1. ABORTION & THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE

Sometimes I wonder if we believers really take God's Word seriously. I mean to say, Does God speak "idle words"? Did He inspire "idle words"? Surely not! If we are to believe in the inspiration of Scripture we should certainly take every word and phrase seriously when seeking God's mind on a subject. Let us apply this to the abortion issue.

Now there are to my mind clear passages which would make abortion morally wrong, but I have seen these passages of Scripture debated back and forth by believers holding different views on the subject (yes, a minority of believers see abortion as an amoral act, believing that the "breath of life" is present at birth rather than conception). While these passages are valuable to the anti-abortion argument, I think one small phrase found in our English Bible in both the Old and New Testaments settles the issue - if we take seriously the idea of Scripture being "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).

The phrase "with child" is used to translate the Hebrew hareh in a number of OT passages (Gen. 38:24-25; 2 Kings 15:16; Jer. 31:8; etc.) and also the Greek en gaster eeho in the NT (the prime example being used of Mary - Matthew 1:18). The idea expressed by such a phrase is clear. A pregnant woman, Biblically viewed, is not carrying around some "thing" that will "become" a child; to the contrary, she is "with child" the entire time from conception onward!

2. IN AND OUT & THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

A movie is out on video now called In and Out. It stars Kevin Kline and tells the story of a man about to be married who is "outed" as a homosexual on an awards show by a former student turned actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the movie is spent with him trying to prove he is not "gay," finally admitting in the end (thanks to Tom Selleck's character) that in fact yes, he "realizes" that he is gay after all.

The movie would have been very entertaining until we stop to realize that we are being brainwashed by this garbage. Read me: THERE ARE NO STUDIES PROVING ANY GENETIC SOURCE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY - some studies have been done, but are "inconclusive." What we have with the homosexual "orientation" argument is a case where if you say something long enough to enough people and get yourself a lobby in Washington, your ideas become "true."

The movie In and Out both assumes and reinforces the idea that homosexuals are homosexual not by choice, but by birth. In other words, we are told, no one chooses to lead a homosexual life; they just realize and "accept" who they in fact "are." This is a lie. Scripture is very clear : homosexuality is rebellion against our Creator and His purpose for marriage (read Romans 1). Further, it is biological insanity. Homosexuals are not a true "minority" - that idea also reinforces something never proven: that "sexual preference" is a birth trait just like skin color, ethnicity, or sex. Believers are beginning to hedge on this issue (e.g., Tony Campolo; Ron Sider) at a time when we need to be saying "Thus Says the Lord." The Biblical truth is simple: the homosexual is "in" sin and needs, by God's grace, to come "out."

3. CHRISTIANS WHO HATE

By way of a balanced perspective I want to express equal disdain for so-called believers who treat homosexuals as unredeemable outcasts (hmmmm ... kind of like lepers in Jesus' day? or maybe like prostitutes?). Phil Johnson (excellent links page) reviewed a website run by a Baptist group that uses the phrase "godhatesfags" in its web address. Brothers and sisters, this is sick behavior ... at least as sick as what they purport to hate! The Good News about Christ's death, resurrection and the Kingdom of God is a message for all - no sin, including homosexuality (or bestiality or even child-molesting!), is so great that it nullifies the blood of our beloved Saviour! To all who believe (which includes repentance), His blood covers their sin. I do not think we promote the Gospel one iota by using words like "fag" and telling jokes about homosexuals or by treating them with a disdain foreign to the mercy available in Christ.

I am reminded of a young co-worker years ago who had started associating with a group of believers and was very open to the Gospel. That is, until one night when her "christian" friends began laughing over a meal about "those sick faggots," etc. That young lady ran from anything remotely resembling Christianity and, to my knowledge, never looked back. You see, her mother was involved in a lesbian relationship at the time. While her mother will answer to God for her homosexuality, and the young lady will answer for her rejection of the Gospel (if she persists) - I dare say that the ones who will face the rebuke of their Lord are the ones mouthing off at the dinner table. The sad part is that those believers had no idea what they had done. Selah.

4. JIM BAKKER & JIMMY SWAGGERT - THEN & NOW

Recently, I have seen "updates" on both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert. Taking a "then & now" perspective in hindsight, the results (at least for me) are ironic.

"THEN" - I never really cared that much for Bakker and his "feel good" message ... when he fell - God forgive me - I was rather glad; served the heretic right, you know. However, Swaggert was a "repentance and holiness" preacher that told it like it was! When he fell, I was rather shocked. The future back then was obvious to me : Bakker would continue on the road of crime & depravity, while Swaggert would submit to his denomination's discipline, seek the Lord in true repentance, and bounce back more "anointed" than ever! Well, like Bakker says, "I WAS WRONG." Swaggert did everything he could to hold on to what he had built - to the point of leaving the AofG and once again forming associations with the likes of Hagin and Copeland.

"NOW" - I recently read an "update" on Swaggert in Christianity Today ... and I do not see that his goal has changed - he seems to really believe the lie that so often marks the downfall of televangelists : "God needs me." Bakker, however, has undergone major spiritual renovation (NOTE : he lost everything; sometimes that's what it takes) - he assumes full responsibility, manifests genuine repentance, identifies his former message of "prosperity" as a lie, and is a pleasure to listen to. God has dealt with Jim Bakker. Truly, He is Sovereign and His plans are not at all like our's.

5. WHY I LIKED THE MOVIE MAD CITY

I recently watched the movie Mad City, starring Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta. It is excellent and I would recommend it to anyone. This thought-provoking movie reveals to us how powerful and manipulative the media really is as a situation (Travolta taking hostages over a lost job) is manipulated by two reporters (Hoffman and Alan Alda). The media actually "creates" their story! I was left wondering : How often does this happen in real life? Answer : Probably more often than we will ever know ...

* Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh - A Contemporary Incarnational Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991) -

This 663 page book covers (in summary fashion) information one would normally have to read several volumes to get. Includes an analysis of the various competing modern Christologies (feminist, black, heterodox, etc.), as well as interrelation between them all. What I like most about Erickson's approach is that all of these Christologies are taken seriously as he identifies both the positive and negative points of each view. His sources cover the early church to the present "Jesus Seminar" types. Save some time; instead of reading the hundreds of books available on different sides in the "Christological controversy," read this one. It will give you a good handle on the whole situation as it relates to Biblical orthodoxy.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." - 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 (KJV).

Those who deny Christ's Deity (JWs, the Way, Christadelphians, etc.) have an enormous problem here. This is an example where it pays to pay attention to the the grammer. The very fact that "God was manifest in the flesh" is itself a powerful statement and many orthodox apologists end their emphasis there. What we must see here is that each descriptive phrase in the verse refers back to the subject (GOD). It was GOD Who was "justified in the Spirit" - GOD Who was "seen of angels" - GOD Who was "preached to the Gentiles" - GOD Who was "believed on in the world" - and, here's the clincher, it was GOD Who was "received up into glory"! The simple fact is that all of these descriptions refer to Christ, but the grammer of our verse necessitates them referring to God. How can this be?!? How could God have been "received up into glory"? Who "received" Him? And "up" from where? Those relying on finite logic have no choice but to twist this passage (or come up with a "better" translation!). But those of us content to accept what the Scriptures teach in faith will say with Paul "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness ... "