush and God asked him to remove his shoe because he was on holy ground.  From the moment you walk in the door there is a seriousness, an expectation that you are to encounter Allah.

We continued into the mosque,  got a little tour, and talked about the debate a little bit.  Of course the women and the men worshiped apart from each other.  It felt weird to leave and realize that I had not seen a woman the entire time.  That was brought to my attention by our contact who explained the correct way to leave the building so that we would not come in contact with the women.

The service itself had some similarities to attending church as well as some significant differences.  One of the differences was that we sat on the floor for the entire service.  That was very uncomfortable which got me to thinking once again about the commitment made to attend service.  I don’t know that I have ever complained about the chairs at our church, but after that experience, I never will.  I some times get the sense that evangelicals in America have become a little soft.  I don’t necessarily think comfortable chairs make us soft, but I do wonder what would happen if we had to sacrifice them.

The service consisted of a call to prayer, prayer, a message, and prayer.  No music, no cool video, no frills and the place was packed and they had multiple services.

Apart from the message being only half English and a few very important theological differences the message sounded pretty similar to what you might hear in an evangelical church.  The message was about marriage and following Allah’s principles to do it.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable part of the experience was not the floor, but the prayers at the end.  The Imam began to lead everyone in prayer which included standing up, bowing, kneeling, and so on.  There was only one problem, they were praying to Allah.  So Brian and I simply stood while everyone else was bowing and praying to Allah.  I kept thinking about Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego.  The uncomfortable part was when the two of us were standing while everyone else in the room was bowing and praying.

Fortunately the Muslims were very good hosts and even sat with us for a good hour after the service to answer our questions.

Homosexuality and same sex marriage has become a very hot topic and those who believe the Bible says it is a sin or that the government should not recognize same sex marriage have become reluctant to speak out.  There are several reasons for this, but one of them is not being able to deal with the personal attacks, faulty arguments, and accusations of those who believe homosexuality is natural and the government should recognize same sex marriage.  Too many have also been convinced that they were wrong in believing that homosexuality is wrong.  That is why I am taking the time to write a series of blogs dealing with some of the more common arguments used by the pro-homosexual crowd, specifically those proposed by Soulforce.  This being the second post in the series, you can read the first post here.

Premise #2

“Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.”

This premise has a grain of truth to it.  Certainly there are times when people have misinterpreted the Bible and then proceeded to do terrible things.   The list of examples given, in some cases, lacks historical context.  Even if all of the examples given are true that does not mean the Bible is being misinterpreted in this case.  Correct interpretation has lead to great good being done throughout history.  Think of the work Samaratans Purse, International Justice Mission, Compassion International, and many, many more.  Women being freed to vote, the end to slavery, churches that run to the aide of whatever community has been harmed by hurricane, tornado, or other natural disaster are all done in the name of Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible.

I’m not sure how the fact that misinterpretation of the Bible has lead to harm and bloodshed matters in this case.  In order for this to matter the author needs to show that the Bible has been misinterpreted in this case.  So far this person has not done this.  Fortunately the author admits, “Most of the people I know who say “the Bible condemns homosexuality” would never condone these acts.   Most Christians have no idea that the people killing gay and lesbian persons go around quoting those few verses of Scripture as justification.”  So let me be clear this kind of action or any kind of hate expressed towards gay people should be condemned by all Christians.

Premise #3

“We must be open to new truth from Scripture.”

This premise is based on the idea that some have misinterpreted the Bible and should be open to correcting their belief.  This of course goes both ways.  In other words the author of this article could be the one who is wrong and no belief is without consequences.  We should not be open to new truths, but we should be open to changing our minds if our beliefs are mistaken.  Still the author has not given any valid reason for believing the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is a sin and given what appear to be pretty strait forward passages on this issue the burden of proof would be on those who are pro-homosexual.

I do agree with the author when they say, “I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit is still teaching us. When we reconsider the texts that are used by some people to condemn God’s gay children, we must fervently seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance, or we risk being misled by our own prejudices.”  What I don’t believe is that the Holy Spirit is teaching something different from what the original text intended.  There is nothing in Scripture that suggests the Holy Spirit would ever do that.

Premise #4

“The Bible is a book about God — not a book about human sexuality.”

Certainly sex is not the purpose of the Bible, but that does not mean the Bible doesn’t have anything legitimate to say about sex.  The Bible isn’t about war, but it does address the issue of war and gives us good principles by which we can judge whether a war is just or not.  The bible isn’t about parenting, but it does have a lot of valuable things to say about parenting in the book of Proverbs for instance.

No the Bible isn’t about sex, but it does say a lot of things about sex.  What is interesting is that right after saying the Bible isn’t about sex the author then lists several verses dealing with sex.  The Bible talks about incest, rape, fornication, procreation, beastiality, adultery, purity, and homosexuality.  Song of Songs is a book in the Bible that talks a lot about sex.  There are more than 70 verses in the NIV that use the word “sexual.”  There are countless more passages that deal with sexual topics.  It makes sense that if God created people he would have a lot to say about how they would relate to each other and since sex is the means by which procreation takes place it would also make sense for him to have something to say about that.

Next week we will begin to deal with some of those passages that talk specifically about homosexuality.

Many people make resolutions to change something about there life each year, perhaps you are one of those people.  Few people are successful in making those resolutions reality.  There are at least a couple reasons why and if these obstacles can be overcome, then perhaps 2012 can be the year you succeed.

Ecclesiastes says, “What has been is what will be,  and what has been done is what will be done,  and there is nothing new under the sun.”  Of course Solomon isn’t saying nothing anywhere is new or that old habits can’t be replaced by new good ones.  Instead Solomon is pointing out the consistency of human nature.  In other words human nature stays the same.  When it comes to changing habits whether we are talking about eating habits or spiritual habits human nature, our own nature, will not change.  That doesn’t mean don’t make a resolution, it does mean be ready for the difficulty.

Romans 7:19 says, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.”  Changing habits, especially sinful ones is a war that takes place in the mind and the heart.  That is why we must renew our minds continually.

Ultimately we must remember that, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”  This is Paul’s answer to his own question of who can save him from the sin that continuously battles against him.  Our strength in doing what is good and right in 2012 must come from the understanding that Christ’s death conquers sin; partially now and completely later.

Our strength is in Christ, but the battle is in our mind.  That is why Paul also says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  The question is how?  How do we renew our minds?  The answer is simple, knowledge and wisdom.  Gain knowledge by studying the scriptures and grow in wisdom by applying that knowledge to your habits and resolutions.

I don’t think there is anything magical about starting to change things on the new year, we should simply change things when they need to be changed.  That is why my resolutions are a continuation of things I have already begun.  That said, here they are:

• Get completely out of debt with the exception of my house this year.  (we have already paid off my school loans)
• Memorize 25-30 new verses this year. (many of them will come fro one passage of scripture)

That’s it, just two.

A few weeks ago Christopher Hitchens a famous atheist who was active in his belief that God does not exist passed away.  Hitchens has debated the whos who of Christian apologists including William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, and many others.  How should Christians feel about someone like Hitchens dying?  The answer is simply, sad, upset, disappointed, etc…

It is true that Hitchens was on a crusade against theism, especially Christianity.  His attacks on Christians were leveled with quick wit and very often sharp points.  He was no friend of the Christian cause.  I believe he did, however, seek truth and simply remained unconvinced.  The Christians attitude toward those who actively fight against Christianity should be one of compassion.  If Christianity is true and if we do indeed have good reason to believe it is true then we should not be fearful of being challenged.

I believe Hitchens now has sufficient evidence to believe in the Christian God and it deeply saddens me that he could not be convinced prior to his death.

Codex Sinaiticus

If you’re a youth pastor or even if you’ve been a Christian for a while you have probably heard some good information about the reliability of The Bible.  You’ve heard about the number of manuscripts, the different authors, the consistency, and a l lot more.  Recently I attended The Word Conference and learned some new things regarding the transmission of the text.  These new things aren’t small inconsequential things, they will bolster your confidence in huge ways and they quickly answer many of the objections that people like Bart Erhman bring up.  To put it bluntly, this stuff blew my mind!

Before I get to the mind blowing stuff, let me give you something for free.  I have put some basic curriculum together that deals with the Bible, how we got it, can we trust it, and so on.  Though I am going to be updating it to include some of the new information I have learned, the old version of it is free for the taking right here:  Bible 101 Teachers Notes  and Bible 101 hand out-REDONE

On to the mind blowing stuff.  According to Dr. Craig Evans we have learned that the autographs of the Biblical text lasted at least 150 years and may have lasted up to 400 years.  You might be thinking, “big deal what does that mean?”.  Let me explain.  If Paul’s letters were written in the 50′s and 60′s (which seems to be the case) then these documents the original writings would have still be circulating in 200AD and possibly even as late as 300 or 400 AD.  We have more than 200 MSS (Manuscripts) which are dated prior to 200 AD.  This means that we could have MSS that were copied directly from the autograph.  In other words the charge that there are likely lots and lots of errors because the text has been copied over and over again and the errors became prevalent falls flat on its face.  To be fair we do not know for sure that we have a MSS that has been copied from the original, but if we are only one or two copies removed that give us great confidence that what we have is trustworthy.  As a matter of fact, Tertullian claimed to have examined some of Paul’s autographs himself.  This early church father lived from 160-220 AD.  Scholars used to explain away this claim, but with this new evidence it seems completely possible that this is true.

It is also true that scribes practiced what we call textual criticism.  In other words these were not guys taking up a hobby in their barn next to their donkey.  These scribes were pros who had others examine their work to make sure it met the high standards of their trade.  Though guys like Bart Erhman accuse them of being town idiots, this is clearly untrue.  Dr. Darrell Evans has had opportunity to examine hundreds of the earliest MSS and they overwhelmingly appear to be done with great care and professionalism.  Erhman likes to point out specific MSS like P.OXY. 209 which is Romans 1:1-7 with verse six missing, but this is not a professional scribe but rather a likely a business man simply practicing what he had memorized.  Documents like that are the exception, not the rule.

I recently attended my 20 year High School reunion.  I thought I would take some time to reflect on High School and the reunion.

Every person’s experience in High School is different.  Some people love it, some hate it, and probably everything in between.  My high School years were filled with turmoil at home.  In many ways I was in survival mode.  Some times High School was great and some times I hated it.  I was somewhat of a jock, not overly popular, but I got along with just about everyone no matter what particular “tribe” they were a part of.  When it was over I was happy to leave and I never really thought I’d want to go back for any reason.  I didn’t really party (I only went to one in High School and I only stayed for about 20 minutes) and because of that my social life was somewhat limited.  There wasn’t a lot to do in St. Francis if you didn’t drink.

When the 20 year reunion coincided with a vacation I had planned to MN I decided to attend.  I thought it would be fun to find out what everyone was up to, who had done what with their life, and just go over memory lane a little bit.

As the day came I was pretty nervous.  I wasn’t sure who would be there and who I would hang out with.  It was almost like walking into the lunch room on the first day of school and trying to figure out who you were going to eat with.  I wasn’t even sure if people would remember me.    They did (for the most part).  To be honest, I felt bad that I didn’t remember more of them.  Since the reunion more memories have flooded my mind and more faces have come back to me.

I didn’t party in high school, and for the most part I still don’t.  Just as my social life was limited by that in high school, it still is today.  I would have loved to stay at the reunion longer and have more conversations with old friends, but my choice not to party at times limits my social life to this day.

We all have regrets in life and I can truly say that all of my regrets are related to times I did not live according to what I believe in.  I believe with all of my mind and heart that God created us to honor and worship Him and that when we do that there are benefits to be enjoyed and when we don’t there are consequences to be endured.

Things I don’t regret about high school:

• missing out on parties
• not being popular
• being committed to Jesus and to my church
• sleeping in class
• avoiding conversations that I thought were inappropriate

Things I do regret about high school:

• quitting baseball
• not working harder in football in the off season
• sleeping in class
• not being more outgoing with my faith in Jesus
• not avoiding conversations I thought were inappropriate

The moral of this story is simple, if you don’t compromise on your principals you will not regret it…if you do compromise you will regret it.

Going in, I wasn’t sure if I would really enjoy the reunion, but I did.  The time I got to spend with old friends and even some new ones was great.

Last night I went to see The Green Lantern with a bunch of College and High School age people.  We spent the extra money on the 3D version.  Overall it was a pretty good movie with a pretty good message.  This isn’t really a review of the whole movie, but one particular message we should pay attention to.  The message of courage and overcoming our fears is a great one and one that is Biblical as well.   The message I am talking about is a little more subtle and common in American culture especially.  The message is simply this, the young are wiser than the old.

Hal is chosen from earth to join a league of green lanterns from around the universe who protect against evil.  Some of the Green Lanterns don’t like to the fact that the rather young species of humans have been given a lantern.  An old evil threatens the universe, an evil powered by fear that had been beat once before, but had escaped to threaten the universe once again.  A council of immortal elders decide to use fear to power their lanterns as well so they can fight this old an powerful enemy.  Ironically this old enemy was once one of them who tried to control fear but instead becomes overtaken by fear and becomes evil.  The council says they are making this decision based on their vast experience over the past billion or more years.

It is Hal and the young humans to the rescue.  Hal convinces them to allow him to fight the evil Parallax using the green lantern that is powered by the will of all living creatures.  The elders continue to attempt to harness the yellow power of fear as Hal fights and defeats this old enemy once again saving humanity and the entire universe.

Though I did notice this as I watched the movie, it wasn’t until after the movie when I was having a conversation with some of the people who watched the movie with me that it became more clear.  The conversation became about how the elders were clouded by their knowledge and experiences and because of those things mad e bad decision.  Of course that can happen.  Bad experiences or a misunderstanding of certain kinds of experiences can cloud a person’s judgement.  The problem with this way of thinking is that it leads one to believe that less experience is better.  In general this is not true.  Quarterbacks in the NFL generally take 3-5 years to develop, not because they lack the physical skills but because they lack the experience.  In the business world people in their 40s and 50s tend to be more productive than everyone else.  Those who are young bring energy and vibrance to whatever they do, but they do not usually bring wisdom.  Have you heard the expression, “rookie mistake”?  I’m guessing you haven’t heard the expression, “veteran mistake”.  The reason is simple, experience usually comes with age and generally (not always) wisdom comes with experience.

What does this have to do with ministry?  A couple of things.  First, every generation goes through the growing pains of maturing and realizing this truth regarding experience and wisdom.  As pastors we should be working to help students realize this as quickly as possible.  The sooner they figure out how to trust those who have gained wisdom through experience the better off they will be.  Jethro in his wisdom and experience helped Moses figure out how to develop a representative government of sorts so he could be more effective, Samson rejected the wisdom of his parents and paid the price, the disciples were constantly chastised by Jesus for making silly mistakes early on but as they matured they gained wisdom and the world is changed because of them.

Second, it is essential for good leaders to be lead by others who have more experience and who have gained wisdom.  Sometimes that is our senior pastor, another more experienced leader, and elder in the church or a relative who can speak into your life.  This is true for our students and it is true for us as well.  When someone with more experiences gives us a warning, it should cause us pause.  That doesn’t mean we should listen to it without thinking, actually it means we should take a little more time to think and in some cases even go against our own instincts.

The message given by The Green Lantern to those who are still a little green is to trust your gut and ignore the wisdom and experience of others.  This is a fundamentally flawed message and one that is being fed young people.  There is a reason coaches tend to be older than players, CEO’s tend to be older than those of lower rank in companies, and senior pastors tend to be older than youth pastors.

We must teach kids and teens about marriage.  No, I’m not from some back hills county where it is okay to marry 14 year olds (or younger).  That said, there is this casual approach to relationships as if they are not a big deal.  Not that long ago I had a conversation with a 4th or 5th grader that brought this to light.

Let me set the backdrop.  This was a Sunday morning at The Rock, there wasn’t really anything different about this particular Sunday.  I was wondering around during one of the services.  We do not have Sunday morning programing for our Senior High Students, but I like to hang out between services and talk to them so during the services I often don’t have much to do.  On this Sunday I had engaged in another conversation with this student just a few minutes earlier.  I ran into him again when he was with his class who was on their way to another room and I heard the teacher say, “Fred (not his real name) don’t you be sneaking off with Susie (not her real name) to get some kissy face.”  I stopped cold in my tracks.  I looked at Fred and said, “is she your girlfriend?”  Fred, “yes.”  Me, “oh, do you think you are going to marry her?”  Fred with a lot of attitude, “NO.”  Me, “Why are you dating her if you know you’re not going to marry her?”  Fred with more attitude, “YOU’RE WEIRD!!”

I desperately hope that conversation bothers you as much as it bothers me.  I realize there are some people who think kids dating is cute, but I know the mom who got called to school because her 8th grade daughter was caught having sex literally in a closet, the conversations I have over and over again with teens who are having sex with their boy/girlfriend because they have not been taught at an early age what the dangers are (I’m not talking about std’s and pregnancy), the multiple conversations I have had with guys who’s girlfriends got pregnant and then had abortions, or the junior high students who start dating and even the leaders think that couple will be the exception and they will not have sex and remain pure for the next 8 years and then they will get married.  Dating at any age isn’t “cute”  it is a serious activity for a serious purpose.  There are couples who are cute, but dating itself is not cute.

The problem is actually pretty simple to identify, the problem is that dating has become the goal not marriage.  This reminds me of another conversation I had with my daughter.  I was at a school function with her class and she came up to me and asked me this questions, “Daddy, can I start dating when I am 15?”  My answer started simple and quick, “no, why do you ask?”  My daughter, “my friend gets to start dating when she is 15 so I wanted to know if I could.”  Now that I had a moment to think about the question she asked me I responded with some thoughtful questions of my own.  “Catrina (my daughter) when do you think you will get married?”  her, “I don’t know.”  Me, “well do you think it will be when you are 16, 18, 23, 25?”  Her, “Daddy, you said I couldn’t get married until I was 30.”  Me, “you can get married earlier than that, but let’s say you end up getting married early like your mom and dad did, lets say you were going to get married at 20.”  Her, “ok.”  Me, “how long do you think it will take you to find a husband?”  Her, “…oooooh.”

In that moment she realized what the purpose of dating was and I developed my entire strategy for how we will approach this issue as she gets older.  I know she is going to want to date earlier, and I know I might grow tired of fighting with her about it, but I also know that you can’t hit the target if you don’t keep your eye on it.

Put simply I teach my students about marriage not dating, I teach them what kind of decisions they should be making now in order to have a good marriage later.  I teach them about the goal and then work backwards so they can clearly see how the right process leads to the goal.

In my recent debate at Metro State University in Denver, I was asked this question during the Q & A time.  “Are women who have had abortions Murderer’s?”  It was a setup question.  The person asking the question knew the answer and wanted me to commit so he could press me on some other related issues.  I want to take some time here to answer the question in full.

The strait forward answer is yes, women who have had an abortion did commit murder.  Those women along with the doctors and nurses involved participated in the taking of an innocent human life.  There is one exception to this and that is when the mothers life was in danger.  In that circumstance it is an issue of self defense even though the baby is not intentionally threatening the life of the mother.  Please don’t stop reading here.  Many if not most of these women and many of the doctors and nurses involved have been deceived into thinking they were simply getting rid of some cells.  They were convinced that what they were doing was not murder.  This fact is difficult to face, and I am deeply bothered by the idea that these women were deceived in this way whether that deception was intentional or not.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one such doctor who was deceived and in turn deceived thousands if not millions of women into thinking they were doing nothing wrong.  Dr. Nathanson stopped doing abortions when he was confronted with the truth and spent the remainder of his life fighting against abortion.  In his book Aborting America he admits making up all kinds of statistics to promote the cause of abortion through the organization he helped start, NARAL.  Unfortunately Dr. Nathanson recently passed away, but the effects of his fight against abortion continue on.

Though a woman who has had an abortion committed murder in a moral sense, they did not do so in a legal sense.  I am not suggesting that women who have had abortions should be prosecuted.  I do believe they should seek forgiveness and redemption from God.  Both of which are available.  Not only are they available, but God loves to give them away!

What are the implications of this?  For women who have had abortions this is likely a daunting and difficult truth to deal with.  If that is you, please look at this site.  If I am going to hold to the pro-life belief, I have to be consistent.  This means if I believe that women who are having abortions now are taking an innocent life then I must think that about women who have done so in the past.  As a society we cannot continue to support the taking of innocent life.  Abortion should be outlawed in all cases except those where the mothers life is in danger.

I was also asked what the penalty should be if abortion were to be outlawed.  I do not know the answer to this question.  This is not simply a moral question, but  a legal one and one that may change based on the circumstances.  I am simply not equipped to answer this question without the help of a lawyer.

After the prayer Marvin paused and waited for a moment for God to reveal himself.  Of course this piece of drama was probably all that was needed to convince some people in the room.  My response during the debate was probably adequate though I would probably change things a little bit.  This objection is not uncommon when talking to someone who is questioning the existence of God or even for the Christian who is week in their faith.  Generally this requires two responses.

First, a response dealing with a person’s emotions.  It has been my experience that very often this kind of objection is related to the perception that God has failed to show up in a specific situation.  For instance when a person prays for God to intervene by healing someone and God doesn’t respond.  Their are pains in life and difficulties that God does not save us from.  There may be many reasons for God’s decision not to intervene.  Perhaps there is a greater good God is seeking for which a suffering is necessary, God wants a person to grow in character, or there is even the unpopular possibility that God is choosing to discipline.  In the end, we don’t know the mind of God.  This is where a deeper relationship with God is important.  Faith in God is not blind, we can see where God has provided for us and expressed His love for us in the person of Jesus.  Because we have at the very least this expression of love and devotion we can also believe that God has reasons for not intervening when we think He should.

On a philosophical or theological basis the answer is slightly different, but still related.  First, God has revealed himself in all kinds of ways.  Take any argument for God that we make as an expression by God.  In addition to Cosmological arguments, fine tuning, morality, and more God has made himself known in the person of Jesus.  It is most often the case that persons making this argument would not be satisfied if God showed himself in a physical and measurable way.  As a matter of fact, if God did show himself in a measurable and physical way (as he did in the incarnation) people would argue that it was not God (which is what people do with Jesus).

It seems to me that when people make this claim what they are really saying is, “I don’t like how God has revealed Himself and he is not playing by my rules!”  Much more could be said about this concept of God hiding himself and much more has been said by others.  In day to day conversations it is important to identify whether the objection is emotional or philosophical.  If it is emotional deal with it on an emotional level and if it is philosophical deal with it logically and theologically.  More often than not in answering this objection we need to start out emotional and move to the philosophical.  As you engage with students or other people take this objection as an opportunity to express how God’s most revealed himself to us in Jesus and if we put our faith in Christ He will reveal himself more in eternity future.