Do You Perfer D.E.S.I.R.E. over T.U.L.I.P.s?

I was recently presented an article, whereby the author suggest the concept of D.E.S.I.R.E over T.U.L.I.P.; stating “There it is—God’s “D.E.S.I.R.E.” for you. It isn’t the T.U.L.I.P., but its not Arminianism either!”

I am not so sure even this article (belief or conviction of D.E.S.I.R.E) gives one “a model of election that would allow me, or any preacher, to expound every verse of Scripture with equal confidence and not have to soft pedal or ignore those passages which are problematic to one view or the other,” as the author hopes himself.

Can Abrahamic Election and Salvation Election (as presented by the author) really be limited to only corporate (Abrahamic) and individual (Salvation)? I mean, we also have those that could be “cut off” individually from their people (the Jews) by breaking the covenant, and a corporate “church” or body of Christ (similar as collective groups seen in “all that the Father giveth me” and sheep “folds”) spoken of in scripture. And wasn’t the picture of individual fleshly circumcision a picture of individual spiritual circumcision? I am not saying Israel and Church are synonymous in Scripture, but I’m not sure I can agree with the author’s limitation of corporate vs. individual regarding Abrahamic and Salvation Election.

Here is a little confusing, or where I am failing to see what the author is saying:
"From God’s perspective there can never have been a single moment when God has not had the totality of His experience (their acceptance and after, or their rejection and after) with each and every human being as part of His “present” (i.e. eternal) experience and knowledge.
God has always experienced those accepting him and praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth as well as those who have rejected him and have been sent to perdition. Thus, the ones He has always experienced accepting and worshipping him are elect and He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe as opposed to must believe.”

I can understand the “present tense” of how God sees things (past, present, future as present), but it appears the author suggest that because God sees presently (though future to us) “those…praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth” THEN or BECAUSE OF THIS “He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

So, it seems the author is saying that since God experiences the presence of certain individuals in the scope of eternal salvation (future), He works effectually in them (presently) so they “will” believe.

If such is what the author is saying, then by equal contrast, those “He (God) has always experienced the rebellion and the rejection of those who are lost and they will not accept his invitation and call” He will NOT “work in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

I don’t see how the author escapes having foreknowledge contradictions or questioning as he claims TULIP have.

If God works effectual within an individual toward salvation “based” (as the author appears to note) on whether He “experiences” the individual in salvation (New Heaven and New Earth) or perdition (Hell), then how is this different than saying foreknowledge is based on God “looking forward into time” (our time) to see who will accept Christ and who will reject Christ – then only working effectually in those He already knows will accept Him? To me, it seems what the author has done is base God’s “effectual working” choice on man’s “electoral” choice to accept or reject Christ.

And if God presently (though our future) sees an individual in Heaven or Hell, can it not be said one “must believe” or “cannot accept” – for if the future is set (for in God’s eyes it is), then how can the individual do anything but believe or reject – even without the effectual calling of God (per the author)?

We Believe in God, But Pick What We Believe

This morning, while taking a look at a few articles regarding surveys dealing with religion among different generations, I can’t help but wonder if there is indeed a common strand which connects the results.

In the report Buddhist Tiger Woods may be as Christian as many Americans, the writer recalls the comments of Tiger from 1996, of which he said “I believe in Buddhism. Not every aspect, but most of it. So I take bits and pieces. I don't believe that human beings can achieve ultimate enlightenment, because humans have flaws." – and compares it to the line of modern day thinking from professing Christians, that it appears okay to mismatch ideals from within and without Christianity.

Such thoughts among confessing Believers makes itself apparent in that Some Presbyterians see salvation in non-Christian faiths, finding “that 36% of members disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: "Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved." Another 39%, or about two-fifths, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.” As Perry Chang, administrator of the Presbyterian Panel, admits, "There seems to be some universalist streak in Presbyterianism, where some Presbyterians are open to the idea of other paths that folks in other faiths might be taking." And this is not merely among average pew sitters, for “More pastors disagreed (45%) than agreed (35%) and a majority of specialized clergy (60 percent) disagree.”

In claiming Young adults 'less religious,' not necessarily 'more secular', the survey seems to find “Millennials are significantly more likely than young adults in earlier generations to say they don't identify with any religious group.” The statics shows 53% trust God does exist, with 40% claiming to speak with Him daily in prayer, but a mere 18% actually attend church regularly (i.e. weekly).

Coming to the Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious', we find 65% do not attend church, 67% don’t read their Bibles, and 38% seldom pray; which leads to the revelation that “Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.” Of course, it is telling when we read “68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."” – “Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior."”

Anyone will attest that surveys may not be inclusive 100% of all persons or statics presented, but they are not without merit. In the above, we see (at least with those polled) that although there is a claim that God does exist, those same persons (% wise) do not find attendance in His house (i.e. Sunday School or Worship Service) to be equally essential, or the necessity to speak with Him in prayer and read His Word. Basically: belief without relationship. It would be like one claiming they know their parent(s) are alive, but they never (or seldom) call or visit them. That would not be considered a healthy family relationship. It would be an estranged one.

So, what is the common strand that seems to connect each of these – at least for me? Belief is not the same as faith and practice. James tells us (2:19) “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble,” and goes on to expose the reality that a claim of belief is not the same as an active faith in Christ which produces a lifestyle of Christianity. What I gather from the above links, along with many conversations I have had with persons I know and don’t know, is that many profess a belief in God, even having possibly “prayed the prayer” (finding eternal security in one act, establishing it as a work for salvation rather than it being of grace), but have no interest in reading and studying the Scriptures, or listening to it being expounded upon by a pastor or teacher.

It should not be surprising to notice an embrace of a pool of thoughts (when it comes to religion/spirituality), mixed from many realms of theology and ideology, when persons refuse (or fail to make time) to pray and seek the wisdom and discernment found in the Bible (by reading, studying, and hearing it preached and taught). Christians and non-Christians alike may fall prey to this, as we fail to give importance to God and His Word in active living. When we fail to ensure a faithful relationship with God through prayer, without a correct understanding and acceptance of His wisdom and authority through Scripture, and ignore an active faith in Christ following his lifestyle (all by the power of the Holy Spirit), we need to examine our estranged relationship, acknowledge we cannot simply create our own witches brew of truths, and repent by spending more time in the things of God (the one whom we claim to believe in, and whom will ultimately grant us eternal life).

If we have no time for God now, why should He grant us an eternal life with him? May we repent of our selfish lies, and embrace the truth at our very finger tips. Believing “I take bits and pieces” here and there is basically creating one’s on religion, inserting themselves in the place of God, and becoming their own final authority, which will not hold up in court at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Born Again, Again? Unto Homosexuality, Really?

Sadly, we read of yet another ‘Christian musician’ who claims to continue to hold true to Christianity in one hand, while grasping homosexuality in the other. Some time back it was Ray Boltz, and today it is Jennifer Knapp. Is it not puzzling how we can claim to serve God as faithful servants, while embracing that which He condemns in His holy word? Such is not limited to Christian musicians or to homosexuality, but to openly ask or demand the world (or fans) to embrace the blatant hypocrisy as being humble seems quite self-serving.

Jennifer states: "I hope that the defiance does come across as humble," she explained. "If there's any frustration, it's trying to politely break the yoke of being asked to be something that I just can't be, and with all humility go: 'Just please be kind when you discover the truth.' It's kinda all you can do."

Yet boasts: "I'm definitely getting a lot more friendly winks from the girls (at her concerts) than I have in the past!"

And jokes: "Anyone who has a decade of celibacy has 'complete loser' written on their back” – ‘although she still respects those who do abstain.’

At least, she declares (regarding her new CD), "I just wouldn't find it respectful at all to say, 'Hey, this is something that you want in your store next to your Jesus statue,'" she said. "It would just be disingenuous to try and convince someone that they needed to do that."

“Still, Knapp considers herself a "person of faith" and recoils at the suggestion that she is turning her back on the church”… so, I ask, if living a lifestyle contrary to scripture does not constitute a life of immorality and turning ones back on the truth of God… what does?

When we sin, we are choosing to disobey, rebel, dishonor, and reject the truth and wisdom of scripture (God’s holy word). How else can we describe our actions and current state as any other way but turning our back on God, the church, our faith? Though one may sing with the voice of an angel, marvelous songs of praise to God and our Savior Jesus Christ, it is but naught having a life in opposition to it.

How sad, though no longer surprising, to hear professing Christians describe the biblical Christian lifestyle as a “yoke of being asked to be something that [one] just can't be”, yet oddly feel completely free to live a life contrary to it. May we all judge ourselves, aligning ourselves with the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God, repenting of the broad way wherewith with have walked, and return yet again unto the straight and narrow path of righteousness.

Another Perverted Soul Embarks On Gravely Misrepresenting Christ

According to this article at FoxNews.com: ‘Residents of Stephenville, Texas, say they're furious that a local university will allow the performance of a play in which a gay Jesus shares a kiss with Judas and marries two apostles in a same-sex ceremony.’

It always amazes me when persons take not only a flawed premise (which most, if not all of us, are guilty of doing at some point or another), but also an outright denial of truth; to strive not only to misrepresent the teachings and person of Christ, but to go so far as to try and twist that which is good into that which is evil, merely to justify their own depravity. Isaiah says, ‘Woe’ to such persons and such thoughts.

Oddly, as controversial as the topic of homosexuality is today, given the clear instruction against the perversion in scripture – whereby many atheists even acknowledge such teachings – (Genesis 19; Leviticus 20; Romans 1), along with the fight of trying to redefine marriage in America, it is interesting that John Jordan Otte (student-director) would say the reasoning behind his production of the play is: ‘to "bring people together" and help gain acceptance for gay Christians.’

Here are just a few problems with this line of thinking:

1. Who in their right mind would believe that a homosexual depiction of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom thousands upon thousands hold as the Holy Son of God, would have the potential of bringing together the sheep among the goats?

2. There may be professing Christians who practice homosexuality, but it is still a sin of which needs repentance, and clearly is not and will not be justified or accepted by God or His Word, nor should be by His Church. (* note, I said the sin)

3. The misuse of biblical characters into a lifestyle contrary to scripture, history, etc. is the direct result of a depraved mind with the purpose of gaining attention to oneself by corrupting history and defamation of character; just as it would to create a modern movie of depicting Democrats and/or the President (non-homosexuals) as homosexuals. Who would stand for such, claiming it were merely art?

Although John Jordan Otte claims to be a ‘devout Christian’, as he believes, ‘"I am not attacking anyone in choosing this play. I want people to see and understand another side to faith. I want us all to know that unconditional love means just that -- unconditional -- and I believe tolerance is a key message in this play. None of us, not one of us, should ever feel alone or separated from God or whomever we believe in,"’ he clearly misses the message of the scriptures that mankind is lost and dead in trespasses and sin, out of fellowship and separated from God, under the wrath of the Almighty.

While he wishes for us to see ‘another side of faith’, namely unconditional love, he fails to share one must also have repentance. Unconditional love is not God allowing mankind to do whatever we choose, especially in direct contrast to His Word, as if demanding God overlook our rebellion and rejection of Him and His righteousness; yet He embraces us nevertheless. Unconditional love is the Father sending the Son to live a holy life, suffer the death of the cross, with His resurrection from the grave granting forgiveness of sin, the restoration of fellowship, with the promise of eternal life to all who repent and put faith in Christ.

It is one thing to sin in ignorance, and quite another to transgress willfully with knowledge. A ‘devout Christian’ should know the difference, and quickly acknowledge our sin and repent before God. Although ‘freedom of speech’ may give rights to one to pervert the person and teachings of Christ in this life, no such clause shall save the wicked in the next.

OSAS Does Not Justify Abounding In Sin

I recently picked up the book entitled Green Zone (aka Imperial Life in the Emerald City) by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. In chapter 3, You’re in Charge!, I came across the following, which caused me to ponder the comparative thought many seem to believe when it comes to Once Saved Always Saved (aka OSAS).

“My driver, an English-speaking law student who had not dared to flout a traffic rule before the war, now coolly drove on the wrong side of the street, into opposing traffic at times, to avoid traffic jams. When I asked him what he was doing, he turned to me, smiled, and said, ‘Mr. Rajiv, democracy is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want.’” (p. 52)

Paul tells us in Romans 5:20b-21 and 6:1-2, ‘But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’

Although scripture declares we are not to abound any longer in sin, but have been ordained to walk in good works by the workmanship of God (Ephesians 2:8-10), all too often many professing Christians find ourselves (whether consciously or subconsciously) gravitating to wickedness rather than righteousness. And even though we may not declare such outwardly, within our hearts we almost (or sadly even outright) seem to try to justify our lack of obedience.

Many times in our lost state we may have moments of fear, genuine worry, about where we may spend eternity based on our acknowledgment of poor morality or measuring up to God’s standard of holy perfection. Then we profess Christ with our mouth at our doorstep, a local event (concert, tent meeting, stadium, crusade, etc.), or local church; claiming we realize we are a sinner who needs the forgiveness of Christ, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, we ask Christ to come into our hearts, possibly get baptized (but there be some who do not even make it to this step of obedience), and then we are all but done with our Christian walk and fellowship with our Savior.

We have done what we have been told must be done to give us a clear conscious and free eternal access to heaven, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO HEREAFTER. We allow sin to abound in our life, expecting, almost demanding, grace must also abound to cover whatever our flesh desires to do; even if is in total opposition to God and His Word, for we have prayed the prayer. As the taxi driver above, we smile, ‘Once Saved Always Saved (salvation) is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want.’

With our backs pressed hard against the wall we may not claim this, but our actions declare it loud and clear both to God and man. When asked, we quickly mimic, ‘I am a Christian’, though we have no desire to attend church, pray, read or study scripture, speak or ponder the things of God, nor has there been any change in our thoughts and actions since the day we claim to have put faith in Christ.

No, Christians are not perfect, but there is more to Christianity than simply stating ‘I am a Christian’. James tells us (ch. 2) ‘Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.’

Now, let me make it fully clear, I am an advocate who believes scripture teaches once a person is truly saved, they cannot lose salvation; for we are in Christ (Romans 8). Yet, grace is not a license to sin, nor is profession of faith without works WHICH MUST FOLLOW (because of the spiritual quickening and indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us) a proof one is forgiven and bound for heaven. Anyone who claims salvation, yet has no desire for a personal relationship with Christ, needs desperately to examine themselves and seek repentance; for a truly repentant heart does as Christ: gives themselves over to the will of God rather than their own will.

Full or Half-Hearted Repentance

I was reading an article today at Challies.com, entitled Real Guilt and Sinfulness, and the following words of the writer just stood out to me:

I have met countless people who consider themselves Christians and who admit to sin in their lives and feel guilt and remorse for individual sins, but who seem unable or unwilling to admit the incontrovertible fact that their hearts are in rebellion against God.

This statement really made me think about my life before Christ, but also my life after Christ.

I have personally known persons who would not outright claim they were perfect, yet at the same time have difficulty confessing they were at fault for a particular act; lest they could somehow limit or nullify their part of the blame, by focusing more attention on the action(s) of another who surely is more than or just as guilty as they. This can be easily seen in children, whether between siblings or friends, but is rather easily found in the lives of adults as well. I suppose this shows our tendency away from true repentance; for although we may inwardly feel guilt or remorse for personal sins (for whatever one may name as sin in their life), we still have a difficult, almost impossible, time testifying of our guilt before God without casting some or all of the guilt upon another.

As I look at the statement above, I can’t help but ponder the idea of whether or not we as Christians have kept some of our pre-Christian ideas or excuses. I would assume most professing Christians would acknowledge in our pre-quickening state, many, if not all, seldom saw themselves in outright rebellion against God, but merely making mistakes, doing bad things, and just messing up – like everybody does. We would do better next time. The reality is, I fear, we as professing Christians do not see our hearts as we really are when we presently act in rebellion against God. We may humbly shake our heads in agreement with the pastor that scripture teaches there are sins of omission and commission, but do we confess any act we do contrary to the truth of God is done in outright rebellion?

We know better, yet do it anyway! Is this not our heart in rebellion against God? How do we repent of such, when we are confronted with such a truth by the Holy Spirit or spiritual brother/sister in Christ? Do we confess the act, but digress from repentance of the fullness of our sin? Our act of sin is not simply a mistake, but a willful disobedience in outright rebellion against the Holy One we claim to have redeemed us from the very bondage of transgression we so eagerly return to embrace (for whatever cause)! We cannot simply wink at sin, as if it is merely a mistake done in ignorance, or slide it under the rug with our light consideration of it; for all too often we know we are in disobedience, and follow through with the act with a heart and mind steadfast against God!

May God help us to see sin as it truly is, and give us a desire for true full repentance from it!

Technology: The Gradual Time Thief

I happened upon a blog/website today, while doing a quick search to look for a review of a book I was questioned about by a friend of mine but have not read myself. At Challies’ site, I found an interesting article regarding what could be termed Technology: The Gradual Time Thief.

The writer spends a few minutes discussing how he ‘recently came to the realization that email owns me. A good technology that should be at my disposal has instead taken over and put me at its disposal.’ He further shares, ‘When I find myself compulsively glancing at my screen every time I walk by, hoping to see an icon telling me I've got a new message, when I unthinkingly pull out my iPhone to check to see if I've got any new email, I realize I've got a problem. When I sit in meetings with email open, glancing as often to the screen as to the person speaking, I understand that something has gone wrong.’ He goes on to explain, ‘Hear me when I say that email is not a bad thing. It's not a good thing either, really; it's just a thing.’ Then he notes some ideas of how he plans to continue to allow email to be used as a tool, yet not as a controlling factor of his life.

I know personally, this has brought some awareness of my own actions regarding email, blogs, groups, and even Facebook. How much time have I spent checking email, reading blogs, participating in groups, and skimming Facebook feeds, and what percentage of my time has been fruitful in gleaning instructive, important, and productive info worth the hours exhausted in doing so?

As a Christian, I cannot help but ask myself, have I allowed at least equal time for God and my family, in the study of His Word and prayer, along with communication and interaction with my love ones? I scarcely wish to compare.

As the writer notes, I too do not believe interaction with the use of email, blogs, groups, Facebook, etc. to be bad or should be totally denied, for they serve their purpose; but I do believe we need to ensure we are in control of the technology, rather than it being in control of us. We must beware, because it does not necessarily overcome us at the onset, but seemingly gradually over a time of habit till it becomes our norm.

Atheist Presents Gospel, Christian Exposes Unbelief

Apparently, the known atheists Christopher Hitchens sat down with the former ‘minister’ of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, Marilyn Sewell, for an interview. The discussion was based around Hitchens book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Interestingly, Hitchens describes himself through the words of Pascal, ‘in his Pensées, his great apology for Christianity—“so made that they cannot believe”,’ declaring he is one of the ‘10 percent of us (who) just never can bring themselves to take religion seriously.’ Though, he does not deny ‘religion as natural to humans’ or that ‘we do seem in the majority to have a tendency to worship, and to look for patterns that lead to supernatural conclusions,’ it would seem that he apparently believes he was created (or evolved) without equal proneness to such things within his own being. He notes, it’s not because of intellect, so must it be natural selection? I jest.

In question #4, Hitchens not only presents the gospel, but also exposes Sewell’s unbelief all in one sentence:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

From here, the interview seems to turn from Sewell asking Hitchens of his unbelief (atheism), to Hitchens further exposing Sewell’s unbelief of Christian theology and doctrine. Hitchens declares, ‘Paul says, very clearly, that if it is not true that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we the Christians are of all people the most unhappy. If none of that’s true, and you seem to say it isn’t, I have no quarrel with you.’ Later, Sewell even shares, ‘I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place, let me just say that…I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself.’

Hitchens does make a valid point regarding works, in that he says: ‘any good action by a religious person could be duplicated or matched, if not surpassed, by someone who didn’t believe in god,’ which focuses on the ‘works based salvation’ presented by many professing Christians. People, both of the saved and unsaved, do both good and bad works in the flesh, but the differences is that God also judges the motives (the heart) behind the works, and the faith and unbelief associated with them. So, although we can see persons do good deeds, even marvelous selfless acts of kindness, it does not, in and of itself, ensure them the immortality of heaven. Repentance of sin and faith in Christ does; though good deeds should not be absent, but flow forth from such quickening of the spirit (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In the interview, I can’t determine who deserves more remorse. The atheist who declares he was created without the ability to believe, or the professing Christian who claims she agrees not only with ‘almost everything’ the atheist says but while stating she takes the Scriptures seriously (and even reads her grandmother’s Bible), she isn’t sober enough to take it literally nor any of the teachings.

F- Biology Confusion

The Bing search posted the other day on the front page of MSN read, Another Pregnant Man.

It further states, ‘The man is Scott Moore, who grew up as Jessica. His parents helped him make the transition to being male at a young age.’ According to the New York Daily News, Scott (aka Jessica) apparently told his/her parents that (s)he ‘realized he wanted to be a man’ around 11 years old. But, because (s)he is actually a female, (s)he had to start taking male hormones when (s)he was 16 years old. Although they did remove some female anatomy, the cost of surgery meant (s)he could not have the ‘full sex reassignment surgery’; therefore, (s)he ‘still has female reproductive organs’.

Moore’s partner Thomas, was born as the female named Laura, but ‘underwent sex reassignment surgery last year’. Thomas has two children ‘from a previous relationship with a woman who has since passed away.’

This story is just so bizarre, and apparently is not the only one of its kind. Just looking at the facts presented, how can one claim such is natural, normal, or suggest it should be considered even remotely similar to marriage or the proper natural relationship of a man and a woman according to nature (not to mention the Holy Word of God)?

We have, according to the articles, two people born female who desired to be likened unto males. The one (Thomas, aka Laura) that was able to have the sex reassignment was once already in a relationship with a woman. That by definition is homosexuality. The other (Scott, aka Jessica) was born female, did not have sex reassignment, and is now using her female reproductive organs to carry a child, all the while claiming to desire to be male. This too is homosexuality, with even a more perverted twist. Being both females, they could not biology produce a child, so (s)he ‘got pregnant using the sperm of a friend in June 2009, the Daily Mail reports.’

But, yet there is even more confusion to the story. Not only do we have (1) two females wanting to be males; (2) with one female wanting to be male, yet carry a baby as a female; (3) they are ‘legally married’ because Scott (aka Jessica) still uses her female birth certificate to do so.

It is amazing at what lenghts people will go to try to justify their love of sin, and not only with such cases as these, but with many other sins we have and are guilty of committing ourselves. May we be moved by the Holy Spirit unto conviction to repent of sin, and put our faith in Jesus Christ. Pray for your children and those you know, for such stories may surely become the 'norm' should those who despise the Light have their way...

Parents Know Your Children - Church Know Their Parents

Granted, I haven’t really stayed up-to-date with all the news surrounding Rifqa Bary, who has seemingly been labeled the Christian Convert in more than a few articles, but in reading a few reports today of her apparent runaway with the help of church leadership, I couldn’t help but consider a few thoughts in regards to the situation.

1. One article states that Rifqa met the persons of Global Revolution Church through Facebook. This brings up the question; do we know what our children are doing on the internet, and who they may be conversing with online? What are they searching for or being presented with, and what types of topics or activities are they taking part in? Are they beneficial or harmful to the mental, physical, and spiritual wellbeing of our children? We can’t and won’t know, unless we take an active role in the personal lives of our sons and daughters. This is not limited to just the internet or cell phone contacts, but also such communication with others from family, church, school, and the neighborhood.

2. There is also the mentioning that Rifqa was apparently previously baptized without the knowledge or consent of her parents. As one who is a member and attends a local Baptist church, I believe we need to remember the biblical God-given leadership of the home as being to the father, as the legal given to the parents, and not try to usurp authority over such. I believe it is more important to try and reach the parents, rather than create animosity or separation between the parent and the child (especially under 18). Conversion takes place in the heart/spirit/soul of an individual and the Holy Spirit, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ; whereas baptism is merely the outward act of obedience of a good conscience toward that faith, and could be delayed if necessary.

3. It appears that the church leadership based their judgments of coercing or helping the girl to run away from home on the words of Rifqa herself, but I can’t help but wonder if possibly preconceived ideas from the mass resources on negative Islamic faith and practices from the news media and elsewhere played a part in their reasoning also. Again, are we not to at least attempt to contact the parents of a child of whom we have confiding in us, or try our best to investigate the claims to see if there is any merit to them? There have been plenty of stories children have told to only later find out they were somewhat misunderstanding the complete story and some outright lying, so should we not be hesitant in making judgments regarding children and their parents till we searched out the truth and find support for the claims we are given?

4. Rifqa’s father claims he loves her, and that she is free to practice any religions she wants. He also states that she has been labeling herself as a Christian since 14 years old, so why would Rifqa now believe or declare a fear of physical harm from her father? As a father, it would break my heart to hear my daughter claim she feared for her safety or life because of me. We are supposed to be the protectors of our children, with our homes a safe haven for them to run to when the whole world seems to be falling down around them. If our children feel they have been rejected by all, they should know we as their fathers (and mothers) are here for them. Even in poor judgment and at times they need correction, they should know it is done in love and for their benefit.

My points here have less to do specifically about the situation with Rifqa (for I am far lacking in information to judge all the factors of such a case), and more as a thinking process of what would/should we do if we were presented with a similar situation within our home or at our church. Parents – we should know our children! And church members – we need to know the parents of the children that may come to our church or contact us without their dad or mom. We are to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves; therefore let us pray and act upon intelligent decisions.

Haiti Earthquake: Judgment or Prophecy

In the wake of the recent tragedy in Haiti, namely the enormous earthquake which has sent many a souls out into eternity, the notable Rev. Pat Robertson made the following comments according to CBS News.

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," Robertson said. "They were under the heel of the French ... and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.'"

The article then quotes Rev. Paul Raushenbush's words directed at Rev. Pat Robertson: "Go to Hell, Pat Robertson -- and the sooner the better," he wrote. "Your 'theological' nonsense is revolting. Don't speak for Haiti, and don't speak for God. Haiti is suffering a catastrophe and you offer silliness at best, and racism at the worst."

So, we have a professing Christian declaring the judgment of God upon a nation he believes is reaping what they have sown by making ‘a pact to the devil’, while another Christian declares the judgment of God upon the first to send him to hell for his comments. Do we see that each of these individuals, while claiming Christianity, take the same ideals, with both having a seemingly lack of compassion? So, who is the better role model, declaring the ideals of Christ they both profess to believe and exercise? Is it the one who condemns the Haiti people to hell, or the one who condemns a fellow believer to hell? I scarcely can choose…

The scriptures are pretty clear about reaping and sowing, both in the positive and negative sense, regarding sin and good works. Yet, the scriptures equally reveal in the latter times there will be wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, etc. Scripture also speaks (in John 9) of a man born blind, whereby the disciples questioned Christ as to whether the meaning of the man’s blindness was due to the sin of himself or his parents. In this passage the disciples (i.e. believers) specifically asked Christ was the reason for the man being born blind due to the judgment of sin (whether his own or his parents). Christ’s answer was, ‘Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.’ Christ’s response was not to say that the man nor his parents had never sinned, but that the man’s blindness was based on the sovereignty of God and not sin.

I used to easily cast judgment myself, as similar circumstances such as Hurricane Katrina struck hard the city of New Orleans and elsewhere, but I have come to rather be more cautious in reserving my opinion of what may and may not be the judgment of God upon a person, people, or place. For it is true that individually whosoever ‘soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption’ and that ‘the wages of sin is death’; and though there is forgiveness of sin through Christ, there is still the chastisement of the Lord and consequences of sin which may affect us the rest of our days. And ‘we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together’ because of the sin and death upon the world because of corruption, along with the appointed ‘acts of nature’ the scriptures prophecy shall be and come.

Therefore, I must conclude, that we (as man) cannot so easily judge a person, people, or nation regarding the punishment of God; for it seems to me, there are those things which come upon us because of our sin, and there be those things which come because they must needs be to declare ‘the works of God’. This is not to say that we cannot see sin as sin, whether in ourselves or others, by the principles of the scriptures, but I am doubtful we can judge tragedy and death is always connected to the apparent sin or rejection of God by a certain person, persons, or place.

Case and point is thus: Take the homosexual, along with a faithful pastor. Both find themselves in the hospital, as the doctor declares to them they have inoperable cancer. The church prays fervently for their pastor, while there are no believers who even know the homosexual to pray for. The time comes; whereby the homosexual and the pastor die, and go out into eternity. Judge ye: if thus was judgment upon the one for the sin of homosexuality, what was the reason for the non-healing of the pastor, and how does one determine the difference?

So, in conclusion, if this earthquake is the judgment of God: is that to say that even the non-Haiti and professing Christians who perished, was because they too (or their forefathers) 'swore a pact to the devil'; they were just in the wrong place and the wrong time; they were being punished for helping the Haiti people; or when God judges He doesn't differentiate between the just and the unjust?

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Click below to read the full Manhattan Declaration.

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience