Is Abortion Sin?

I would like to give a quick survey of why I believe abortion is wrong. I know that the post title may sound like I am asking if it is wrong, but it is really there so that those asking the question can find a biblical answer.

People have many questions on the topic of abortion. What I would like to quickly go over in this post is:

Is Abortion Wrong?
When is a Baby, well, a Baby?
Is there ever a time where abortion is okay?

Is Abortion Wrong?

The definition of abortion given by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary states that an abortion is defined as:
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

The term termination and death means that one is taking away the chance of, or the actuality of life from another. This is, in reality, is killing another. To give a biblical reason for why abortion is seen as wrong we find it explicitly in Exodus 21

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

This passage as a whole is dealing with personal injuries and starts off by saying that if you kill a man you shall surely be put to death (Ex 21:1) and put right after the 10 Commandments are given to the people. Basically what Exodus 21 is trying to do is give some practical laws for all to understand so that there is no questioning. It would be like me telling my 5 year old, "You cannot go upstairs" and then following that up with saying, "this means you can't go on the stairs, you can't play on the stairs and don't even go near the stairs." What God is doing is giving some clearer understanding to the people of what it means to "not murder."

God gives a clear understanding that murder extends even to the unborn infant. You will notice that no age restriction is given to the pregnancy but just states that if a fight breaks out and one man hits a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, and that baby dies, the man shall die. And here is the key point of the entire passage: But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.

Notice that the man's life that inflicts the injury is no more important than the baby that lies within the mother. He will have to pay with his own life, because he took another's.

So, is abortion wrong? Yes, because it takes another's life. The women today are lucky that we are not living like the Theonomists wish we were living or they would be put to death alongside their unborn child.

When is a Baby, well, a Baby?

Biblically there is no chapter and verse to go to outright to say when a baby is truly a baby. I will say that Exodus does not give us a time frame of when a baby would be considered a non-life. Even further we find evidence of the view that God sees children as children well before the human eye or for that matter a computer's eye could see the formation of an actual child. I am not going to get into science, because I suck at science, but I will give you some interesting evidence from Scripture of when God sees his children.

The first is found in Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5

Notice that God knew Jeremiah before he was even formed in the womb. This would seem to be speaking of a child in the womb before the fetus is made to have bones, ears, fingers, etc. Whatever age that God is speaking of, we know that is before the baby Jeremiah has been even formed in the womb. The term "knew" (yada in Hebrew) here is also a very deep relational word to mean "love." It is a very intimate word used all through the Old Testament. So intimate that it is also used of when a man and woman come together to have sexual relations. We find this in Genesis 4 when Adam knew Eve and Eve conceived and gave birth to a son.

So, with Jeremiah we find that a life is a life before it is even formed, because God doesn't love intimately objects, or mere raw flesh, but he loves the one who has a soul, a spirit, who when left to grow in the stomach of the woman, will come out a child and reveal the glory of God.

Another time we find the same thing said from David.

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
Psalm 139:13-16

They key term used here is that David speaks of his unformed substance. This seems to be pointing to the time before many would call David a human being. This is probably speaking of the time as the sperm and egg come together to create what will later become a formed substance in the womb. Notice that his days on the earth had not yet started, but when they did start they were going to be ordained for him. David's psalm here is a beautiful one to show God's omniscience and omnipresence and he praises God that he knew him and loved him before he even had substance. Again, for God, the baby is a baby long before many of us will notice the affects on the mother.

So, if this is true. That the babies we find in Jeremiah and David were in fact babies before they were formed or had substance. That they were loved and given commission long before their formation, we must ask, "if they were to be aborted before birth, is this murder?" I would give a resounding yes, because as we look to Exodus 21 it is very clear that one life is traded for another. Since the baby is a baby even before it is formed, any abortion is murder in the eyes of God who knows and loves that baby before the mother and father have a chance to.

Is there ever a time where abortion is okay?

Because of my belief in the baby being a life well before it is formed (I would believe that at the time of conception) and that taking that life is murder according to the word of God, then there is never a time that abortion is okay. Never.

Let me hit some of the times I have heard that is supposedly "okay"

1. Rape or Rape by incest

Although my heart goes out deeply for those who have been raped, I believe that the one who should be punished is the one who raped the poor woman and not the baby. By aborting the child, the child is the one taking the brunt of the punishment. The one who raped the girl will only get time in jail and will not die. With these laws established, the one who pays the highest price is not the girl or the man, but the baby. Why should an innocent child take the brunt of the punishment?

Will this be hard to raise a child that came from rape? It could be. But the woman is going to be going through many struggles and deep pain because of the rape and the baby could actually be a huge blessing of promise to the woman, not a curse. I truly believe that the Psalmist got it right when he states:

...children are a gift of the Lord
Psalm 127:3

Sure children of rape are not in the context but they are never kept out of the description either. If children are a gift from the Lord, this means that even those that were born out of wedlock in any circumstance are, in fact, a gift from God. Think of this. Out of one of the most gruesome sins possible, a beautiful child is given. A most beautiful gift. It is like finding a diamond from the dirty piece of coal. (not the mother being the coal, but the act that the baby was conceived)

2. What about aborting a child to save the mother from dying in child birth?

As David states, "you have ordained all my days..." If we believe this then we do not take out a child to save another's life. My wife and I have talked at length about this. She has repeatedly told me that she would be crushed to know that her life was spared by killing her baby. Again, children are a gift from the Lord and God is in complete control of every event around us. My hope is not in this world and to die is far greater because we are with Christ, so I would not kill in order to save another. This would be the hardest decision of my life and I cannot say what is right in every circumstance. The reason I say this is that this is a decision for every family, and it should be talked about in length before any birth.

I would just be very careful here as decisions are made. Understand that God is control and that his will must be done and that truly every child is a blessing from God.

As Christians, we need to understand that abortion is very much wrong. That the baby is a life very early, if not at the time of conception. I like how one of my pastor's put it. He said,

"People like to ask when a baby is truly a baby. I tell them, leave it alone and see what happens"

Just as one doesn't get close to a cliff of a mountain because of the impending danger, neither should we mess around with making excuses for what is murder and what is not. Stay away from that cliff's ledge. I would always lean towards not messing with God's children, it is a very big deal and with it much judgment comes.

Read More......

More on Barack Obama and Abortion

I was emailed this post by one of my friends and thought I would share it here. I am going to be done after this for a while with politics. I thought I should put this here for information purposes. It is interesting what this guy has to say about the Born Alive Act and Obama...shows that you can't trust anything or anyone when it comes to politics. I really don't know who to trust with this Act, it seems like it is a he said, she said issue now. Here is the entire article from Albert Mohler, enjoy:

Albert Mohler interviews Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Albert Mohler: Professor, just tell me the argument you are making in your article [Obama’s Abortion Extremism] that Barack Obama represents, and I quote, “the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to ever seek the office of the President of the United States.” There are people who are going to say that’s wrong-headed. Defend the argument you are making there.

Robert P. George: I hope that all of your listeners will go to thepublicdiscourse.com and have a look at the article because the article lays out, point by point, all the evidence for my claim that Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the presidency. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the legislature of the Congress; he is the most extreme pro-abortion person ever to serve in the Unites States Congress. Shall I take a moment just to lay out some of my reasons for saying that?

Mohler: Absolutely … I need you to make the case.

George: Sure, first Obama does more than simply argue that abortions should be legal. He argues that it should be paid for by taxpayer dollars. He has supported, vigorously, repealing the Hyde Amendment which has protected pro-life citizens—Catholics, Evangelicals persons of every faith and even those with no faith who hold to the sanctity of human life—protected us from having to implicate ourselves by having to pay for them with our tax dollars.

Going beyond that, Obama has opposed efforts to protect unborn children even in ways that do not involve making abortions illegal. For example, he opposed the effort to include the unborn in healthcare coverage under the so called SHIP program for the states, the States Health Insurance Assistance Programs. Going even beyond that, Obama has supported the worst forms of abortions—partial birth abortions—the most gruesome form of abortion. Even beyond that, Obama has taken the truly extreme and radical position that children born alive after an attempted abortion who are separated from their mothers and are still alive should not be protected by legislation that would ensure that they got at least minimal comfort care—basic medical care in the hospitals. That takes us over the line—anyway you look at it—over the line from abortion into infanticide.

Going even beyond that, if I may add one more element on the issue of embryo-destructive research, not only does Obama favor the funding of embryo-destructive research, he is a co-sponsor of a bill that would authorize the creation of human embryos—embryonic human beings, our tiniest brothers and sisters—the creation of those embryos for research in which they are destroyed. That’s how extreme Barack Obama is in the support of abortion and embryo-destructive research.

Mohler: I appreciate you making the case there, Professor George. I want to come back to a couple of those points because, let me tell you, I was already convinced of this but I’ve never seen this issue so well documented as you do in your article. When you mentioned, for instance, the Hyde Amendment, you’re talking about the only legal provision that keeps the American taxpayer from actively funding abortion as part of welfare and social services, right?

George: Yes, that’s absolutely right. Let me say a word more about that. That legislation not only protects you and me and all our pro-life brothers and sisters across this country, it saves lives of babies. And you don’t have to take my word for it, you don’t have to take the word of any pro-life person for it. We have the word of the abortion industry who hates the Hyde Amendment and have themselves said that the Hyde Amendment is responsible for dramatically reducing the number of abortions. They’re against that. They think that the amendment is depriving women of their right to an abortion, but they are still telling the truth that there are many, many, many people alive today who would have been exterminated in utero if it weren’t for the Hyde Amendment, and Obama would sweep it away as part of the so called “Freedom of Choice Act”—the radical pro-abortion legislation that would repeal 30 years of our successes in trying to protect unborn children even in the face of the horrible Roe v. Wade decision.

Mohler: The Freedom of Choice Act is where I wanted to go next because Barack Obama has said that the first thing he would like to do as president is to sign that bill. Explain what that would mean.

George: Well, I’ll be happy to remark…. It is unfathomable how Catholic intellectuals and some evangelical intellectuals could regard Barack Obama as an acceptable candidate, and indeed someone who is acceptable from a pro-life point of view when he has said … that the very first thing that he would do is sign The Freedom of Choice Act. This act would create nationally, by legislation, a fundamental right to abortion—which would not only insure that abortion is legal and paid for with public dollars across the country, even if Roe v. Wade were to fall, it would go beyond that even to eliminate basic conscience protections that protect pro-life positions—obstetricians and gynecologists from being forced to refer for abortions or even perform abortions. This is a radical piece of pro-abortion legislation, and the fact that Obama would endorse it simply, in my view, disqualifies him from consideration by any serious Catholic or evangelical or other pro-life voter.

Mohler: We are in an interesting position in the 2008 race. We have a lot of folks saying evangelicals and others need to move beyond what they call “single issue politics.” Number one, I don’t think there is any such thing, but there are no doubt different levels of importance, different levels of urgency when it comes to issues. And I’ll be right up front to say the issue of the dignity and sanctity of human life is number one in my book before you get to other issues that I will concede are also important. When you’re looking at this issue I don’t think we can talk about anything more fundamentally important….

I want to raise the issue of Douglas Kmiec who is also a Catholic constitutional law expert. And he’s making the case that you can really classify Barack Obama in some sense as pro-life. Where’s he coming up with this?

George: I don’t have any idea. The idea—as I said in my article—is delusional. How can we classify someone as pro-life when he represents the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever do have run for office—run for the presidency of the United States?

The argument that Kmiec makes is that he believes that the social and economic policies of Obama, if he were elected would be so enlightened that it would reduce the number of abortions, and so the net result would be a plus for unborn babies. I mean the logic of this thing says, “Vote for the pro-choice”—as they call it, pro-choice candidate—“because it will save babies.” But there’s no reliable or good evidence for that. On the contrary, we know it’s not true. We know simply by repealing the Hyde Amendment you will increase the number of abortions. The abortion industry itself has told us that. If we look at Sweden, which has a social safety net more substantial than ours (the kind of thing that Obama favors) we see that the abortion rate is no lower there than that of the United States. He seems to have a kind of quasi-Marxists theory that poverty causes abortion.

Mohler: It’s not quasi, it’s direct. I mean that is the case he makes in his book, “Can a Catholic Support Him?” And it’s very interesting for evangelicals to look on at this because we are hearing the same kind of arguments. There is a different context in terms of Catholic social teaching that he tries to use here, but you’re hearing from some evangelicals the same kind of argument as you reflected earlier. So, as an evangelical, I want to listen in on your conversation here and want to be a part of it because we are facing some of the same issues.

By the way, in Doug Kmiec’s book, he makes the argument that there could be a pro-life reading of Roe v. Wade. Now I’ve seen a lot of things that I thought George Orwell would snicker at, but I have to tell you that this has kind of taken the cake. I don’t know if you’ve read his book, but he argues that Roe v. Wade offers a woman a choice about abortion where, as he says, if Roe v. Wade were to fall states could mandate a woman to have an abortion. Well, that is a completely ridiculous argument.

George: It is a ridiculous argument. It’s astonishing that a constitutional scholar, one of some skill I must say. I know Professor Kmiec, he served in the Reagan administration. I’ve always found him to be an effective spokesman for conservative legal ideas when he’s appeared on television and so forth. We’ve been friends for many years. But gosh, this one is through the looking glass. The idea that somehow Roe v. Wade is somehow remotely in the domain of a pro-life decision this is simply outrageous.

Mohler: I also don’t understand, just looking at the whole equation here, how someone could make this argument without taking on the data that you so authoritatively sight here. I mean this is easily obtained information about Barack Obama’s support of the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, that is not addressed by Professor Kmiec. How can you make an argument about abortion, about Barack Obama, without dealing with that central fact?

George: I’ll have to admit too that I didn’t have to work very hard to dig up the information about Senator Obama’s record that I presented in the article. It’s right there. It’s not buried under some avalanche of data. It’s there for the entire public to see. We know the truth. We can easily attend to it. We can easily confirm it. Why Professor Kmiec did not I don’t have any idea. I don’t have any answer for it. I’m dumbstruck by it.

Mohler: One other issue I need to ask you real quickly—because this is a matter of controversy that has come up: The issue related to the infanticide and the Illinois senate, the Obama campaign claims that that is just not really true or relevant.

George: They are lying.

Mohler: Well, I know that. I want you to tell us that.

George: Here’s what happened: Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and he actively opposed it and tried to prevent it from passing from the Illinois legislature. Then, when he was called on it after he had begun his presidential campaign, he claimed that he would like to have voted for it, but the reason he voted against or opposed it was that it did not have a provision [clarifying that it would not restrict abortion] the way the federal Born Alive Act has one….

They got caught lying because it did have the provision in it.

About The Author
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to being one of Salem’s nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

Read More......

Obama and Live Birth Abortion :::UPDATED:::

Does anyone know Obama's current stance on this issue? I personally am not a Republican or Democrat by any means, but this video really makes me want to cry. I watched it and quickly hugged my two boys.

:::UPDATE:::

I don't support abortions or pro-choice in any way, but I like to think we can at least be fair in reporting about those who oppose our views. The video above is very misleading and in some ways, outright lies.

Here is a non-partison article on the thought of Obama supporting live birth abortions or infant genocide.

I would highly recommend reading this:

Obama and 'Infanticide'

Read More......

The Role and Man and Woman in Singleness

This topic bothers me a little bit. The reason is that most people, when thinking of single people will tell them to be “content” or to "fight through the trial of being single." There are really two extreme thoughts of singleness. The Evangelical Christian community, in most circles, sees singleness as a curse where Catholicism sees it as the greatest and highest form of piety. Both are wrong.

I have noticed people who don't even know the person who is single to say some crazy stuff, like
"You will find your spouse one day" or the funniest one is "I'll be praying for you that you will find your spouse." I have seen this happen with people who aren't asking for prayer to find a spouse, who take seriously their singleness and actually feel called to be single. The sad part is that most of us do not see singleness as a way of life, but we see it as a means to death.

Let’s first take a look at singleness and the reason some are called by God to be single.

Look to 1 Corinthians 7.

The things to notice that Paul is trying to get across is that there are people who are called to be single, Paul was one of them. But the true calling if you are single is to devote your time where?
To the Lord.

Paul makes the statement that if you are married, you have some devotion that you must give to not only your spouse, but then if you have children them as well.

Who is the single person devoted to? The Lord

Who is the married person with children devoted to? Both the Lord, the spouse and the children. Then comes when your children get married, grandkids and the like. The list of devotion gets very long, where as with the single person they are one minded towards God for devotion.

I have seen some great men and women of God who serve in the church when they are single and show this devotion but I have also seen those who are single and use it for the selfish desires of their heart instead of what God is calling them to: devotion to Him alone.

This is a high calling. You will notice that Paul says that the prerequisite of a single person is to have self control. They are to be devoted to God and they are to make sure that they call on the Lord daily to help them with the battle of sexual lust and desire. This is why most people aren't called to be single, they want to have a spouse and Paul says, "if you desire sex, get married" (my translation). This term self control is one that is used for athletes getting ready for the games would abstain from certain foods, wine and sexual indulgence so that all their devotion is in the training for the games that they desire to win.

In the same way, the single person is to have self control and keep it in the forefront of their mind of what is tempting and what will make them fall and stay away from those desires. Just as an athlete getting ready for the Olympics don't go into the bakery for merely the scent, neither should the single person surround themselves that will cause them to fall. When done correctly, the single person can be used greatly by the Lord.

I have seen great missionaries who were single all the way to great administrators of the church. Paul's point in singleness is that you literally only have one worry and one devotion and that is to God. A life wasted would be a single person using it for the sake of a career where they never talk about God, show people Christ or minister to the church. Everything we went through with the role of the husband and role of the wife is completely negated for the most part for the single person. They are free to serve only God and look to him and his work alone. What an amazing calling. I pray that we start seeing it more like a calling instead of a curse.

Read More......

The Role of Women: Part III

Woman’s Role Found in Christ

Think of this. An excellent woman will work all day and night to get the household in order, she will help with finances if that is truly needed, she will be in subjection to the husband, even if he is a jerk, she brings along younger women, she can’t be an elder, she can’t teach a man from the pulpit…

Is this fair? Is it fair that a man can’t have a baby? Can’t grow close to the child through nursing? I don’t think it is an issue of fairness…it is just different.

What would society, or even some churches say, if you as a woman were to say to your husband, "Here is what I think, but I will gladly submit to whatever decision you deem to be the best under the rule of Christ."

What would society think of this? What do you think of this?

Look to Luke 22:41-42

And He withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
Luke 22:41-42


Look to Phil 2:3-11

What is the main purpose in this passage? Understanding humility through Christ.

For what purpose did Christ show humility? Verse 11 states that it was for the glory of God the Father

So, Jesus humbled himself to come down from His glory, to live a perfect life, to die on the cross, put to shame by men, to take our sin, and to rise again.

Did God the Father do this? Did the Holy Spirit do this? No.

So Christ has a different role than the other persons of the Trinity? Yes.

Why did Christ come to earth? To glorify God

Why is the Holy Spirit in us? John 16:14 says to glorify Christ.

So, God the Father is the just judge of all things, Christ is the ransom for our sins to take away the wrath of God, and the Holy Spirit is the helper and the One who calls us to the Lord’s side.

Anyone willing to say one is less important than the other? Anyone want to say that God the Father is a repressive Being against the Son and the Spirit?

Do husbands and wives have different roles? Yes. Does either make one more important than the other? No.

Christ sums up why he was here on this earth in John 17:4

I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
John 17:4

This should also be the wife’s plea for her husband. To glorify her husband and do the work which was given her to do. This is not oppresive or unfair, this is the biblical mandate for how we, through marriage, glorify God. Through a godly marriage we show a picture of the Trinity.

Conclusion

Women’s roles are difficult and especially hard in today’s society. But, if you follow what the roles have called you to be there is an amazing charge to you that you are fulfilling:

Titus 2:5 says that you are making sure that the word of God is not dishonored.

Think of this! You are bringing honor to the word of God by following what you are called to be.

The question for women is this: Do you want to honor man or God in the work you have been given?

Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
Colossians 3:23

It is better to take refuge in the LORD
Than to trust in man.
Psalm 118:8

You ladies, just like the man, have a very high calling. The question is who are you going to glorify and take refuge in? Man or God?

Read More......

The Role of Women: Part II

Role of Women in the church

I don’t want to be a broken record so I am not going to continue to delve into what all God’s people are called to do, but I will reiterate it once again…all are to serve in the church in some way, including the women. They are to employ their gift to help the body of Christ.

Specifically we find the role of the woman in Titus 2.

Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Titus 2:3-5

Notice how verse 3 is set up. It is the prerequisites of the older women so that they can live out verses 4 and 5. We see this with the term that is used in verse 4, “so.”

It is like me saying, I took this aspirin so I my headache would go away. I read my bible, so I will know how God wants me to praise him and live my life.

So, older women are to be reverent in their behavior: Which is really a term that is used to show that their actions are on target with sound doctrine. They are showing by their actions, their understanding of Scripture.

Not malicious gossips: (not just used with women, Romans 1:29; 2 Cor 12:20) This is just as it sounds. They are not people that look to others and their faults and then go and tell others about them. But older women are to be Christ like, they are to build up the body not tear it down. This term is actually the term used to define Satan: it is to falsely accuse, to slander

Enslaved to much wine: Just like the elders of the church the women are not to be drunkards neither are the older women.

Teaching what is good: This is interesting that this is what is a prerequisite of an older woman. They are to teach what is good. This can be both doctrine, as it is flowing from the above mentioned qualification of being reverent in behavior and also practical things as well.
It is the antonym of the use of “false teachers” in other parts of Scripture. This term is used for one who teaches things that are both good and right.

Think of it this way. A woman comes to an older, or more mature woman and tells her, “My husband shows me no respect, what am I to do?”

The more mature woman would teach her the doctrines of understanding what it means to be a godly wife, the doctrines of who God is, the doctrine of who the woman is, namely a sinner. She could teacher her how she has been forgiven of these sins because of the cross. Then comes what is spoken of in Titus 2:4,5

so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Titus 2:4-5

She can show how the woman should love her husband because of this and then give her some practical ways to live this out. This all comes from the understanding though that the younger women will only come to this older woman if she lives out her doctrine in reverence, if she doesn’t gossip, not addicted to wine and is a woman who teaches what is good.

The other role that we find for the woman is in 1 Timothy 3:11

Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
1 Timothy 3:11

This verse comes right in the middle of the description of the qualifications of a deacon. We find the word women in 1 Timothy 3:11 and some translations will have “their wives” as though this was referring to the deacon’s wives. This would seem odd. The reason being that this would mean that the deacon’s have more qualifications than the elders do. There is no mention of the elder’s wives at all in the previous passage or anywhere else that elders are mentioned.

The term here for “wives” or “women” are used interchangeably elsewhere, so we would be best guided by the passages context. In this context it would seem that this is speaking of another part of the church’s office, namely deaconesses. We also see that the term “likewise” is used here to show a continuation of thought of the roles of the deacons to extend likewise to the deaconess.

What is interesting is that most churches employ deaconesses in their churches, they just call them something different. They call the ladies “nursery coordinators”, “children’s ministry coordinators” etc. The ladies are doing exactly what a deacon is called to do: minister to others so that the elders and pastors can devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4)

Lastly the reason that we find it okay for deaconesses is because the only thing that differs from elders and deacons is the ability to teach. The elders are called to teach, preach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict. Women are called to not teach or preach over a man in the church. We find this in 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

You will notice that Paul takes this back to Adam and Eve to his present day. Paul is speaking specifically to Timothy and how the church is to be run throughout this epistle. So, when Paul states this, it is not because he was influenced by his culture. His culture said that women were worthless, yet Paul continually defends women and says something pretty profound in this very passage. He says, “a woman should learn…” This is far reaching to that culture. Paul was giving the women the right to learn, something that the culture frowned upon highly in his culture. Later we find that women had a prominent role in Paul’s ministry, so he would have had no issue in making them elders, if that was the plan of God. The fact is that Paul could not be more clear in the woman’s role in the church. This is why he takes it out of his own culture and points all the way back to the original parents: Adam and Eve.

Women have a great role in the church, it just happens that God has stated that one of their roles is not to be a pastor or elder in the church. The same is found in the Old Testament that the highest role in the church was the priest, and no woman was allowed to be a priest either. Paul gives us the reasoning in showing an example in Adam and Eve. Women should not take this as a degradation, but should understand that this is just how God has determined it to be. There are also many men who will never be a pastor or elder either because they have different roles as well. We see this through everyday life too. Men and women are just different in many ways. This isn't bad, it is sometimes just physics. I don't yell at God because I can't have a baby. Mostly, I thank him because of it :).

The desire of the women to have authority in the church is seen thoroughly in the today's church and is derived from the same reasoning that we see when we spoke of the woman "desiring" her husband. Part of the curse employed the woman to desire to usurp the God given authority that has been laid above her. Sadly, many women find this to be a slap in the face to be told that they cannot be an elder or pastor in the church and find some very strange exegesis of Scripture to try and give reasoning on why Paul was teaching something either different or plain wrong.

In our next post, we will look at how Christ is the perfect example to the woman in their role that God has given them.

Read More......

Dodgers Sweep Cubs: Friends "Lose It"

Yes, folks, these are some of my closest friends showing that we will never grow up. It is definitely awesome to watch and makes me laugh everytime I see it, because if I was there, even though I could care less about the Dodgers, I would have been raising the flag high and going nuts...cause that is what we do.

Read More......

The Role of Women: Part I

This is always a fun topic. What I want all to know is that I am not condemning all women that work. Far from it. I am condemning the fact of women who could be at home, and choose to go to work while their kids are raised by a nanny or day care for the sake of making gobs of money. I know that there are many women who work because the family needs it. What I disagree with is when the woman works when the kids are young and the home is in disarray. Most of this post comes at those who are women's lib and believe that women can and should do what every man can. Although I agree that most women can do far superior work than a man in many things, this doesn't mean that they should. These posts are focused on the roles that God has set up, which speaks directly against our norm in our western culture.

I am continually reminded of this when I think back to when my wife and I had our first kid and my wife was a nanny for another woman who did not need to work. The woman told my wife, "I need to use my brain, so I have to go to work." To put it nicely, this lady is as stupid as they come if she truly thinks this. She is now divorced and her family is in disarray. I am not saying that I am happy this happened, nor am I saying that all women who work will have this happen. It is just interesting that as this lady used her brain at work, she ignored the most important aspect of her role, and that was to be a wife and a mother. It is a sad situation and we still pray for her.

I can easily show why this becomes a tough topic or at least one that is controversial…

What is the popular view of women and their roles in the world?

Just listen to some of these quotes: '

Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors.
Evelyn Cunningham

I ask no favors for my sex.... All I ask of our brethren is that they will take their feet from off our necks.
Sarah Moore Grimké

This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labour in which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism.
Gloria Steinem

So when we teach that the woman is to be in subjection to her husband in everything, both physically and spiritually it is easy to see where the difficulties lie.

Women’s Role in Marriage

Let’s just get the first one right out of the way.

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:22-23

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
1 Peter 3:1

But let’s make sure we understand why these are so hard for the world to hear. It comes from the curse.

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.
Genesis 3:16

This verse is actually very much correlated with Genesis 4:7

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.
Genesis 4:7

This word for desire is to show a serious struggle of sin and man. This term is used negatively in both Genesis 4:7 and in Genesis 3:16 to mean a desire to dominate. What is the struggle going to be for the woman? The subjection to her husband. The curse for woman was not that man was placed over her, but that she would continually desire to usurp his authority and the God ordained role as ruler over her.

What was designed at creation was that man would always rule over her, the roles were established before the fall, not because of the fall. What sin caused was that she would no longer want to be in subject, but the desire is now, the struggle is now, to stay in her role.

Women are to care for her husband and household above all things:

Not only is the woman subject to her husband but she is also supposed to care for him and her household above all other things.

But this care starts with the conclusion in Proverbs 31:30

Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
Proverbs 31:30

There are many implications of this verse but we must know that a good Christian woman will do all these things for her husband and household for one reason: God’s glory and the fear of Him. She will not do anything to disgrace her husband, but her final authority rests in God.

She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
Proverbs 31:12

Now, how does the Bible show that the woman is supposed to live out this calling of care for the husband and household?

She is a worker at home

to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Titus 2:5

The main function of a loving and excellent wife is to make sure that the home is in order in all ways. This is both the physical home and the care taking of those that live in it. This term “worker” means: A keeper at home, one who looks after domestic affairs with discretion and care

This is the hardest thing I have ever heard someone having to do, as far as physically, that I have ever seen. Men must provide for the family, must be ready to die for his wife, must be ready to build her up and in all things his most important duty is to present his wife holy and blameless.

For the wife, she is the home’s caretaker. How many hours per week do you think is the average in the United States? 33.8

So if we take that and look at an average work week for someone in the U.S. it would be working Monday through Friday from 8am to 3:45pm (if they take an hour lunch break)

Ask any mom when she "clocks out" and you will get an odd look like you have two heads.

Look to Proverbs 31:12-28

Notice that she is always doing something for the household. Does this even speak of her sleeping? Verse 18 says that her lamp does not go out at night.

The woman gets little sleep if she needs to get things done for the betterment of the household. Does she get praised? Nope, not from the outside world. Notice who gets all the worldly praise in verse 23: the husband. Ever heard behind every great man there is a great woman? This is a biblically true statement found in chapter 31 of Proverbs.

Notice that she even has to help with provision if the household needs it. She works to help provide if needed. Buying a field to provide for a vineyard.

The house cold because of snow? She clothes them in verse 21.

What is her reward for all this? The household praises her. Verse 28.

Does a wife and mother only do this if the household praises her and honors her? Does she only do this if the husband is a good husband?

Actually, if you notice, it never says that in Proverbs 31. Even more specifically, look to 1 Peter 3.

I will say that if the husband notices that the wife is spending many hours with the house and little time to relax and rest, that he needs to love his wife and help out as much as he can. If he watches his wife run herself into the ground, he is not loving her like Christ loved the church. This post is not an excuse for the man to sit around and order the wife around like a slave. Those kinds of men should be taken out and beaten by the godly men of the church. He should be punished like a child because he is acting like an immature child. So use Proverbs for the reason to beat him like one (I of course say this in jest...kind of):

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
Proverbs 22:15

Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
Proverbs 23:13

We can’t get into this completely, but notice the woman’s calling is to be submissive even if they are against God! Does this mean that the woman doesn’t do the things she is supposed to in God’s word? No, but she must be careful not to shame her husband or usurp his authority. Husband decides to buy a really nice car instead of giving to the poor? That is his decision and she must follow. Can the woman put in her input? Yes of course, but the final decision is the man’s.

What is she to do if she completely disagrees with how he is running the house, if he doesn’t help, if he seems unloving? She is to continue to serve him with love.

The woman has a high calling at home. It is her first priority.

To sum up, she is to fear God above all else, and to love God above all, and then she is to love the man as herself.

What I will point back to is that you must understand all this under the rule and authority of the godly roles that God has place upon us. If the man is dying for his wife for the glory of God and the woman is submitting to God as she submits to her husband, the house will be ran well, because this is how God has designed it. Any other way, is not the godly one. It might seem well on the outside, it might seem like it works, but in the long run, it is not the way that God intended the house to be ran.

In the next posts we will look at the woman's role in the church and the woman's role found in Christ. Again, large topic that we are covering in blog posts, so if you have questions, please don't hesitate to comment.

Read More......

10 Steps to Become a Legalist: Step 8

This and the next step is one of my favorites to talk about with other people. I am a pretty big legalist in this area, so I need this for myself. This step is going to show you how to be a legalist in the area of music. There are usually two major groups here, those who only listen to "Christian" music or those who only listen to secular music, with little wiggle room. But, again, to be a good legalist you need to get a verse, take it out of context, and make sure you make it orthodox doctrine. So, this one will be used for both this post and probably the next. It is found in Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

The first way you can become a legalist in this area is to quickly turn the dial on your radio to 777 FM where the Holy Ghost is present in every song. This station will probably tell you that it is safe for the whole family, and that the songs are uplifting showing you how to love God. I mean if they say this, they must be right since whatever you hear in advertising is correct. I mean they can't say it unless it is true, right?

After you find 777 FM it seems like the uniform quickly follows with the Jesus fish on your bumper, "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter" bumper sticker quickly applied to car, and then the fake perma grin is applied to the face. I am not sure where this store is that hands all these things out, but it has to exist because of all the proof that I have seen. I would just like to visit it and act like I am robbing the place for fun, not sure why, but it would just be funny.

Once you find the dial, and once you get your accessories, you now need to be a preacher for your new found religion of Christian music. Make sure you use Phil 4:8 for reference and ask people how they could ever listen to other music that doesn't speak about God and love and flowers and unicorns and rainbows. Why wouldn't you want to listen to the music that Jesus listens to? I mean your bracelet does beg the question, "What Would Jesus Do?"

You have to make sure that other people see the dangers of secular music, why it is harmful to our communities, why people want to murder their children and eat their pets because of it. If people only knew how dangerous a back beat is they would truly convert to your religion of people speaking softly and grinning like a fat kid at an all you can eat buffet.

The other guys in this arena are actually pretty awesome. They believe not in the radio version of Christianity, nor do they believe in the secular. They believe that music is only to be listened to if piano and organ are played alongside it and the song was written in the 1600's and use works like "bulwark" and put "eth" at the end of every word so that iteth looketh liketh thiseth. Their motto ends up being: if it is not old it is not good.

This is a pretty sweet team to play on as you really get to rail against everyone. The people who listen to contemporary Christian music are just immature in their faith and those who listen to secular music probably aren't saved. Poor souls. I will tell you that this team's uniforms look more like an undertaker, so you will have to find a good dark suit and instead of a perma grin, make your face look like you just smelled something foul and you are well on your way to being a great legalist in this area. My favorite part of this group is that you will have to start saying stuff like, "How can rap music ever glorify God?" or "How can metal music ever glorify God?" It is so dark and wrong. I mean, those people spike their hair and look like they crawled out of a horror flick.

The final group are those who laugh at both of the groups mentioned so far. I probably am more in this group than others. You have to be pretty condescending to be in this group and understand that real music doesn't happen in the Christian scene, only secular. Praise songs are cool for church, but they won't find their way onto my 120 gig iPod that is already full...man I have a lot of cool songs on my iPod. You will always make fun of the Dove Awards and will never understand how people can listen to the crap they listen to. You will also use the same verse as the first group of Phil 4:8 and ask, "How can you listen to music that has such bad theology? How is that pure? How is that right?" You will have to assume that all Christian music has bad lyrics and terrible musicality. All who listen are just ignorant in their haze of rainbows and lolly pops.

You will want to make sure the others understand that at least the secular music doesn't teach bad theology about Jesus, who cares if it teaches moralism and paganism, it isn't defaming God...wait...that doesn't make sense, but hold the line here, you have to make your point. You have to become so against Contemporary Christian music so that all of it is bad and all of it spreads dangerous messages that aren't godly. You will have to make these hyperboles to be a good legalist in this area. You should probably quote Bono sometimes to make your point, because he is so intelligent and he helps the poor, so he has to be right. Wait, who is Ghandi? Whatever...just move on.

So, here is the issue when dealing with music. Be discerning. Be careful what you listen to. Both secular and "Christian" music can be damaging to the soul. I personally do not like most of what CCM has to offer. Most of what I have heard is just plain terrible. This does not mean that all of it is bad. Same thing goes with secular music. Most of my iPod is filled with secular stuff, but some of it I have to delete because it is just wrong and profane in areas I will not give in to or let my mind listen to. I don't mind people who like metal Christian music or any type of music, as long as it is not profaning God. That is my main point. Don't stereotype any music as being "good" or "bad" but look to what the message is and see if it defames God. Music is just like other things in this world. I mean what if we did the same thing with food. What if we said, "since this came from a Christian supermarket it is good and right, but the other stuff is bad." This just doesn't make sense. What if the food is better at the other supermarket? We could do this with almost anything. To keep yourself from being a legalist, listen to why people listen to what they listen to. Ask them why? Listen to what they listen to, listen to its message. I am not saying you have to like it, but be open to it. Because guess what, there is no Psalms 151 that states, "listen to this or go to hell." No. The Psalms close with Psalm 150 with a myriad of ways to praise God through song, and you will notice that it isn't about the means but in the substance. The gong or cymbal is not godly or ungodly, but the person who is being praised through it: Our Triune God. And notice that Psalm 150 ends with, "Let everything (yeah...everything) that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord."

May we look to music as a way that God shows his glory and may we praise him through it, even if it isn't found on 777 FM or played by the old lady on the organ.

Read More......

The Role of Man Part II

With this post we are going to give some quick cliff notes to the role of man in church and then our greatest example found in Christ. Again, this is just a quick synopsis, so if you have questions or challenges, please feel free to comment and we can dig in further.

The Role of the Man in the Church

Look to 1 Timothy 3

The role of man in the church is told to us here.

The role of man that we see here is to be an overseer. This word is also used to mean, elder, shepherd. The word literally means: an overseer. a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent. The superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church.

This cannot be a woman. Notice first, the many times the term “he” and the term "man" is used in the preceding statements. You will also notice that this man, is to be a husband of one wife. This is pretty specific, and never gives a hint of a woman being permitted to be a pastor or elder. If that isn’t enough, then also look at 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (this will be further explained in the post on the role of women) What I will say here is that the point is that Adam was the head of woman, he was the "firstborn", she was deceived, yet Adam was the one held responsible. This is very big deal, and we will again discuss this further when we look to the role of women.

Lastly look also to Titus 1:5-9

Notice the man must be able to exhort in sound doctrine, or instruct, encourage and strengthen by teaching doctrine and refute those who contradict.

How Does this speak to the rest of the men in the church?

This is all speaking directly to those who are the overseers, elders and shepherds of the church, but this is also speaking to all men. Paul told all of his followers to imitate him as he imitated Christ. So, we too, who are not elders, pastors and shepherds are called to imitate our elders.

Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
Hebrews 13:7

Even apart from this, every man is to do just as every woman is supposed to do and that is to serve in the church.

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1 Peter 4:10

This is so important, especially for the men, because their family and wives are supposed to follow the man’s lead, and what better way to follow the husband and father than in service to the Lord. The ministry is not more important than the family but is also not to be replaced by the family or job. But these must work together.

Part of our devotion to God is our service to God. Part of our service to God, is service to the church.

Our Greatest Example

One of the biggest cries from people who hear teachings is, “Give me an example.” So I will give you the greatest example in all these things and that is Jesus Christ.

How was Jesus our greatest example in marriage? Although he was the head of the church, he did everything that was possible for them, even to death.

Who was the head? Jesus

What did Christ do for the church and his people?

We already read in Eph 5:25-27 that Christ died, sanctified, cleansed and presented the church.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
1 Peter 2:21-25

The Bible basically says this to us men. “You want to be married? Then you must imitate Christ and how he handled the church when you look to your wife and family.”

It is a high calling, not a caveman calling.

Christ also shows us practically that he not only did all this out of humility but he also served the apostles:

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
John 13:3-5

What about our calling as men in the church?

Christ taught in the temple, he learned in the temple, and he refuted those who contradicted. Jesus was our ultimate example of knowing doctrine and refuting those who did not know doctrine from the Father.

Jesus is always our ultimate example in everything we do, there is no difference here.

Conclusion

This is a little different than the caveman mentality that is purported about Christians from other denominations and also the secular world, is it not?

The problem is that there are many jerks out there teaching the caveman tactics, instead of the calling of the man that is commanded in Scripture.

Think of this again. Here is the synopsis if you are a man:

You are to:

Be ready to die for your spouse
Be held in judgment for all the decisions of the house
Responsible for the spiritual growth of wife and children
Responsible for the salvation of the household
Responsible for the physical aspects of the household
Be leaders in the church
Know doctrine to teach, exhort, admonish and refute
Humble
Above reproach
Not self willed
Not quick tempered
Not addicted to wine
Not quarrelsome
Not Greedy
Having faithful children
Hospitable
Loving Good
Self controlled
Holding fast to the faithful word
Gentle
Peaceable

This is the calling of the man. You still going to hold on to the caveman approach of “Me in charge of woman!” or do you see the amazing example given to us by our Saviour, Jesus Christ?

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Philippians 2:5-8

Read More......

Mr. Mom and Sarah Palin

I recently put in my Facebook status update the following:

Seth wonders why so many conservatives are going to vote for McCain/Palin when this will take a new mother out of the home into one of the most demanding jobs around.

I was just making an observation and people went crazy. Which is alright, and I love discussing issues with people, as long as they don't get mad or angry. I don't think anyone did in this quick discussion, but I figured that since I got 31 comments on a status update that this must be hitting people as important. What I thought I would do is give some posts on the role of the man, and the role of the woman in a family situation. So, this will be the first post on the role of the man. I probably will follow up these series of posts with a post on singleness, as many people don't speak about this these days. Also, please note that there are exceptions to all these rules. Some of these would include a man who has been injured and can't work, is handicapped, illness, etc. The following are posts that would consider a healthy man and woman in a marriage. If you have questions as far as exceptions, please ask.

The Role of the Man in Marriage

The Man is the head of the house

This takes on many implications. Look to Eph 5:22-30

See the implications of this calling? Men love to snicker and point to the fact that they are the heads of the woman. But this is no ordinary calling. Eph 5:24 does tell us that the men are literally the heads of the household in marriage, being the fact that the woman is subject to the man. Genesis 3 says that part of the curse was that it was now going to be difficult for woman to deal with this, but the fact is, the man is the head. We will spend more time speaking of this in the posts regarding the role of the woman in marriage.

But look at this difficulty with this responsibility.

First. You are to be ready to die to self for your wife. You are to love her so much that you would do anything for her, that God would allow. Finances are a struggle? Who gets the second job? Wife has a baby who comes home to aid her? Who was the head of the apostles? Christ. Who was the most humble among them, loved them most, served them most? Christ. So, whether physically or spiritually, the man is the one who will die for the sake of the wife, so that she might be protected in every way possible.

Second. Who is responsible for the wife’s faith? The husband. Eph 5:26,27. The focus on this part of Ephesians 5, is on Christ and what He did for the church. But we are to emulate this as husbands. We are in charge of the spiritual well being for the house and for our wives. We are not only the physical head of the marriage and house, but also the spiritual. We are to lead our wives in Bible study, we are to lead our wife in prayer, we are to lead our wife in actions and words with care and love for her love of Christ.

Third. The husband is to live out the second greatest commandment with his wife. He is to love her as himself. It isn't hard for a man to love himself. Man is condemned many times with pride, which is love of self. So, when we are told that we are to love our wife as ourselves this isn't hard to understand, it is just hard to work this out practically. Men really love themselves a lot, and we think very highly of ourselves. God states, that as we see ourselves, and love ourselves, we are to actually be humble and exchange that love for self, for the love of the wife, for the glory of God.

These are all amazing callings for the man, being that in Greek culture the women were not seen as anything important and could be used by the man in any way he pleased. Yet, God says, “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” in Eph 5:21. So, Paul is not some male chauvenist, he just the opposite. He calls for sacrificial love for someone who was looked at as property in his time. He said, she isn't property, she is your own flesh, now love and care for her as such.

Lastly, The Man is to be the breadwinner. This comes straight from the creation of Adam and then we find it again in the curse. The role wasn’t created in the curse, but we find that part of man’s curse was found in working in toil for the food for the house.

Look to Genesis 2:15; 3:17-19

You will notice that in Genesis that the man is to be the one cultivating the ground, he is the keeper of the garden. When the curse happens then you see that the man is now going to find his work very difficult. This doesn't mean that men will now all have to be farmers, but the fact is that his work of trade will be very difficult. This is what is meant when God states, "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you" and " By the sweat of your face you will eat bread." The point is that the work of the man will be very difficult and not easy. The underlining understanding is that the man's curse was that his work would be very difficult. When we go through the woman's curse, you will notice it isn't the work of her hands that is difficult, but now it is the work of the home that becomes difficult in child bearing and trying to usurp the husband's authority.

The man is to be at work, he is to be working for the sake of his household. Paul tells Timothy:

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever
1 Timothy 5:8

Also, you will notice that in Proverbs 31 where we find the most excellent wife, that she does do some work outside of the home, but notice that the husband is not at home with the kids, but he is where he should be, at work, and known at the city gate (Proverbs 31:23). The city gate was the place of decision making and rulership of the cities and this is where we find the man. His wife, allows him to hold a prominant role in the business market because his home is ran well by his perfect help mate.

Next post we will continue to see the man in the role at the church and then we will see our perfect example in Christ. After that we will look at the role of the woman in marriage and the role of the woman in the church. Please ask any questions that you might have.

Also, know that I love my wife more than anything, sometimes dangerously close to my love for Christ, and I would never degrade her or hold my position of authority to degrade her. We make decisions together, we pray together and we love Christ together. Sometimes when we go through these kinds of discussions, people for some reason take this as chauvanistic, but if you saw our marriage, you would see a deep love and respect and protection for my beautiful wife that is only found under the authority of my great God.

Read More......

Risk is Right: Part II

Last time we ended with speaking on some Old Testamant saints and I wanted to continue with Paul and then the words of Christ that would show us some wisdom within the context of understanding risk is right. Again, much of this is taken from "Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper. So, let's start with Paul.

We could really take a look many times at when Paul seemed to take risks, but we will take a look at one. The setting is found in Acts 19-21. Paul was certain that the Holy Spirit had told him to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21) and there was a prophet who came to Paul and told him that Paul would be bound and put in jail for going. (Acts 21:11)

Believers begged Paul to not go and Paul responded by saying:

“What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus”
Acts 21:13

After Paul’s words, the people then responded by saying:

“And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, ‘Let the will of the Lord be done’ ”
Acts 21:14

Paul understood that if it was God’s will, he must do it. No matter the cost. Death, imprisonment, mockery, loss of money, time, whatever…he didn’t know what was to come, but he felt the call from God and took the risk.


Christ told us this is what we are called to:

We are called to take risks. Paul states: through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22)

Jesus states: Luke 21:16, “You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.”

Notice Jesus says some. The disciples didn’t know who would die, who would live. They were called to live for Jesus, the risk being that you don’t know what will happen because of it. The only for sure in this life when you live it for Christ is that as Paul states, you will be persecuted,

Jesus states that our surety is that “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20)

The first three centuries of the Christian church set the pattern of growth under threat. Stephen Neill, in his History of Christian Missions, wrote,

“Undoubtedly, Christians under the Roman Empire had no legal right to existence, and were liable to the utmost stringency of the law.… Every Christian knew that sooner or later he might have to testify to his faith at the cost of his life.”

Might. There’s the risk. It was always there. Maybe we will be killed for being Christians. Maybe we won’t. It is a risk. That was normal. And to become a Christian under those circumstances was right

How to Waste 40 Years and Thousands of Lives

The people of Israel had been brought out of the land of Egypt. In less than three years they were at the borders of Canaan. Moses sent in spies and what happened?

Caleb states:

“Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it” (Numbers 13:30). But the others said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are” (v. 31)

The people had this thought of being in this stupor of safety and Joshua states:

The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the LORD delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them. Numbers 14:7–9

The point is that you must see life as not safe. You could literally die any day, why not live life for the glory of Christ and not for your safety? We are called to take risks…why just try and live in bubble for the sake and for the glory of self?

So, What is the Danger Here?

The danger is taking risks for the wrong reasons. The worst risk you can take is taking a risk for the glory of yourself and not for God.

We might feel as though if we take risk God is more pleased with us and likes us more than those who seem to be more reserved.

When we talk about risk we are always pointing to taking it for the cause of Christ and not for the cause of heroism, martyrdom, lust for adventure, or the need to earn God’s good will.

Risk should only be taken if you believe it is in God’s will for his glory alone.

And when we take risks we must believe that God will truly give us everything that we need.

When Paul promised, “My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus,” he had just said, “I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:12–13, 19).

“All things” means “I can suffer hunger through him who strengthens me. I can be destitute of food and clothing through him who strengthens me.” That is what Jesus promises. He will never leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5). If we starve, he will be our everlasting, life-giving bread. If we are shamed with nakedness, he will be our perfect, all-righteous apparel. If we are tortured and made to scream in our dying pain, he will keep us from cursing his name and will restore our beaten body to everlasting beauty.

Remember that if God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31
Don’t live your life in fear of what might happen. Live your life in the fear of what might happen if you don’t follow the call of God. This is the risk that should be taken.

Remember that Jesus said that your life is not going to be easy as a Christian. It is going to be hard.

This is the promise that empowers us to take risks for the sake of Christ. It is not the impulse of heroism, or the lust for adventure, or the courage of self-reliance, or the need to earn God’s favor. It is simple trust in Christ—that in him God will do everything necessary so that we can enjoy making much of him forever.

Every good poised to bless us, and every evil arrayed against us, will in the end help us boast only in the cross, magnify Christ, and glorify our Creator. Faith in these promises frees us to risk and to find in our own experience that it is better to lose our life than to waste it.

Therefore, it is right to risk for the cause of Christ. It is right to engage the enemy and say, “May the LORD do what seems good to him.” It is right to serve the people of God, and say, “If I perish, I perish!” It is right to stand before the fiery furnace of affliction and refuse to bow down to the gods of this world. This is the road that leads to fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore.

At the end of every other road—secure and risk-free—we will put our face in our hands and say, “I’ve wasted it!”

Read More......

What's in a Name?

I found this article on msnbc.com and thought I would share the lunacy. Of course the names celebrities name their kids are always hilarious, but Bart Simpson's prank call names are by far the best. Because people have taken those prank call names and actually named their kids after them...crazy...anyway...here is the article, enjoy:

What would compel a parent to bestow a newborn with a name like “Tiny Hooker” or “Fanny Large”? Or an amusing choice like “Wanna Towell"? It’s not just Hollywood’s elite opting for unique, embarrassing names—throughout history, normal people separated their offspring from the masses with truly terrible names.

In “Bad Baby Names,” Michael Sherrod and Matthew Rayback, of the genealogy Web site Ancestry.com, share thousands of shocking names given to real people, as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau. Discover the funny names based around common themes, like diseases (Fever Bender, Cholera Peace), food (Bread White, Pomegranate Purple), pets (Good Dog), and if you thought Wednesday Addams was unfortunate—wait till you meet Monday Monday.

Bart Simpson pranks

Bart Simpson's prank calls to Moe's Tavern are nearly legendary, but the sad fact is that some people actually go through life with those goofy names. The following Bart creations all exist within the Ancestry.com databases:

Al Caholic
Oliver Clothesoff
I.P. Freely
Seymour Butz
Mike Rotch
Hugh Jass
Amanda Hugginkiss
Ivana Tinkle
Anita Bath
Maya Buttreeks

Celebrities

Forget Suri or Shiloh – celebrities have given their children far stranger names! Discover the stars' oddest, most bizarre baby names:

Clementine Jane (Ethan Hawke and Ryan Shawhughes)
Knox Leon (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt)
Sunday Rose (Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban)
Apple (Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow)
Moxie CrimeFighter (Magician Penn Jillette)
Hopper (Sean Penn and Robin Wright)
Pilot Inspektor (Jason Lee and Beth Riesgraf)
Sosie (Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick)
Destry (Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw)
Aurelius Cy (Elle Macpherson)
Kal-El Coppola (Nicolas Cage)
Bluebell Madonna (Spice Girl Geri Halliwell)
Audio Science (Actress Shannyn Sossamon)
Sage Moonblood (Sylvester Stallone)
Tallulah (Bruce Willis and Demi Moore)
Kyd (David Duchovny and Tea Leoni)


Diseases

You'd have to be really sick to infect your offspring with virulent names like these:

Fever Bender (born 1856)
Leper Priest (born 1929)
Cholera Priest (born 1830 during the second cholera pandemic)
Rubella Graves (born 1814)
Typhus Black (born 1897)
Hysteria Johnson (born 1881)
Emma Royd (born 1850)
Kathryn E. Coli (born 1894)
Mumps Sykes (born 1891)

Professions

With names like "Mayor Bland," it seems like some parents had high, ambitious hopes for their children's future.

Cook Cook
Governor Bush
Lawyer Low
Doctor Love
Teacher Blackbear
Judge Savage
Editor Honeycutt
Mayor Bland
Sales O. Justice
Gamble Moore

Sins

The authors found 149 records for people named Lust, 70 for Greed, 12 for Sloth, and 830 for Pride. Which of the 7 deadlly sins was missing? Only gluttony.

Lust Garten
Greed Sister Mancini
Avarice Sullivan
Sloth Washton
Wrath Gordon
Envy Burger
Pride Saint
Greed McGrew
Pride Saint
Lust T. Castle

Irish luck

Plenty of parents must have thought that naming their child Lucky would translate into a bright future. In 1930 alone, there are 463 Luckys.

Some lucky favorites:
Lucky Green
Lucky Jewell
Lucky O’Brien
Lucky Pleasant
Luck Fortune
Shamrock Hardeman of Illinois
Shamrock Dates of Mississippi
Shamrock Holland of Texas

The religious types:
Saint Patrick Blan
Saint Patrick Forrest
Saint Patrick

The patriotic:
Ireland England
Ireland Green
Irish Sea
Ireland Brew

Whimsical:
Rainbow Green
Emerald Jewel
Clover Field
Clover B. Green

A St. Patrick’s Day feast:
Beef Cooper
Guinness Dack
Cabbage Haywood

Foods

Some parents loved eating so much, they named their kids after favorite meals, snacks—and even condiments:

Lunch Magee
Dinner Ware
Bread White
Hero Brat
Mayo Head
Mustard M. Mustard
Pickle Parker
Plum Sellers
Banana Bowdy
Cherry Grant

Read More......

Risk is Right: Part I

I am preaching through the book, "Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper and the most intriguing chapter to date came in chapter five titled, "Risk is Right: Better to Lose Your Life than to Waste it." I thought I would give some posts on this thought. Some of this post are direct quotes from Piper from his book.

When you hear that someone has taken a risk, what do you think of? How would you define this?
Risk can involve all kinds of things. Risk can be someone doing something where they might lose something. It can be to lose something small, like a little time, or it can be something big, like your life.

The face is that it can really involve all kinds of things, it can be losing your reputation, friends, respect, money, time, etc.

The other part of risk is that sometimes it involves others. It could involve not just the stuff I mentioned before with just yourself, but you could also be endangering the resources and lives of others as well.

But really, risk is doing anything where you don't know the outcome.

So, the question then comes, should you ever take a risk? Think of this. Think of all the things that could be lost, and what could be at stake for others as well. Is taking a risk and losing your life the same as wasting your life?

Again, this is a tough subject. Just as knowing when to take stand and when to flee is difficult, the same can be said in understanding when it is good to take a risk and when it is completely wrong to do so.

Sometimes when you play it safe, you could be endangering yourself, or others, so risk is sometimes necessary to accomplish much.

Have you ever wondered why then there is this thing called risk? Why is it here? Why is there such a thing? Well, there is risk because there is also ignorance. Think of this, would there be anything called risk if you knew the future? No. Gambling is a risk because you don’t know what cards you will get, or what cards others will get. You don’t know which horse is going to win, which team will win, if they will cover the point spread, etc.

So, can God ever take risks? No. He knows all things past, present and future. He never takes risks. This is a great comfort. Knowing that our God never takes a risk and isn't even able to do so. For God to be able to take a risk, he would have to not know the future of every decision that he makes.


But, we do not. We live in ignorance. We don’t know when we will die and God doesn’t tell us the future, but tells us that the best way that we should live is living knowing we live in ignorance.

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
James 4:13-15

We don’t know if our heart will stop tonight, we don’t know if the building over us will collapse on us, we don’t know if someone will come in and shoot us because we love Jesus. James tells us that we should live in a way of never assuming we are safe from peril or distress.

Because of James’ thoughts we have to realize that we are never safe. We never have security of safety…ever. So, you may live in a safe neighborhood, nice house, great family, great schools, low crime rate, homeschool, private school, or best public school in the nation…and your heart can stop. You could die, just like that.

Let’s take a look at some examples that we see in the Scriptures of people taking some risks, meaning, making decisions where they had no clue the outcome.

Look to 2 Samuel 10.

In 2 Samuel 10 the king of the Ammonites has died and David sends out some of his own people to help console the new king who was the son of the dead king. The son got some bad advice from his counselors as they made him think that David was actually sending these men to spy out the land and to not console. As the men entered the city, they were taken, they were put to shame and sent back to David. David then sent his army with his commander Joab.

As they came upon the city Joab and his army was surrounded and looked as though they should probably give in to the battle and surrender. But Joab says something very interesting.

“Be strong, and let us show ourselves courageous for the sake of our people and for the cities of our God; and may the Lord do what is good in His sight.”
2 Samuel 10:12

Joab, although surrounded and about to die, does not give in. He is given no special revelation by God, but instead of surrendering, he decides to fight and allow God to do what is good in His sight.

Look to Esther:

Queen Esther is another example of courageous risk in the service of love and for the glory of God. There was a Jewish man named Mordecai who lived in the fifth century before Christ during the Jews’ exile. He had a younger orphaned cousin named Esther whom he had adopted as a daughter. She grew up to be beautiful and eventually was taken by Persia’s King Ahasuerus to be his queen. Haman, one of Ahasuerus’s chief princes, hated Mordecai and all the Jewish refugees and persuaded the king to decree that they be exterminated. The king did not realize that his own queen was a Jew.

Mordecai sent word to Esther to go before the king and plead the case of her people. But Esther knew there was a royal law that anyone who approached the king without being called would be put to death, unless he lifted his golden scepter. She also knew that her people’s lives were at stake. Esther sent her response to Mordecai with these words:

“Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.”
Esther 4:15–16

“If I perish, I perish.” What does that mean? It means that Esther did not know what the outcome of her act would be. She had no special revelation from God. She made her decision on the basis of wisdom and love for her people and trust in God. She had to risk or run. She did not know how it would turn out. So she made her decision and handed the results over to God. “If I perish, I perish.” And this was right.

Shadrach Meshach and Abednego

The scene is Babylon and Israel is in exile here. King Nebuchadnezzar is king and he had a dream and ends up setting up a gold statue of himself and tells all that when the trumpets blow that all of those in Babylon are to bow before it. If they do not, they will be put into the furnace and die for their disrespect of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego decided that they were going to take a risk. The outcome was surely death, but the risk of not bowing was worth it for the name of God. Here was their response to the king:

O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.
Daniel 3:16–18

Do they not say the same thing as Esther? If we perish, we perish. Or what about what Joab states: May the Lord do what is good to him. The point is? God is great and he will work out his purposes because he takes no risk, he knows all and everything in the end will point to his glory.

We will continue this post next week. But think of this:

The most dangerous place that you can be is outside the will of God.

Read More......