That Crazy Christian

Prison Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000

Good day all!!

Late last year, my church decided to support a local ministry that focused on evangelism and teaching in the local community. It is a very "old school" ministry, so much so that they don't even have a website that I can link for you here. My church's sponsorship meant that we would give them some money, and that the elders would be encouraging us members to contribute time to helping out their causes.

It just so happened that right around that time I began to look for ways to be challenged to become a better teacher. I had always assumed a teaching posture in the church as I feel that this is how God has gifted me. I can understand things and explain them to people who don't understand them. I've been a children's Sunday School teacher for a few years now, and I'm an occasional guest speaker for the adult class.

Yes, I know, compared to the Al Mohler's and John MacArthur's of the world, that is really small potatoes. Nonetheless, I count it as a privilege to contribute my little bit to God's people.

At any rate, when the call went out to members of my church to contribute time to the ministry, a particular aspect of what they did caught my eye: Prison Ministry.

For some reason I have always been attracted to this type of ministry. I can remember being in college and reading blogs (they were just starting to become a thing) on ministries in prisons. I remember a particular article that stuck out to me saying that Prison Ministry is usually done poorly. Either those involved are bad or false teachers, or they are good teacher with terrible messages. What particularly stood out was that there were genuine believers behind bars who received no instruction in the word. A prisoner was quoted as saying "I don't even need my Bible, I already know what they're going to say."

Typically, it seems, these bad messages either assume the prisoners aren't saved and only preach the Gospel, or the ignore God's word altogether and try to be a friend to the guys behind bars.

I remember trying to picture myself behind bars and never hearing God's word preached. How frustrating that would be! Yet, the need remains to preach the Gospel because many inmates come to prison ministries not having any idea about how to be saved nor the need to be saved.

No one said it was an easy job, I guess.

Well, all of that was racing through my mind when the time came to make my contribution to the new ministry. I marvel at how God puts things together sometimes. I needed to sharpen my skills, this ministry needed a guy with skills, and for some reason that one article I had read (among the literally thousands I've read since) always stuck out to me. So I volunteered to teach a class to the prisoners if they needed me to do so. I didn't really know what to expect from the ministry in response.

They jumped all over the opportunity to have another teacher in the program and invited me to a meeting last Monday.

The meeting went well, I think. I introduced myself, told them of my desire to be of service to their cause. We discussed some of the ins and outs of the ministry. I decided I wanted to preach through First John. I choose First John because it would offer a good balance between preaching the Gospel to the lost and giving instruction to the saved.

One thing I pulled away from this meeting was that this whole endeavor was going to drive me to my knees. I suppose I expected to walk in to the prison, give my lecture, say a prayer, and leave. I have no idea why I thought that would be the situation, but that was kind of the model I had in my head. As it turns out, there is a lot more interaction with the inmates than I realized. They ask questions and expect you to answer them. They have personal issues. They have spiritual issues; not just that they need instruction in the word, but that they need prayer and counseling, even accountability. Some of them are addicted to drugs. Some of them have shattered family lives. Some of them are simply shells of men. You counsel them, pray for them, talk with them. They look at you, as a few of the brothers at the meeting put it, a breath of fresh air. Beautiful feet, I suppose (Rom 10:15)

Ministry just got very real.

While this is certainly not the only place, this is no less a place that is the "tip of the spear". The front lines. This is where our rhetoric is tested, where our slogans are meaningless, and where people's lives are really affected. Sure, I have some influence over the group of 10 year olds I love to see each Sunday morning. Sure, I can be there to support my brothers and sisters in Christ on Sunday and even lead them to Worship. But in prison, like in the mission field, that doesn't mean a thing to someone who has no idea what to do next with their life. That's not to say that I don't love and admire the many brothers and sisters who work hard within our own camps to do what God has put before them, but it is to say that a ministry like a prison is a different battle. A battle with far less margin for error, and far more at stake.

With me in that meeting on Monday were other men, all of whom had varying experience in this ministry. They looked battle hardened, ready for the fight. Some of them looked well used of God, but they all had a certain fire to them. They knew what they were doing was important, and they knew that God held them to a high standard. It was refreshing to meet more real men of God. I couldn't help but feel like a rookie, a kid, listening to them talk. I knew what most of them were made of.

I guess now we'll find out what I'm made of. . . and I'll be sure to tell you all about it here.

Pray for me brothers and sisters. Pray for this ministry too. God knows we need it.

Random Crazy Stuff III

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:04:00 +0000

I did NOT sleep well and have made some DUMB mistakes so far today. I also haven't really blogged in three days due to my crazy weekend. Therefore, I'll do a "Random Crazy Stuff" for today.

Politics:

If you care to see John McCain's opposition research for Mitt Romney, you can find it here.
Vox Day reminds us of the sheer insanity of our Foreign Policy. He also injects some logic into the right wing response that killing Iranian civilians is somehow not terrorism.
It's always frightening when a Federal Judge doesn't seem to understand the Constitution.
Mitt Romney is going to have his fair share of problems rallying the conservative base in the general election. This article is just a glimpse of that.
Newt Gingrich want to colonize the moon. No. . . you read that right.
Ron Paul had a good response to this:
If you are on Twitter and you aren't following this guy, you are doing it wrong.

Christianity:

Tim Challies has another phenomenal info graphic.
We have a new king. *sigh*
Eddie Long felt need to apologize to the Jewish community for that little stunt. Too bad he also didn't feel the need to repent before God.
Good to know that Cripplegate supports my viewpoint about Christ in the Old Testament. Also, my pastor is currently preaching about Christ through the Old Testament.

Miscellaneous:

This movie looks frightening. Also very important.
I'm pleased to link The Summer Book Company in my "People/Organizations I Support" section. They have some of the best Homeschool stuff out there.
The Giants won. Yay. This Steeler fan dislikes the Patriots. However, I'd take 9 more Tom Brady Super Bowl MVP's to never see that ABOMINATION of a Super Bowl Halftime Show again.
Speaking of the Halftime show, Barnabas Piper (Son of John Piper) had the TWEET OF THE YEAR (!!!)
Be sure to follow me on Twitter, like me on Facebook, and subscribe to this blog!

Lot's of stuff coming this week once I get some sleep. Until then. . .

Join Us for Church This Morning! 2/5

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Good Day All!

My church broadcasts its entire worship service online.

Please feel free to click here and join us as we worship the Lord and hear from His word. If you need a password, it is CBC.

Church starts at 10:30 AM EST!

In the meantime, enjoy one of my favorite Worship songs:

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

On day one we looked at Luke 16. Yesterday we looked at a number of Scriptures to continue to discover a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look specifically at remarriage and critique some faulty conclusions others have made.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 3

What about remarriage? Truthfully the Bible doesn't say nearly as much about remarriage. I'm not sure why. Nonetheless, the fact remains that little is said of it. We know that if a person's spouse dies, the survivor is free to remarry (1Cor 7:39). We can say for certainty that if the divorce is NOT Biblical, then the two are not free to be remarried except to each other (Matt 19:9). However, nothing concrete and clear is said of those who are left after a Biblical divorce.

Brothers and Sisters, where Scripture is silent, we must be as well. Now it is a generally accepted throughout Christian history that remarriage after a Biblical divorce is not forbidden nor sinful. After all, Jesus says "except sexual immorality" in Matt 19:9, and Paul says "a (believer) is not under bondage" in 1Cor 7:15. Not under bondage means, well, NOT UNDER BONDAGE. Certainly it's a reasonable position, even admitting that we lack a concrete passage dealing with remarriage save for 1Cor 7:39. Many great expositors and students of Scripture have taken this position.

John Piper takes a different position. I pause to take a deep breath, and look on in horror as I am forced once again to disagree with Piper, whom I admire and appreciate as a great brother in the Lord. One of these days I'm going to write a tribute to John Piper because he has had an indelible influence on my life and I'm tired of taking him to task. He's right way more often than he's wrong and when he is wrong it is infrequent and on secondary matters.

At any rate, Piper wrote this paper. With all due respect, he's wrong.

I won't pick apart his paper piece by piece, but I will take a few things he says here and show you good examples of eisegesis. Eisegesis is when you inject a meaning into Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself and determine it's own meaning.

Take, for example his deconstruction of Matthew 19:

"Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage."

Later he says:

"I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke."

For one thing, as I said in part 1, we can not look to Luke 16 as an authoritative Scripture on divorce and remarriage in light of the fact that it was not the thrust of Jesus' point in Luke 16. Mark 10, however, is different and much like the need for reconciliation between Matt 19 and Luke 16, we must also reconcile Matt 19 and Mark 10.

I have a problem with Piper's reconciliation because he is writing a portion of Scripture out of Matthew by essentially erasing it by saying it must conform to Mark 10. Rather, a better handling of Scripture would be to say that Mark 10 leaves some things unsaid, and Matthew 19 says those things. That way BOTH portions of Scripture can say all they need to say and are harmonized perfectly. Pipers method requires an eraser. My method requires a reverence for all of Scripture.

Piper makes some conclusions at the end of his paper and says the following:

"In the New Testament the question about remarriage . . . it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30)."

Let's take him point by point, shall we?

1. "Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God."

This is true. However, to be fair to Scripture, there are instances where this one-flesh relationship ends. If it being one flesh meant that it were always to remain that way, then 1Cor 7:15 and 1Cor 7:39 would be out of place. So while the statement is true, it is limited.

2. "Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship —this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding"

Not so. In a 1Cor 7:15 situation, did God end the marriage or did the unbelieving spouse? Is the believer under bondage?

3. "God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses."

While it's true that He does end it that way, by His word he also allows for other endings. Again, you can't erase Jesus' word in Matt 19 or in Matt 5 simply because the statement was incomplete in Mark 10 or Luke 16. You also can't say that Jesus is placing a bondage on those in marriage with Mark 10 and Luke 16 and say that 1Corinthians 7 is wrong to say that a believer is not under bondage.

4. "The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary"

No argument here.

5. "Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come"

And here is where I have my biggest problem. Piper, and those who agree with him, are taking a poor interpretation and poor handling of Scripture and turning it into a burden on their Biblicaly divorced brothers and sisters. They are putting on them a yoke that they put on no other group and a yoke that is not put on them by Scripture.

Piper has to write an entire position paper in which he ignores parts of Scripture to come to this conclusion. No one can point to a scripture or passage that deals with remarriage in a way that he concludes. Rather, the texts must be massaged and compromised in some cases, to come to his conclusion.

No, divorce for flippant and stupid reasons is not Biblical. One can certainly be sure that remarriage in those cases is exactly what Piper and his compadres are claiming it is. But they cannot ignore Scripture nor can they make a rule where Scripture does not.

Treating Matt 5 and Matt 19 on their own, letting them speak for themselves plainly, we see a clear exception. The same is true for 1 Corinthians 7. This cannot be ignored even if other passages do not have the same clauses. The best interpretation of these passages, without doing them harm, is to take them at their word.

There are exceptions to divorce and the subsequent remarriage clauses that follow are also subject to those exceptions. God has shown tremendous grace to believers in those circumstances and our attitude ought to reflect this grace. We ought to be like Christ and make exception where He does. Moreover, there is a lack of clear teaching dealing directly and solely with remarriage in the circumstances of Biblical divorce. Scripture is silent.

We should take the hint.

In closing, I'd like to beg you, my dear readers, to pray and help my fellow divorced believers. Especially those who are also single parents. It is a lonely place to be. One thing I was struck by when I began being social again after my own marriage fell apart was that modern American Churches are overwhelmingly geared toward families. I often felt out of place, misunderstood, and as if I was falling through the cracks. For me, there were long times of despair and sadness. I thought that no woman would ever understand or want me again. I questioned whether God wanted me.

I'm happy to report that God's grace is amazing. I remain a single man, but I am, thankfully, past the initial stages of depression. Others, however, never find their way out. Single parents and divorced believers need our affection and love. They need to be cared for and helped. They need to see Christ's care for them manifested in His people. The last thing they need is an additional burden not found in Scripture. Yes, many of them will remain single and scarred, but some will not. After these past few days, I hope that you'll see that in some cases, that is a good thing and an occasion to praise God with our divorced brethren, not an occasion for rebuke.

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Yesterday (click here for part one) we looked at Luke chapter 16 in beginning to lay a framework for a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look at other Scriptures and continue to allow Scripture to speak to us on this matter.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 2

When we consider Luke 16:18 in light of other verses, we are presented with a problem if we emphasize that Jesus was teaching about the doctrine of divorce and remarriage in Luke 16. Take Matthew 19:19 for instance.

Here the pharisees ask a very clear question in Matt 19:3. Jesus answers by teaching God's view of marriage. To the pharisees, this didn't really answer the question so they ask a more specific question in Matt 19:7. Jesus' response in Matt 19:8 responds with a rebuke, and his teaching in Matt 19:9 couldn't be more clear.

Let's look at that verse:

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." - (Mat 19:9 NKJV)

Look again at Luke 16:18 . . .

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery. - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

Very similar verses aren't they? However, there is one difference that makes both these statements a seeming contradiction. That little clause in Matt 19:9 that says "except for sexual immorality". Luke 16:18 is a sweeping, all encompassing, statement, and Matt 19:9, because of that clause, is not a sweeping, all encompassing, statement.

As I said in my series on hermeneutics, God is a perfect communicator. If we take both verses as being the final doctrinal statements on divorce and remarriage, we have a muddled and murky mess. Is it ok to divorce and remarry in the case of sexual immorality of not? However, if we allow Scripture to speak for itself and don't emphasize a point that is not emphasized by the context of a Scripture, these two verse are thoroughly harmonious.

This is the exact situation we are facing here. Matt 19 is Jesus answering a direct and clear question about divorce and remarriage. Luke 16 is Jesus teaching about self-righteousness. Clearly we can take a look at how divorce and remarriage could play a role in a self-righteous life and to do that, we ought to give precedence to Luke 16. However, to build a doctrine on divorce and remarriage, and not on self-righteousness, we have to give Matt 19, and scripture like it that deals directly with marriage, precedence.

Now, my dear readers, I want to briefly talk about another matter that has great application here. I want to warn you about being "red-letter" Christians. We've all seen, and most of us probably own, Bibles with the words of Jesus in red. Some Christians want to give priority to those words. While they are certainly not less important, I tell you the truth that they are not MORE important either.

2 Tim 3:16 says:

"All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," - (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

The greek word for "all" is πᾶς ("paws") which Vines defines as "radically means "all." Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety. " It is the same word used in Matt 4:4 when Jesus emphasizes that man lives on EVERY word of God (and not on bread alone). So when it is used here in 2 Tim, we can see clearly that God is putting all Scripture on the same plain. When you think about it, this makes sense. After all they are His words whether He spoke them in person or "inspired" them through another writer.

How does this apply to our topic? Well it becomes clear then that we must give equal weight on a topic to everything Scripture has to say about it. When we've done that, we have to accurately plot the boundaries and direction of those Scriptures and see what all of Scripture is teaching us in harmony with it's various parts.

So then, when we look at divorce and remarriage we may not ignore 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. Paul begins the chapter by giving general principles for marriage. He reminds us that marriage is a good thing, that we ought to treat our spouses well, give ourselves to our spouses (yes, he means physically), and finally says that while marriage is fine, singleness is better. In fact, to that last comment, he says that marriage is much better than "burning with passion".

Then in verse 10, Paul gets into divorce and remarriage. First he spells out very clearly that divorce is not an option to fix a bad marriage. All of chapter 7 so far has been written to the believers in Cornith who want to marry one another. He just finished talking about two believers burning in passion for one another, and continues that it is not right for two believers to depart their marriage.

1Cor 7:12 gives a clue that he's now talking to a different group of people when Paul writes "But to the rest . . .". Also, look at what he says there in continuing his thought "I, not the Lord. . . " This plays off of 1Cor 7:10 where he writes "Not I, but the Lord . . .". What does this mean?

Well, it's not a denial of inspiration, that much is clear. Otherwise, this letter to the Corinthians would not be a part of Scripture. Paul is not giving his human opinion here. Instead what it means is simple, what he said in verse 10 was something Jesus had already said (e.g. our text above; Matt 19). Now in verse 12, Paul is saying something new. Stop and think about that for a minute. What we are seeing is the progressive revelation of Scripture. God was not done saying all He had to say about this topic much as He was not done speaking about Eschatology (or whatever other topic) until the rest of the New Testament was written.

What then, does God tell us? 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 is very clear:

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save [your] husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save [your] wife? - (1Cor 7:12-16 NKJV)

Verses 12 & 13 tell us that it is not impermissible to have an unbelieving spouse, and if they want to live with you, a believer, then divorce isn't an option for you. There isn't a mention of problems in the marriage or any other extenuating circumstances here. The question is simple, does your unbelieving spouse want to live with you; yes or no? If yes, then you should continue to do so.

Verse 14 tells us why. The unbeliever is sanctified by your presence in the marriage and your children are holy. This does not mean that the spouse is saved by your presence there, otherwise they wouldn't be unbelieving. It means that your spouse is blessed by you being there. As God blesses the believer, that grace is spread to the unbeliever too. They get to take part in some of the good things coming your way.

As for the children, well, you needn't worry about them either. The fear may be that they would be corrupted and turned away from God by the presence of an unbeliever. While their salvation is far from guaranteed by these circumstances, Paul is instead emphasizing the blessings your children receive by having you, a believer in their life. It is, after all, a far better situation than children growing up in a home where no one is a believer.

My dear readers, I have stop here and marvel at God's goodness in this matter. Look at the optimism of this Scripture in the face of a terrible situation. God is comforting believers in this situation, reassuring them that it's going to be OK and that He remains in complete control. This optimism is reinforced a few verses later as well (1Cor 7:16). What a tremendous God we serve! Oh how He loves you and me!

However, what happens if the unbeliever wants to depart the marriage? Verse 15 is our answer:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. - (1Cor 7:15 NKJV)

It couldn't possibly be more clear. If you are a believer married to an unbeliever who wants to end your marriage, let them go if that's what you think is best. You're not bound to them in that situation. This doesn't mean that we should just be dispassionate about it. We are called to love our spouses (e.g. Eph 5:25) and we can't do that without their being some sort of emotional involvement. Yet, if it comes right down to it, you aren't bound to such a marriage as a believer.

Now, we've looked at three verses of Scripture in depth. There is much more in Scripture about this subject and much of it speaks in far broader terms than our focus here.

What we find in Scripture are some principles about divorce:

God hates divorce. (Mal 2:16)
God doesn't want anyone to get divorced if they can help it. (1Cor 7:10-12)
God forbids divorce except in two cases, adultery (Matt 19:9 & Matt 5:31-32 and abandonment (1Cor 7:15).

Tomorrow we'll finish up this Mini-Series and talk more about remarriage. I'll also take to task those, including John Piper, who would burden Biblically divorced believers with a yoke not put on them by Scripture.

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:00 +0000

Few topics impact me on such a personal basis as this one. I am a divorced man; a single father raising my 10 year old son (who is the second greatest thing to ever happen to me). I won't speak much about my divorce here because I believe it would be disrespectful to my ex-wife and to my son (both of whom read this blog from what I understand).

However so that you know that I am not a Christian blogger living in sin; I will say that my divorce was Biblical and that I was under the authority of elders in my old church when we split. They mourned the loss, but understood and approved of what was happening in my marriage. When I moved to Pennsylvania and joined my current church, the elders here were informed of the situation and echoed the approving sentiments of my previous church.

At no time have I relished the thought of my marriage ending, but there are situations where there is little choice as to how to proceed. God always hates divorce, and he hated mine, but his hatred of it does not mean it is ALWAYS sinful.

And that's all I'll say publicly about that.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 1

Good day all!!

There are certainly very few circumstances where God is permissive of divorce. In fact, one of the doctrines that Jesus taught about and rebuked the pharisees over was their doctrine of divorce. It was prevalent problem in the world in those days, both in Israel and in the greater secular world, just as it is a problem today in the church and in the greater secular world.

In those days, it was believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason he saw fit. The Greeks in Paul's day divorced and remarried seemingly at the drop of a hat. It was much the same in Israel and was largely due to the Pharisees typically narrow legalistic view of righteousness. Essentially, if there was a loophole, the Pharisees would find it and exploit it to make sin seem ok. Mostly this was because they reduced their faith down to a religion of do's and dont's. They believed that if they just did enough religious things they would be seen as righteous in the eyes of God.

The result of this was an apostate and sinful mess. They were fastidious about eating all the right things, saying all the right prayers, wearing all the right clothes, going through all the ceremonies, etc., but their lives were filled with self-righteousness, idolatry, and yes. . . divorce.

Obviously, we're going to focus on that last point for this mini-series. Jesus spoke rather clearly about divorce in Luke 16:18. Since we are big believers in Hermeneutics around here, let's take a look at that verse.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery." - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

This verse comes in the middle of a long session of teaching which begins probably at chapter 15 and ends at chapter 17 verse 10. Luke 16:14 tells us that Jesus' teaching in verse 18 is a response to the Pharisee's "deriding" of Jesus. The greek there is ἐκμυκτηρίζω ("Ek-to-more-ee-zo"), which Thayers Lexicon tells us has a meaning of scoffing and sneering (Vines concurs). It's the same word used in Luke 23:35 where the people scoffed at Jesus as he hung on the cross. That Luke 23 verse kind of gives you a picture of the attitude Jesus was responding too here in Chapter 16 doesn't it?

What caused the Pharisee's to scoff? Immediately before verse 14 is "The Parable of the Unjust Steward". In this parable Jesus told us of a shrewd steward (a chief of the servants in those days) conniving and manipulating those around him to buy friendships. Upon hearing the news that he's losing his job, and finding himself suddenly destitute and unable to work, he calls some people's debts owed to his master. He reduces the debt, making those in debt pleased and now obligated to help take care of the steward. When the master finds out, he is actually impressed with the wicked steward and commends him for his shrewd dealings (indicating that he is also pretty wicked).

Jesus uses this story to teach three points:

Verse 8 - "the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." In other words, worldly people know the ways of the world better than some Godly people know the ways of God. Sad huh?
verse 9 - Jesus then plays off of that shrewdness by saying that the steward was wise enough to make friends for himself, albeit unrighteously. In much the same way we ought to seek to prepare for ourselves. MacArthur takes the viewpoint that the steward used his master's money to buy friends for himself and we should use our Master's money that will "accrue friends for eternity". Older commentators Jameson, Fause,t and Brown agree and say: "then, like the steward, when turned out of one home shall ye secure another; but better than he, a heavenly for an earthly, an everlasting for a temporary habitation. Money is not here made the key to heaven, more than "the deeds done in the body" in general, according to which, as a test of character--but not by the merit of which--men are to be judged" (I rely on commentaries here because I am not focusing on this point, merely trying to give a background for verse 18).
vv. 10-13 - Faithfulness transfers. If you are faithful in a small matter, you'll be faithful in a large matter, and vice-versa. The steward was faithful in his realm to deal in the way he was used to dealing and his master was pleased with him. Same goes for us; if we try to serve two master's, we won't succeed, but if we are faithful in the little things we are given by our master, we'll be faithful in the big things too.

Then we have verse 14. It's pretty clear: The pharisees didn't like what Jesus just said. They were probably pricked by the fact that they were constantly missing the forest for the trees. Jesus picks up on this in verse 15 saying that those things men applaud are an abomination to God. It's another rebuke (among so many in the Gospels) by Jesus of self-righteousness, and the particular self-righteousness of the pharisees. This kind of self righteousness that causes you to pray loudly in the public square but throw out your 14th wife at home because she spilled your dinner all the while making it sound oh so holy. Jesus is clear. That kind of thing is an abomination.

Luke 16:16 is a tough verse to exegete. It's debated constantly by people on different sides of various issues. For example, whole books have been written by men on what "pressing into it" means. I'm not in the mood for that kind of discussion, so I'll just give you my opinion here and move on. Jesus is saying that until John the "Law and the Prophets" were, and now the Kingdom of God is being preached. Which I believe means that prior to John mankind was told about the coming Messiah and now we preach about the Messiah who has come. Since He has come, people are "pressing into the kingdom" or wanting to be saved. It draws the contrast to the pharisees here. The pharisees fancied themselves to be the most righteous. Yet here was God in front of them and they were scoffing at him while those who didn't have the advantages of the pharisees were following Jesus. It's a scathing rebuke.

However, lest we think that Jesus is rebuking the pharisees by rejecting the Old Testament, we have Luke16:17 to set us straight. Jesus makes it clear that the law won't just go away. Personally, I think verse 17 is the lynchpin to understanding this whole passage. For one thing, it makes it clear that Jesus is dealing with the pharisees and their problem of picking out the behavioral aspects of the law (i.e. dietary concerns, etc.); even to the point of creating their own rules (i.e. hand washing rituals, etc.) while simultaneously looking for ways of ignoring the ethical laws and aspects of the law dealing with the heart (i.e. adultery, etc.). He reminds them, even warns them here, that those important heart issues don't go away just because they were careful to say the right prayers.

Ok, I've done a lot of background in order to deal with our text, which is verse 18. In defense of my own longwindedness, I did it because I think it is necessary to point out that verse 18 is NOT the point of Luke 16:1-18. Jesus certainly intends to say exactly what the verse says, and the verse is clear. However, is the subject matter of the verse the point that Jesus is raising? The answer is no, and we know this because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Actually, to be more accurate it sticks out like an example and an illustration of what Jesus is saying to the the pharisees in verses 14-18. To paraphrase Jesus in our own vernacular:

"You pharisees are the same people who act holy and self righteous in public, but God knows what you are really like. You might make a big show out your own righteousness before people and they applaud you, but that kind of emphasis is an offense before God! Before John, there was only the hope of a coming kingdom, but now it's being preached and look at all the people who are pressing to be a part of it! But it would be easier to get rid of the whole earth than to get rid of God's law. Take divorce for instance; this lifestyle of yours filled with divorce and remarriage is nothing but adultery."

So much for the kinder and gentler Jesus modern Christianity wants us to believe. He comes down hard on those pharisees here.

However, I have heard some who have built a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on this verse. Tell me, do you think that it was Jesus' intention in saying this, or Luke's intention in writing this, to build a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on it?

I say no. I say that the point of Luke 16:14-18 is not divorce and remarriage, but rather self righteousness, and divorce was a very relevant example that illustrated the point.

Now, certainly if we can begin to build a doctrine of divorce and re-marriage in the Bible, and we can use this verse as a part of that. I would say that if we are to believe that we are righteous before God and think that our family life has nothing to do with that, we are much like the pharisees here.

If this were all the Bible were to say about this topic, then we would have little to go on in regards to marriage and divorce, however it would be clear. Nonetheless, it is far from all Scripture has to say about the subject. There are numerous verse in the Gospels alone.

Tomorrow we'll examine some of those other verses.

Some Website Tweaks

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:46:00 +0000

Good Day all!

I have not blogged since Thursday and this post is going to be short and have very little in the way of content. Shame on me!

The reason I haven't blogged since Thursday is because my personal life has been a little crazy of late. It will start to slow down a bit after tomorrow (I HOPE!) and I'll be back at it on a daily basis.

The reason for the short post today is because I've spent some time making some improvements to the website.

I've cleaned up the side bar. I got rid of a lot of the titles and forms and just made everything linkable. I got rid of the twitter widget that I never really liked and replaced it with a button to follow me on Twitter. I changed the facebook widget so it wasn't so obnoxious. You can now see the smiling faces of my friends on facebook and can like the blog there if you haven't already. I added Summer Book Company to the organizations I recommend, and added "The Dividing Line" and "Voxic Shock" to the recommended listening section.
Probably the most time consuming change was making the commitment to Social Media. Now, prominently displayed at the bottom of each post will a button to like the post on Facebook, to "+1" the post on Google Plus, and to tweet the post on Twitter. You can also E-Mail the post, Digg it, add it to Technorati, bookmark it on del.icio.us, stumble upon it on Stumble Upon, whatever the heck it is you do on Reddit, and post it to Newsvine. Also, links to "Email", "Share on Facebook", "Twit This", and "Digg This" will appear at the end of each post in your RSS Reader. Please make use of these tools and tell your friends, followers, and other Social Media folks about this blog!

I guess that's really it. That took much longer than it sounds.

I may try to mess around with the blog a little more in the future, but for now I'll let the recent changes set in. I'm trying to find a way to pull out some of my tags and put all of the posts for one tag on a page. I want to do this for posts tagged "About Me", "Mini-Series'", and "Sermonettes". I'll keep playing with it. Additionally I'm going to look into getting a domain name for the blog and I'll also start bothering my graphic artist friends to help upgrade the look of the site.

In the meantime, I'm working on two big posts for you. Tomorrow we'll look at the Scriptures dealing with divorce and see if we can come up with a Biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage. I'll give you my perspective on the matter as a divorced man. Later in the week we'll talk about prayer which I may turn into a mini-series.

Until then, let me know what you think about the new changes. Stay Faithful.

All the Wrong Answers

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:38:00 +0000

Good day all!

It was this article that led me to write this post. I recommend taking a few moments to read through it.

I'll begin by saying something very simple: ANY LAW THAT ENDS WITH "AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY" IS NOT A PRO-LIFE LAW, SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY PRO-LIFERS, AND AMOUNTS TO A COMFORTABLE COMPROMISE TO CONTINUE ABORTION AND NOTHING MORE.

For example: You must...

obtain an ultrasound
visit a counselor
notify your parents
read a pamphlet
sign a form
administer pain killers to the baby
wait 24 hours
have a certain procedure
jump through a hoop
hop on one foot
close your eyes and think really hard

... AND THEN you can kill the baby.

Now tell me, did any of those rules result in anything except a dead child? How pro-life, really, are these laws? So Mr. Colson asking us to rejoice over the fact that a number of states are considering laws that will result in dead babies isn't really a reason to rejoice, is it?

Want to know what is missing from Mr. Colson's article? Personhood. Mr. Colson doesn't mention the word even once. The one thing that will end the debate once and for all is not advocated or presented as a reason to have hope by Mr. Colson. Instead he, and many like him, want you to jump for joy at laws that will result in dead babies.

The only question is: Have you been fooled by this thinking?

I spent some time this afternoon searching around the inter-webs and found many passionate defenses of incrementalist abortion laws. Usually it fell along these lines: "If you could save 12 Jews in the Holocaust, wouldn't you do it?"

In logic, this is called a Red Herring. A Red Herring is an argument that sounds like it answers the question at hand, but really does not. The question isn't "Should we save some babies if we have the opportunity?" Of course we should, no one is arguing that point. Instead, the question is "Should our laws restrict abortion, but still allow it to remain legal?" Or you could ask: "Are there any circumstances where Abortion should be legal?"

The answer to those last questions is, for anyone who wants to respect life; NO.

Yet, all we hear from many pro life groups is that we should work towards making abortion harder. This is why I said to you in my post on Roe v. Wade's 39th Anniversary:

" Join a group dedicated to stopping abortion and be a blessing to them. And join a REAL group that does something REAL to end abortion. Not some group that has luncheons and banquets and gives out stupid awards all the time or runs weak ads on the Christian stations."

No my friends, we should NOT work to make abortion harder. . . we should work towards making Abortion Illegal.

It really. . . REALLY. . . is that simple.

John Piper does the right thing

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:00:00 +0000

Good for John Piper!

Formerly I listed Lectio Divina as a third system for prayer. I've since removed it for the confusion it has caused. We do not endorse contemplative spirituality.

I think that when someone makes a mistake and then does the right thing to make that mistake right and repent ought to be pointed out with the same vigor that the mistake was pointed out.

I'm happy to have John Piper back on my list of go to guys.

The Aftermath of South Carolina

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:33:00 +0000

First of all, thank you for sticking around while I had some down time on the blog. I have been feeling under the weather for the past few days. I'm feeling better now and as you can see, I'm back at it today!

Good Day All!!

Ok, first of all. . . WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED??

Newt Gingrich, South Carolina. . . you're serious? Newt "The Playboy" Gingrich? Did you guys lose your minds down there?

Let's break this down. . .

I wrote on Friday:

Despite the 11th hour spin job by the Republican Establishment Media, Newt isn't going to be able to get out of this one. Christian conservatives aren't going to vote for this guy. Enough people will be slow to come around that Newt will still have a good showing, but he won't touch the 31% he was seeing in the polls yesterday.

He finished with 40.4%. Second place was Mitt Romney with almost 27.8%. That's 68.2% of the most conservative, Chrisitan influenced Republicans in the nation that voted for a man who wants to have an open marriage while betraying conservative principles throughout his career, and a Mormon who is clearly saying what he needs to say in order to get elected.

I have to tell you, I'm stunned. And angry.

This tells us that we simply can't count on Christians to think Biblically. The Republican Establishment Media (Limbaugh, et. al.) went into mega spin mode for Newt and tried to do a lot of damage control. I didn't think it would work, but. . . it did. Christian voters listened to Rush and Hannity. They ignored the moral principles of Scripture.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised in a state that boos the golden rule.

It seems that most were swayed by Newt's response during the CNN debate the evening that the news came out of his marriage infidelity. For the record, here is that response:

Keep in mind that that response was CHEERED by much of the Republican Establishment Media. They whipped up the base to see this as an attack against "Newt the right wing hero", instead of an expose' of a dirty old hypocrite. Newt led the charge to impeach Clinton for receiving oral sex in the White House and has consistently lectured America on the need for traditional marriage and traditional families. . . all the while leaving his wives while they lay on their deathbeds and fantasizing about open marriages.

Newt's hot temper is on display here. He starts off with his smarty pants answer of "No, but I will." Then he goes into how "appalled" he is. He finishes up with how despicable the question is.

The guy sure does have courage, I'll say that. To say that a question about his outrageously immoral behavior is despicable is, well, let's just leave it at courageous. . . in that completely non-heroic sort of way.

Stunned. I am absolutely stunned. When my children ask "Dad, when did you lose faith in America?" I'm just going to play them that video. . . or this one.

Anyway, where does this leave us?

Newt has propelled himself into the top tier with the South Carolina fiasco. Ron Paul had a disappointing finish in South Carolina and is slipping from the top tier. Santorum had a better showing than people thought he would, but still it was nothing to write home about.

Going into Florida, it's a two man race between Newt and Mitt. I think Santorum will make some efforts, but he's done after Florida. Ron Paul is ignoring Florida altogether. Paul's campaign is instead focusing on the dozen or so upcoming primaries in caucus states where they feel they can do best and will score some delegates. Honestly, if that plan doesn't work, the Paul campaign is over.

Frankly, I think that is likely to be the case as I think this race will come down to Newt vs. Mitt. If that happens, Mitt will probably win as he's the only one of the two mathematically able to win (we'll get to that in a moment). Ron Paul will stay in it for a while, and he should, but unless he starts winning some elections here, he's done. Get ready for another four years of Barrack Obama. What a disaster it's going to be.

There is hope. I want to call your attention to this article. Seriously, take a few minutes and read it. Newt can't win and neither can Santorum. They know it and anyone who is paying attention knows it.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: This race is between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. BUT. . . Newt and Santorum might stay in it long enough to quell any chance of Ron Paul gaining momentum. Which is, perhaps, the point of their candidacy's in the first place.

God help us.

Sick Day

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:33:00 +0000

Not feeling well today. . .

. . . be back tomorrow!

39 Bloody Years

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

I'll dispense with my usual greeting of "Good Day" because today is not a good day.

Today marks the 39th anniversary of the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade that allows women to murder their children in the womb, and the corresponding decision of Doe v. Bolton that allows them to murder their children for any reason they deem fit.

39. Years.

We now approach over 50,000,000 babies being murdered in this country since the decision. . . THAT WE KNOW OF. There have been countless other abortions that have occurred under the radar through chemical means.

We live in what we like to believe is a Christian nation. Certainly, there is no shortage of data to back this up. Many polls show that most people consider themselves to be "christian". A discerning mind can look at such data & realize that such results are simply not reflective of reality. Many of those polls count Roman Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons among those who consider themselves Christian. In reality the number is much lower than what we would be made to believe.

Nonetheless, it is still significant. There is no doubt that Christianity dominates the populace of America. As my former pastor liked to say: "Steeples dot our landscape, and yet the land is full of blood, and pornography is a $52 Billion dollar a year industry." (that last part might be hyperbole)

I have often wondered how we could let this atrocity happen for 39 years. I believe the answer is that we Western Christians are very comfortable, and comfort leads to compartmentalizing our lives. We are angry about abortion. We see that abortion is sinful. In our fantasies, we live in a world without it. Yet all of that fits into the compartment of our "religion". In a compartmentalized life, it is important to not break down the barriers between compartments. When that happens, tough choices need to be made. For example, should our time be spent doing the things that make us happy or should our time be spent living out the principles that we believe? We can see this trend in evangelism, in study, and in most other things we claim to hold in high regard.

I remind you: actions speak louder than words.

It has been the lack of action that has caused 50 million deaths. Despite the myriad of excuses that many come up with for not being involved, the fact of the matter is that most of the church is content to wave a sign for one hour on one day of the year and put a cute bumper sticker on their car, but won't dig in and do the hard work of ending the madness. Perhaps it's because some like the madness and secretly are glad it's there. Perhaps it's because some make their living on the madness and secretly hope it continues. Perhaps it's because some don't understand the madness. Perhaps some don't believe it is madness after all. Perhaps some simply do not care.

Whatever the case may be, the madness continues and will continue until the church at large does something about it.

Yes, brothers and sisters, we will always have sin with us. Yes, I agree that people murder their children because they are sinful and lost. Abortion certainly does wonders for demonstrating a need for a savior. However, brothers and sisters, it is equally sinful to allow the murder to go on while you have it in your power to stop it.

None of us, in our right minds, would allow a man to strangle a child while standing on the sidewalk. Most of us would intervene without thinking about it and make sure we did all we could to save the child. Wouldn't we say that those who speak words of displeasure at the man for strangling the child but allow the man to continue are equally culpable?

Recently Penn State University was rocked by a sickening scandal of child sex abuse. Rightly, many condemned the main culprit Jerry Sandusky. Yet, also correctly, many condemned the men who knew about Sandusky and did nothing.

We all condemn the passive and permissive people of Germany who sat idle while columns of smoke rose from the furnaces of the concentration camps in WWII. When we liberated those camps, allied soldiers marched the nearby townsfolk through the camps to see the terrible things that were done. Americans applauded this effort.

Now we have the death camps in American cities. So typical of the American culture of putting on a good face, we call them "Women's Health Centers" and "Family Planning Clinics". They give out free birth control, and balloons for the kids! They march in our Labor Day parades throwing candy and handing out their pamphlets about how they are going to help you. All the while the butchers they employ poison wombs with saltwater, &/or tear a child limb from limb inside the womb. Some insert surgical scissors into the back of a child's skull, then vacuum the brain out collapsing the skull. Afterward they dispose of the remains in dumpsters, or they sell the bodies to scientists to be experimented on.

Even typing it makes me sick.

A country that gave many American lives to free Europe from the grip of a genocidal maniac has too long harbored it's own version of genocidal mania. A mania that has had it's grip on America for 39 years.

39 bloody years.

It is well past time for the American Church to shake free of it's slumber and put a stop to this. No more can we sit calmly in our pews singing our songs of the "Sweet by and by". No more can we chalk up this tragedy to simply a manifestation of sinfulness in man while ignoring our own sin of apathy. No more can we choose to not love our Pre-Born neighbor. Wake up America! Wake up American Christians! Your day of infamy has come.

Here are five things you can do in the 40th year of abortion to put an end to this tragedy.

Preach the Gospel. Spend time each day tell those who do not believe that they are in desperate need of a Savior. Abortion exists in a culture of sin, in a culture that tolerates sin. We ought to impress upon those around us how intolerable sin really is and help them to see the Savior they so desperately need.
Pray. Then pray some more. Commit to it.
Shut off you TV, turn off your video games, and put away your idols. Too much of modern Christian's time is spent in recreation. Ask yourself, does it glorify God to consume 14 hours of TV a week and another 10 of video games? Couldn't we at least give half of those times to preaching the Gospel or standing in front of an abortion clinic talking to the women who want to kill their babies? Join a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Start a pro-life campaign to make people see abortion for what it really is. Stand in front of an abortion clinic. Join a group dedicated to stopping abortion and be a blessing to them. And join a REAL group that does something REAL to end abortion. Not some group that has luncheons and banquets and gives out stupid awards all the time or runs weak ads on the Christian stations. Get to the muck and grime of abortion. Contact these people for more information.
Settle for nothing less than a declaration of Personhood in the laws of your state. If your state has a pending amendment to declare personhood, then get involved and get behind it. If it doesn't, call your representatives until you do.
Vote Ron Paul. Seriously. The guy has been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for years. A Ron Paul presidency would give you the ability to fight this issue in your state and to prosecute abortion under your laws. Neither the State nor the Feds could stop it. Ron Paul is the only consistent pro-life candidate to run for president since Roe v. Wade and he has the track record to back up his claims. A Ron Paul presidency would do wonders for this battle in the United States.

Above all, stop being fooled and stop acting foolishly. We aren't going to end abortion simply because we want it to end. It will take hard work and more importantly, SMART work to get it done. It will also be one of the most important things you will ever do with your life.

Godspeed.

Join Us For Church This Morning 1/22

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Random Crazy Stuff - II

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Good day all!

Love this song:

Lots of good stuff from Cripplegate lately. A post on the Millennial Kingdom, this longer article on bad leadership, and this review that supports my viewpoint on hermeneutics that I expressed in the mini-series we just went through on this blog.
Vox Day points out that Mitt Romney is in the bag for the big banks that want to rule over us all. He's also happy to point out what I've said all along; that this race is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He's also a lot more blunt than I would ever be.
In more happy government news, it seems that we can finally get rid of all those pesky pro-life activists! YAY! Let's vote for more NEO-CONS who propose this kind of thing! And then there is this delightful monstrosity.
By the way:

Just sayin'. . .
Christianity Astray. . . err. . . TODAY doesn't think we should spank. Here is a good response. Here is a better response.
In all seriousness, we can rejoice over the closing of one of America's oldest abortion clinics in Rockford IL. Here is the bizarre story of the shenanigans the pro-aborts would resort too told by those who worked to close it down. (No, I don't support the false religion of Catholicism in any fashion, they just happen to have the story.)
George Barna is endorsing Newt. Here is more info. It's time to stop listening to George Barna. From his stubborn beliefs in home churches to his ridiculous endorsement of Newt, Barna has ceased to be reliable.
Unfortunately, John Piper is getting there too. ~~I'm sad to announce that I've removed John Piper from my recommended resources.~~

UPDATE: A reader pointed out to me that John Piper has relented and published an apology for endorsing the Lectio Divina. You can read what he says here. Look, everyone makes mistakes. John Piper made a mistake and has repented for it. Good enough for me. Glad to have John Piper back on board.
Finally, we have this amusing story about Ed Young Jr. Chris Rosenberg had some hilarious tweets regarding this. Seriously, I don't wish Ed any harm, but I do hope he learned his lesson.

South Carolina Preview

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:55:00 +0000

Good day all!

The third primary of this early election cycle is upon us. After a week of debates and campaigning, the Evangelical Christian dominated state of South Carolina will vote tomorrow for who they want to represent the Republican Party in 2012.

And what a week it's been! Two debates, two candidates drop out, a tawdry sex scandal ripe for the media circus, and major moves in the polls. Let's break it down.

First of all, the debates. This is the Evangelical Bible Belt right? So the golden rule ought to play well down there, right? WRONG!

So let me get this straight South Carolina, and for that matter the rest of the American Christianity. . . The Golden Rule applies when you are interacting with another individual. It applies when you are interacting with a group. It applies when your group is interacting with another group. But when your country interacts with another country, the Golden rule is nowhere to be found?

Seriously?

See, that video is a microcosm of what is wrong with American Christianity. American Christianity has become a social club on Sunday. Largely (and I admit this is a generalization) Christians don't want to put their beliefs in action. For most Christians, God is sovereign over how they spend their Sunday morning, but not sovereign over their minds, over their emotions, over their behavior in the workplace, nor or their choice in the voting booth. We've become like the Laodiceans in Revelation 3. It would be a useful exercise for Americans to concentrate on Revelation 3:14-22, especially Rev 3:16.
Rick Perry ended his campaign on Thursday. The one thing I can say about Rick Perry is that the guy was the only Presidential candidate in recent memory that overwhelmingly proved he wasn't capable of being President. The guy was a terrible debater and unable to think on his feet. He again and again demonstrated a complete inability to grasp the issues facing America today. There is hope for the American electorate yet, I suppose, as we watched Rick Perry burst onto the scene on the day of the Iowa straw poll only to precipitously drop into relative obscurity with each and every dumb gaffe and demonstration of his less than stellar IQ.
Speaking of a less than stellar IQ and relative obscurity, John Huntsman dropped out earlier in the week. I ask this in all seriousness: What in the world was the John Huntsman campaign about? He completely ignored Iowa, concentrating on New Hampshire. While in New Hampshire he tried to showcase his libertarian roots. Yet, every time someone asked him a tough question, he turned the question into a story to tell that not only didn't answer the question, but didn't even address the point!

"Mr. Huntsman, you want to run against President Obama, but you accepted his invitation to serve as his ambassador to China. Can you tell us why you would choose to work with the Obama administration despite your desire to end it?"

"Well, when I was ambassador of China, I saw this country from a different prospective. When I looked this country, I saw that it was the greatest country in the world! It is full of hardworking and patriotic people who want to see success for all people everywhere."

Seriously.
Who benefits? Perry dropping out probably benefits all the others equally. Perry's base of support might have been the most vanilla and uninspired base of any candidate ever. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them forget to vote on Saturday. Huntsman, despite his endorsement of Mitt Romney, should help Ron Paul a little bit. Last time we talked politics, I said that I though Huntsman would help Ron Paul in a big way. I no longer think that it will be huge, but I do think it will be helpful nonetheless. Huntsman is endorsing Romney because he wants a position in the cabinet if he wins. Huntsman attracted leftist libertarians as a large part of his base. Libertarians are not going to support Romney, and if they support anyone, they'll support Ron Paul. It's a shame that they have to be leftists, but the Paul camp will take every vote it can get.
The polls have been interesting. Romney was pushing 40% on Monday and has dropped steadily after a week full of negative ads targeting him. Meanwhile, Newt is said to have done well during the first debate and rose steadily throughout the week making this a real race at the top. Personally, I think that Newt's debate performance was more hype than anything. Rush Limbaugh (the king of the Republican Establishment Media) fell all over himself to tell us how Newt Gingrich was exhibiting conservatism in the debate. I love how we're supposed to all believe that a guy who rattled off some talking points is suddenly the conservative Messiah despite a career of stabbing conservatives in the back.

Meanwhile Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have been battling for third place. It seems Ron Paul has it according to the polls. Not good news for Rick Santorum.
Newt Gingrich wanted to have an open marriage with his last wife. Yes, you read that right. ABC aired the report last night about how the marriage broke up. It seems that Newt wanted to have a mistress on the side and so he went to his wife and asked if they could have an open marriage. She said no and the marriage ended.

Good grief.

It's funny that the party that is supposed to stand for family values still tolerates a guy like this. The Republican Establishment Media is falling all over itself defending Newt today. Newt himself is trying to play hardball by painting it as a vicious attack by the left wing media to take down the conservative in the race. I'll say it right now, it's not going to work. Herman Cain tried the same thing and it didn't work. Newt Gingrich is done, and if he's not then Christians ought to leave the GOP with all haste. It will have shown itself once and for all that it does not reflect our values.
So what do I think is going to happen? I think Mitt Romney will win but like Hillary Clinton in 2008, the "inevitable" facade is starting to crack. He'll not have a good showing. Most people won't talk about it, but he will show that he just can't appeal to anyone beyond a certain group of Republicans.

I also think that second place is up for grabs. Two phenomenon are in play here. First is Newt's open marriage. Despite the 11th hour spin job by the Republican Establishment Media, Newt isn't going to be able to get out of this one. Christian conservatives aren't going to vote for this guy. Enough people will be slow to come around that Newt will still have a good showing, but he won't touch the 31% he was seeing in the polls yesterday.

Ron Paul might be able to grab second place. If he does, he will put an end to the competition below him. The sooner he does, the better chance he has of beating Romney. The second phenomenon in play is Paul's ability to score more votes than he gets in the polls. I haven't been able to explain this yet, but in Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul finished with more of a percentage than he was polled to finish with in those states. In New Hampshire it was as much a 12% higher in some polls, and 8% higher in most polls. If Paul can tack another 8% to his 15% average in South Carolina, he'll finish in second place. The question will be if enough Newt supporters will go to him as the anti-Romney.
I also think that Santorum is done. This was supposed to be his bread and butter state. Santorum paints himself as the social conservative in the race. The guy every God fearing American can trust. He's not and once you look past the facade, you see that. Americans are beginning to see our debt and budget as a moral crisis AND they are (in smaller numbers) starting to tire of rhetoric without teeth. Santorum isn't the answer to that problem, HE'S PART OF THAT PROBLEM. He's terrible on fiscal issues; voting to raise the debt ceiling 5 times, voting for unbalanced budgets, voting for war after endless war pushing us further into debt and despair. All the while telling us how pro-family and pro-life he is and yet doing nothing to show us. Santorum is being exposed for the fraud he is. If he can't win one of the most socially conservative states in the union, then what can he win? He's done.

Which leaves us to what this race is, and always was . . . Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney.

I'll have a recap of the results and analysis on Monday.

My Testimony

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:17:00 +0000

Good day all!

When I was a child, my family was Episcopalian. My father grew up in an old school Italian neighborhood of Pittsburgh and was Roman Catholic, while my Mom grew up Methodist in the suburbs. They met when Mom was in college and Dad was on the rebound from the divorce of his previous marriage. Dad said he fell in love almost instantly, Mom said it took her time. I'm more like my Mom.

When they got married they decided to join the Episcopal church. Dad felt it was a nice compromise between his Roman Catholic traditions (he had been excommunicated for the divorce) and Mom's protestant roots.

The Episcopal church has, like the Catholics, infant baptism and confirmation. For those of you who are not familiar with confirmation, it is a time where the person takes on the vows that were made for them at their infant baptism for themselves. There's a ceremony, the bishop comes to your church, and it's kind of a "right of passage" from being a child into being a young adult.

Many families allow their children to go through confirmation as just another "churchey" moment in a long line of "churchey" moments that make up a religion that amounts to nothing more than a Sunday morning tradition.

Not my Mom. No way.

Mom was absolutely firm that I was not going to go through confirmation until I understood exactly what I was confirming and exactly what I was saying that I believed. I'll be honest, at the time, I had no idea. So, as long as I had no idea, Mom was just not going to let me go through with it.

Christ-less churches, and that's what my childhood church was, are weird. In churches like that, you don't have people gathering together because they've been redeemed from a horrible pit by a God who had every right to condemn them to death. You don't have a church full of people who, despite some flaws, have a focus on glorifying God. Instead people gather for whatever reason they gather (tradition, religiosity, appearance, status, socializing, etc.) and go through the liturgical motions. Some make some friendships, some find activities they enjoy (like joining the choir or men's club), and despite all odds, some even repent and trust Christ.

However, most people just show up, go through the motions, and go home as lost, with hearts as dark, as when they showed up. It's truly sad. Therefore my Mom was really a light in a dark place when she made a point of making sure I knew exactly what I was saying at confirmation.

While the other kids my age went through Confirmation Sunday after Confirmation Sunday going through the motions of repeating the same words and affirming things I'm certain they had no clue about, I watched. Frankly, at that young age I was more upset that I stood out among my peers than anything.

Over time, Mom kept working on me. She would point out my own sins. She explained the Gospel to me a piece at a time. She would always remind me that no matter what things I did that I couldn't be good enough to go to heaven. She was patient and consistent. She was a picture of faithfulness.

Eventually, it made a difference. A few years after my peers had been confirmed, things my Mom was saying just made sense. I can't really explain it, and I'm not sure that I could have explained it to someone else at the time, but I just knew that I wasn't good enough to go to heaven. I knew that Jesus was God and that He REALLY existed. I knew I needed Him.

Why did I need Him? I was thief. I liked to go to stores with my parents and see how much I could steal. I got caught once. Mom wasn't happy.

Why did I need Jesus? I was a liar. I would play little games with my friends and lie about who said what about whom and so forth.

Why did I need Him? I was disobiediant to Mom and Dad and to my teachers. I talked back, I mocked. I would sometimes obey outwardly, but in my heart I was full of rage.

I needed Christ. I was wicked and there was no way that God was going to be impressed by reading a certain number of Scripture verses or by helping a lot of my neighbors (or whatever good deed you want to think about).

I was confirmed the next time around, but unlike a number of the people that I knew who had already done it, I was glad to be saved.

The problem was that I was still in a bad church. Yet, God had grace on me and made sure I was secure in His family by putting good people in my path that would help me to grow and develop as a believer. Of course my Mom was still there to help me when she could and when I'd let her. Eventually I met other believers in school and began to study the Word for myself. It was at that time that I read through my favorite book; Romans. My analytical, systematic, mind found much to like in Paul's step by step explanation of the faith. It quickly became my favorite book and Romans 5:6-9, my favorite verses.

Eventually it came time to go to college. I was accepted at Shimer College in Chicago. I had never spent more than a few days away from home, but pressed out on my own toward the mid-west. What I didn't expect to find was a completely pagan college.

I had never really been surrounded by people who not only didn't at least pretend to believe in God, but also out right didn't like him. However, that's what I was faced with. Now, most are inclined to think that this would kill a new Christian. By God's grace, the exact opposite happened to me. In fact, college did nothing but strengthen my faith. I felt that I needed to defend my faith in college because every class I went to attacked it. I was terrible at defending my faith in the beginning, but not wanting to lose a battle caused me to open my Bible and study it. Four years later, I emerged a stronger, thinking, Christian. Someone who had been tested and hardened by those who were determined to undermine the things I believed.

God also continued to shape me through the churches I attended. After moving to Wisconsin I got involved with a non-denominational church there. They were great folks who were zealous for God and loved Him. I felt at home among them and they both challenged me to live for Him and accepted me among them.

Eventually God put John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, and Todd Friel in my path. I began to lean toward to the Calvinist way of thinking. As life would have it, I had to move back to Pittsburgh about the same time and found myself in a church led by Master's Seminary graduates while going through some dark times in my life. God's people cared for my son and I there too. I still attend and serve that church. The pastor is a faithful mentor. The people are faithful friends. God has been good to me and continues to be good to me even though I don't deserve it.

If I had to sum up what God did in my life, I would say that the one thing I'm always struck by is His faithfulness to me, and to us as believers. I was a man who didn't deserve a thing from God, and yet moment after moment, day after day, God has remained faithful. Not just faithful to save me and sustain my salvation, but faithful to sanctify me, to teach me, to love me.

I am indeed blessed beyond imagination, beyond what I deserve. Far beyond anything I could do for Him. I am grateful beyond what I can describe.

I needed God. You need Him too. Repent and trust in Him today!

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 4 (A Wrap Up)

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:59:00 +0000

Good day all!

This is part four, and the final part, in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, here for part two, and here for part three. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Some Closing Thoughts

The past few days have been very challenging in a number of ways. Usually that statement is said in an attitude of sadness, but not for me, not this time. I enjoyed the challenge and believe that it was a fruitful couple of days.

I thought that today I might go through some of the things that have come up in relation to this mini series over the past few days.

A Google search brought this link to my attention. It's interesting to me that they say the same words almost to the letter, including the "Oprah can't explain him" line. Do you think the results of this Hermeneutic have caused others to praise God, or did they just kneel down before a wafer?
This is the church where the young man recorded his video. My impression is that it seems like a fairly solid church. Of course I say that only examining the website for a few minutes. Their stated doctrine seems fine, they have a fairly clear and good Gospel presentation, and they seem to have a certain reverence for God. However, one thing I did notice was that they do not preach in an expository manner. It's not indicative of a bad hermeneutic, but it is not a good sign nonetheless.
John MacArthur offers this on Philippians 4. I figure that if my 10 minutes of exposition in part one of this series on Phil 4:6-7 was poor, then listening to MacArthur ought to clear up any misconceptions.
A dear friend whom I am certain knows how to handle Scripture properly e-mailed me the following in regards to Numbers 14:13-14

"The pillars of cloud and fire were actually visible manifestation of God's presence, and thus the point the boy was making is that Israelites traveled as if God held them by their hand: neck to neck or shoulder to shoulder so to speak. I would not go that far as to say it was Jesus, but I would say that it was the manifestation of God."

He continues by pointing out that MacArthur writes:

"As a spirit, God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17). He cannot be seen, though He has revealed Himself through physical manifestations. In Old Testament times God revealed His presence through fire, cloud, and the Shekinah (the visible manifestation of God’s glory; see 2 Chron. 7:1–2). The New Testament presents the ultimate revelation of God, when He became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. But God cannot be seen in His essential nature. “No man has seen God at any time,” wrote the apostle John; “the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him”" (John 1:18).

I agree with my friend but point out that the video makes the claim that Jesus IS the Pillar of cloud/fire. This is simply not the case. To say it is a "visible manifestation of God's presence" is a statement I can get behind. God was making a clear demonstration that He was with Israel and was the one leading them through the desert. I just don't think that's what the boy was saying. He said the pillar is Jesus. It isn't. It's cloud and/or fire. It is there because of God and to indicate (which is what a manifestation is) God's presence, but it isn't the person of Jesus. Nonetheless, I appreciate my dear friend provoking me to think through what I said more thoroughly. Always nice to have iron sharpen iron (Prov 27:17).
A professional blogger (whom I respect and read daily) made the observation that I was writing this series in a way that the only people who would understand me would be the people who already agreed with me. It got me to thinking and it will likely influence me in future posts. I put a poll on the Blog's Facebook wall today asking my fans opinions. Feel free to vote.
A different friend of mine commented on my personal Facebook that he was glad I was writing this. He pointed out Mark 7:7 to Mark 7:13. I admit that it gave me kind of a spring board in writing part 3 which is why I used it there. Thanks CM, I appreciate the input.
I made this and never used it. It would be a shame to have it go to waste:

That guy is Rick Warren. I know, it's not very good. I'm not very good at visual art and whatnot.
I said I'd have some closing thoughts yesterday and mostly I've treated this post as a "Crazy Random Stuff" post. Sorry about that. Let me put this bug in your ear. . . Dig into the resources that will help you to understand what God says in his Word. Think seriously about the points I've brought up here. I'm not saying I'm perfect, far from it, but God can use imperfect people to speak about truth. I hope that what I've done these past few days honors God's truth and will give you a desire to put away your own ideas and embrace God's ideas.

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Good day all!

This is part three in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, and here for part two. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Why Should You Care About Hermeneutics?

--The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) begins with the question "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The second question tells us how to do this by asking "What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?" The foundation of that question is, of course, that God HAS directed us on how to glorify and enjoy Him. The answer to this question is very telling: "The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."

So, is the WSC correct? More importantly, do you agree?

I'll begin by stating a presupposition: Christians all agree on the answer to the first question. We agree that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that if you don't agree with that then you are probably not a Christian.

The second question, however, is where the problem lies, and what the thrust of this mini-series is emphasizing. A lot can be said of the question...
-HAS God given us direction in how to glorify and enjoy Him?
-Are we able to ascertain this direction?
-Is this direction understandable?

To me, the answer is obvious. If God wants us to glorify Him, and we are unable to do this on our own (Eph 2:4-5), that He would have to tell us how we may glorify Him. Otherwise, the task would not only be impossible, but utterly hopeless as well! So, God MUST have told us how to do this.

It follows then that we can understand what He has told us. If God be perfect, and He is, then He must also be perfect in communication. Being perfect in communication, are the problems we have in understanding His communication His fault, or ours?

However, if the problem in our 21st century church were merely that God is not being understood, then I would be writing a very different mini-series. I would instead be writing helpful hints and linking great articles from good men about how to understand God's word. Nonetheless, as I said last time, that isn't the problem. The problem is that most people are content with not understanding, and almost all of these people even prefer not to understand.

Now, I ask you. . . does this glorify God? Does it bring honor to God to take the means, the "rule" as WSC calls it, and to choose not to understand it? Of course not. Hermeneutics is that method by which we understand the Scriptures. A bad hermeneutic and we don't understand them at all, and thus, we don't understand how to glorify God. A good one, and God imparts on us the information He has always desired to tell us.

Why foolishly cling to that which does not glorify God?

--Psalm 119:160 says "The entirety of Your word [is] truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments [endures] forever."

Jesus echos this sentiment when He said: "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." - Jhn 17:17 NKJV

The truth is an important thing. God, in His infinite wisdom, warns us in Mark 7:7 that teaching the commandments of men is a vain exercise. Paul solidifies this point in 1CR 3:19. Jesus then in Mark 7:8 establishes that the pharisees of His day were exalting their own traditions above the Word of God. Note that they had invented their own traditions and in Mark 7:9 Jesus tells us that they even rejected God's commands to keep their traditions. After giving an example, Jesus sums up the state of such men in a scathing judgement:

"...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." - Mark 7:13 NKJV (See Mark 7:11-12 for context)

Jews in Jesus day and prior regarded the Word of God to be sacred. In their worship, they would kiss their Synagogue's copy of the Torah before reading it. Men and Women alike would stand quietly as it was read. Sure, sometimes they were just going through the motions (as the Pharisees were), but the tradition had it's germination in a deep respect for God's word.

In Nehemiah chapter 8, we find a people who had been chastened by the exile of the Jews to Babylon and Persia. Here we have a tiny percentage of Judah returning to the promised land and trying to rebuild their society. They had learned their lesson and now hungered for God. Ezra opens the Word of God and the people stood (Neh 8:5). In Nehemiah chapter 9 it tells us that they would stand for 6 hours out of their day hearing from God's word. It was that important.

The question becomes obvious; how important is it to us? We don't stand when we hear God's word, and many are uninterested in UNDERSTANDING it too. Shouldn't the very words of God mean more to us? Isn't it worth our respect to take the time to properly interpret and apply it to our daily lives?

I say that it is.

-- No human being with an amount of honesty will dispute that we make many mistakes. Why then do we believe that we can do just fine on our own without taking the time to understand properly what God's word says? If we are mistake prone, aren't we mistake prone in our own ideas too? Proverbs has much to say on this:

Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "fools despise wisdom and instruction". Proverbs 3:5 tells us to "lean not on our own understanding."

Good Hermeneutics, by its design, is a VERY careful process. It has many steps, many checks and balances. Yes, we can make an error even following a good system to the letter, but we are much less prone to do so. It also becomes far less likely that we will make the kind of error that comes from hubris, instead we are more likely to merely make simple mistakes rooted in knowledge or judgement. We can't know everything and no system of hermeneutics can overcome that. However a good system can push a believer in the direction of making the errors smaller, more easily manageable. More importantly, it pushes the believer away from making errors that are cataclysmic to their faith.

Why? Because the believer is not despising instruction and is not leaning on his own understanding.

Sure, it is possible to lean then on the mistaken understanding of someone else. However, good hermeneutics will reject human intervention and allow the Word of God to speak for itself. Thus, the believer is leaning on God's wisdom through His word and not on man-made wisdom.

This is worth pursuing.

-- The writer of Hebrews tells us that the God's word is "sharper than any two edged sword" (Heb 4:12). In other words, it is a formidable weapon in the war we fight on this earth and in this life. Why then do many Christians decide not to use it?

My 10 year old likes to tell me about many of his guns. He owns an AK-47, a sub machine gun, a laser gun, a couple of P-90's, and something he calls a rocket booster (don't ask, I have no idea). My son has even shot me many times with his guns. Yet here I sit able to type this blog post to you. You would think that a man who has been shot by a "rocket booster" would need immediate medical attention. However, I assure you that I'm just fine.

You see my son's guns are toys. Replicas of the real thing. Some of them look very real. Some of them even shoot little plastic or rubber bullets. These toys give him hours and hours of fun pretending to save the world from invading aliens or hordes of soldiers looking to harm his dog or I. However, if a thief broke into my home tonight, I would not reach for one of my son's toys. It is limited and serves one purpose: to amuse my son. It has no real world value and in the end brings no useful or lasting purpose.

Many people spend much of their time crafting fun toys with Scripture that, like my son's guns, look much like the real thing, but pale in comparison. In the end, these exercises in man made theology create a lot of entertainment and make for interesting conversation, but have no redeeming value in the real world, and no useful or lasting purpose.

The Master's Seminary Professor Robert Thomas critiqued preterist writer Kenneth Gentry by using a similar analogy. Thomas said that he took his sons to Disney world and described a ride where they were in front of a 3D screen and sitting in a car like device that would shake, roll, and move in congress with the images on the screen. The ride, Thomas tells us, made his son quite ill and afraid. However Thomas tells us that he was not affected by the ride because he was felt safe in the knowledge that this was just a ride. The illusion was ruined for him. Thomas goes on to critique Gentry's sloppy hermeneutics claiming Gentry created an illusion to base his preterist claims upon.

Putting aside Thomas' opinion of Gentry, the basis for his critique is valid. If we are to create an illusion of a firm foundation, is that foundation really firm? Of course not. This is obvious, but what is not so obvious is the heightened sense of danger associated with illusions. When one has no illusions, one is not fooled, and even if one has no idea what reality may be, at least one does not need to be first shaken from a mistaken belief in order to embrace reality when it is found.

Just as it would be a disaster to believe my son's toys, however realistic they may appear, could protect my home, so we must see that a theology built to look like God's word, but absent of any basis in God's Word, would have equally disastrous effects on our faith.

--There is no wisdom in men (1 Cor 2:5). We are sinful wretched creatures (Eccl 7:20). Our hearts are dark and wicked (Jer 17:9). We don't, in and of ourselves, do anything good (Psm 53:3).

We ought, then, to reject the wisdom of men and embrace the wisdom of God. God desires for us to have a right relationship with Him. He will not do this with respect to our conditions or through our means. We must abandon these things. We must embrace Him. This begins and ends with embracing God's word and really believing Sola Scriptura.

Christians, throw down the idols you have made with God's word! Abandon those things that you've embraced instead of His word! Allow the richness of His wisdom to speak to you uninhibited and unaltered. God has given you His word for this exact purpose. It is up to you to listen.

We'll wrap up this mini-series tomorrow with some closing thoughts.

(see part four here)

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Good Day all!!

This is part two in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed part one, click here. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Who Cares about Hermeneutics?

Unfortunately, very few care about Hermeneutics. This is a complete mystery to me. When I discovered Hermeneutics, it was as if God had opened up His Word to me in a whole new way. I was no longer confused by complicated passages. Even if I did feel confused by the Bible at times (Hi-ya second half of Daniel!), I felt empowered to be able to solve my interpretative problems. I had a sense of what I was doing with this book I hold in such high regard. It was exhilarating! God was demonstrating to me that His word was truth and I could trust it in every sense. Truths I had always believed, but somehow seemed mysterious to me, suddenly seemed within reach.

Most importantly, it helped me to really understand Sola Scriptura and to actually increase my reverence for the Word of God. I felt as if I had always been a clumsy child handling a precious artifact. Now I was an adept curator professionally making use of the ancient tool in my hand. It was a great feeling.

Unfortunately, it also "ruined my life". I say this tongue in cheek, of course. I remember remarking to my Pastor (my ever faithful mentor) that I was going to have a T-Shirt made that read "Hermeneutics Ruined My Life" because my life was quite literally never the same. This had its positive points as willful ignorance is a dreadful lot in life. Nonetheless, it had its negatives too. I began to use the things I've learned and realized, much to my horror, the depth of deception of "Christians" that believe ridiculous things and use Scripture (improperly) to justify those beliefs.

What was worse was that I tried to tell my fellow Christians that what they were doing was not right and I was hated for it. Truth be told it was one of the chief experiences that led me to call this blog "That Crazy Christian". Here were a group of people who claimed to hold God and His Word in the highest esteem. I thought that this news would be received like a thirsty man receives a canteen of water. Instead it was as if I had vinegar in my canteen. I was mocked, derided, scolded for being "haughty" and "proud", argued with, and abandoned by people who claimed to believe as I did, and in some cases, those I genuinely cared about.

I admit that I'm not always the best "people person" in the world. Did I make mistakes in how I approached some people? Sure! Could I do better in being a teacher? Yes! However, even knowing this and trying my best to act as Christ would, I was absolutely shocked, and terrified, by the response I received when I talked about this subject.

You see it wasn't that people didn't understand what I was saying. It wasn't that they didn't want to understand what I was saying. It was that they understood what I was saying and still didn't care. Some didn't care because, in their own eyes, they could do no wrong. Some didn't care because they were bored by the subject (which in and of itself is gut wrenching). Mostly though, people didn't care because. . . try though I might. . . my explanations as to why this mattered SO much fell on deaf ears. Deaf to the implications. Deaf to the ramifications. Deaf to the disharmony with their stated beliefs.

When I think back on it, and look at the current battles I have in this arena, I can only conclude that many Christians have made an idol out of their Bibles. The Bible is not Words of Life to the dying, living waters to the parched, to some people. No, instead it's a pliable lump of clay that is to be manipulated and shaped to say whatever they want it to say. It is, in fact, a God in their own image. Instead of taking it at face value and hearing from it the very Word of God in its purest and unadulterated form, they would rather make it to mean what they want to hear. They spend their Sundays singing about how they've "Surrendered All" and what a treasure the Word of God is, but then refuse to surrender their image of the Word to the real thing and instead melt down that treasure to fit their desires.

Harsh? Probably. The truth is harsh sometimes. To paint the complete picture, I think it's worth noting that many Christians act this way because they genuinely believe that by doing so they are honoring God. Which, to me, says that they at the very least desire to honor God. They think, for example, that it helps our cause to show Jesus in every book of the Bible. . . even the books where He isn't there. While I applaud the sentiment to defend the faith or to honor God, it must be pointed out that we don't honor God by mishandling His word.

Nevertheless, this minority of Christians who ignorantly ignore Hermeneutics cease to be ignorant when someone confronts them about their ignorance and shows them the right way. No doubt, this takes a patient and careful approach. It's not the easiest of concepts to grasp and it takes some time to see the truth.

However, once that confrontation is complete, the Christian has some hard questions. Do they really believe Sola Scriptura? Do they really honor God's word? Do they want to do the hard work of understanding the Word? Most of all, do they really care what that Word says?

I can say from personal experience, that most answer that last question with a resounding "no". So, to the church at large, there is nothing wrong with believing that Jesus is the "pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night" even if the basis for that belief amounts to "I simply want to believe it". When you look at the fervor with which they defend their baseless points, you see just how deep this has gone.

Fervor tells us a lot. Someone who will casually defend that Jesus is Lord but passionately defend the honor of their local sports team obviously reveres that sports team more. It's what caused them to be wound up and an attack upon it touched a nerve.

It was the same way in the area of hermeneutics in my experience. I could disagree with them politically and most didn't care. I could be a Calvinist and they Armenian and still not many really cared much about that. Yet, the moment I told them that their handling of Scripture is wrong, I became enemy #1.

Apathy isn't the problem. In fact perhaps they care more about Hermeneutics than I give them credit for. They've adopted one even though they reject the notion that they need one. Funny how that works isn't it? One thing is for sure, what most didn't, and many do not, care about was adopting the proper one.

Tomorrow we talk about why this topic isn't merely a pet peeve, but as I have said, a battle for the heart and soul of the Church.

Stay tuned and stay faithful!

(see part three here)

Join Us For Church This Morning

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:06:00 +0000

Good day all!!

This is part one in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Ok, I'm just going to come right out and say it. . .

THIS:

. . . is terrible hermeneutics.

Now, before you start virtually stoning me let me say that I'm a single homeschooling father of a 10 year old boy. So, believe me, I understand just what an accomplishment it is for this young man to stand in front of his church, and indirectly, to stand in front of (to date) 800,000+ You Tube viewers, confidently and clearly reciting his lines. Not merely to trod through his part, but to do so PASSIONATELY and with conviction. Good for this kid, he clearly worked hard and deserves credit for a job well done. His parents should be proud of their little one. Most of all, in the end, it's certainly not this child's fault that the lines he's reciting reflect zero understanding of proper hermeneutics.

Three questions are probably on the average christian's mind right now:

What are you talking about?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Let me attempt to answer them...

What am I talking about?

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting and applying Scripture. As Christians we ought to believe a few things in regards to Scripture. Namely:

God's Word is the Bible and the Bible is God's Word.
God is a perfect communicator.
The responsibility falls on the reader to interpret and apply the Word properly without altering the perfect communication from God.

Good hermeneutics assume the first two points and endeavors to take up the responsibility of the last point.

There are a lot of principles to Hermeneutics. Principles relating to the written word in general, principles relating to different types of written word (Psalms, prophesy, etc.), principles relating to consistency within the Bible, principles relating to application, principles for interpretation, and so on. One of the founding principles, and one so often violated, is the principle of single meaning. It is the principle that is being violated in the video above.

The principle of single meaning is simple; each individual Scripture can have only one single meaning. There are not multiple layers of meaning, there are not hidden meanings, there are not meanings for the time period it was written in and a different meaning today. There is just one meaning.

Another principle is that while meaning might be singular, the application is many. Now this is kind of nuanced, so I'll keep it simple.

Take Philippians 4:6-7:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. - Phl 4:6-7 NKJV

If we go through the hermeneutical process of looking at the original language, understanding the context of the verse, examining the culture and history of the author and recipient, remembering our interpretative principles, et. al., we come to a simple interpretation.

"Don't be anxious. Bring everything, including your needs, to God in prayer always remembering to give thanks. Let God know what you desire and need. In this process, God's peace (that simply can't be understood, rather it must be experienced) will overcome your anxiety."

Now, for you professionals out there, I'm certain that my 10 minutes studying that verse probably wasn't enough to do a good job. However, that is beside my point. The point is that we can't look at Phl 4:6-7 and come to the conclusion that it means the above AND something else.

However, could I apply this verse to a person who has a fear of failing a test AND to a person who is never comfortable that they have enough money? Yes, yes I could. Because where a Christian has anxiety, this verse applies no matter what that anxiety may be about.

So, one might respond to me that what the child is doing in the above video is simply making different applications of the concepts he's talking about. To which I respond a resounding no.

Take one of his statements:

"In Numbers he's a pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night."

We all remember that story in Numbers. God led the Israelites through the dessert through a very visible way.

And Moses said to the LORD: "Then the Egyptians will hear [it], for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, "and they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, LORD, [are] among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. - Num 14:13-14 NKJV

Now, what part of that verse do you get the pre-incarnate Christ as being that Pillar of Cloud or of Fire? Yes, the pillars are definitely God's pillars, and they are indeed miraculous. Yet at the end of the day the meaning we conclude from that verse is that God put a visible pillar in night and day to lead Israel in an obvious way. It seems that God did this so that Egypt would see and tell the inhabitants of the land that they know for sure that God is with Israel.

That's it. That's what it means. Now, what application can we get out of it? Well, that depends on what needs to be said to whom you are speaking. Some possible examples would be that God is capable and willing to lead His people. We might also say that Israel had no excuse to deny God. We might talk about God's desire to be glorified or about His faithfulness to Israel. There is a LOT we can get out of the verse.

However just as we can't get out of the verse that God abandoned Israel, we also can't conclude that Jesus IS the pillar. He's not. The Pillar is cloud and fire. Not Jesus. It doesn't say that. Anywhere. To claim that it does say that is to inject YOUR OWN meaning into the text. Most of all, it shows a complete lack of hermeneutical fidelity to the text.

I remind you, this is just one statement in the video. It is replete with this kind of injected meanings.

I have only scratched the surface of this important text. Truthfully, I have only scratched the surface of hermeneutics itself. I recommend two books that can help you to dive in to the world of hermeneutics. Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Benard Ramm & Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New vs. The Old by Robert Thomas. (Also, if you google Robert Thomas+Masters Seminary Journal, you'll find some of the articles in his book. . . like this one.) Both are good beginners texts on the subject. Ramm reads like a beginners guide, and Thomas address many challenges to the field. These are the two books I read (one on my own, and the other in a Men's Bible study. . . Hi guys!). I am BY NO MEANS an expert, but my eyes are certainly open.

Now that you understand what Hermeneutics is (remember I'm only teaching ABOUT hermeneutics, not teaching hermeneutics itself.), you'll be well prepared for the next few days. Over the next few days I'll continue my quest to point out this glaring problem in the church today.

Stay tuned, and stay faithful!

(see part two here)

Sex on the Evangelical Brain

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:50:00 +0000

Credit where credit is due: I was inspired to write this by reading Phil Johnson's blog post of which I borrowed a moderate amount. You should read it here.

Good day all!!

It seems, once again, the major players in American Christianity are obsessed with sex. Mark Driscoll has kicked off his release his new book (co-authored with his wife) Real Marriage. this comes on the heels of Ed Young Jr. announcing that as a part of his ongoing "Sexperiment", he and his wife will be web-casting themselves from the roof of their "church" while in bed.

I've stared at my screen for the past 15 minutes because, honestly, I don't know what to say about this any more. I could very easily fall into a diatribe about how dumb this is and rail against how this is a reason, and an indicator, of the fall of American Christianity. Likely, what I'm about to say will have elements of this.

Yet, what I really want to express to you is how all of this is simply sad. It is sad in the sense that it is deplorable. Here we have two high profile men not only professing to be Christians, but also leading others in the faith and representing themselves to those outside of the faith. Instead they spend their precious little time on this earth tell those in faith about having better sex. Not about the mortification of sin. Not about the deceit of the human heart. Not of the glorious congruity and sufficiency of God's Word. Not even that Jesus loves them. No, rather they the faithful are told about having a more enjoyable sex life. Church then has become not a place of where we sit under teachers to learn more about our wonderful Lord, but rather a social club that is the equivalent to Cosmo.

Think about that for a moment. Here is the one place that is supposed to preach the one Book that exalts the one Lord that was, is, and always will be the ONLY hope for man. A rare and valuable place indeed. This place is led by men that are charged by the Book they are supposed to preach that they are held to a higher standard and they are responsible for those under their care. Those same men have in their very grasp the ability to give the people under their care the keys to grasping eternal life in the presence of a Heavenly Father. By no means is this something to be taken lightly.

Yet having all of those riches in their hand, they neglect them and clamor for dirt! They choose to talk about having better sex instead of pressing on toward the upward calling (Phl 3:14). How putrid! How paltry!

How pathetic. (see definition 4)

It's also sad that it causes me to feel somber as to why this type of thing is popular to begin with. Look at the majority of churches in our Western World. A vast majority of churches in the western world are:

Purpose Driven

Seeker Sensitive

Denominationly Challenged

Outright Heretical

I acknowledge that there is some bleed over between these categories (particularly between Purpose Driven and Seeker Sensitive) and not every bad church everywhere will fall into these categories. I also acknowledge that it is unfair to say that ALL bad churches dive into becoming a worldly sex advice center. Some bad churches are just plain bad.

Nonetheless, it's becoming harder and harder to deny that this is a trend among modern western Christianity and I believe that is explicitly connected to fact that they've abandoned their first love (Rev 2:4-5) and embraced worldliness to begin with. It began by not doing things in church, and in life, in the manner God commands. Instead, they thought that man had a better way. They embraced the wisdom of psychology and pop-culture, believing the traditions of the church and the wisdom of Scripture were tired, old, out of date. Not relevant.

Yet, it's more than that. They've not just replaced traditions (sometimes that's not a bad idea anyway). They've not just abandoned the wisdom of Scripture. They've actually abandoned the God who has given them clear commands. God is clear: they don't exist as a church for the benefit of those who aren't believers, or for those who call Jesus Savior but not Lord. The church exists to edify, teach, and to hold accountable a group of believers who bow their knee fully to Christ; using their spiritual gifts to edify and solidify one another, having fellowship with one another, and worshiping the Lord forever!

It's not about Mark Driscoll or Ed Young Jr. It's not about my pastor. It's not about me. It's not about you.

It's about the Lord our God. The God who gave His life as a ransom. The God who deserves all of our praise and worship.

This trend in Christianity is somber because they taken that wonderful thing and turned it into this:

They've taken the wonderful tradition of exalting God through song and made it into this monstrosity:

You get the despicable picture.

Christians, I implore you to not chase this awful fad. I'm begging you to take Eph 5:3 to Eph 5:12 seriously. This is unbecoming of those who represent our Lord and those who are involved need to repent. Immediately.

New Hampshire - The Aftermath

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:24:00 +0000

Good day all!

Mitt Romney, as I (and anyone with a brain) expected, won the New Hampshire primary last night. Ho-hum.

Here's what no one is telling you. Mitt Romney UNDERPERFORMED. That's right, he didn't do as well as he needed to do to solidify himself as the consensus candidate. What is clear is that he won. He dominated the election and won a majority of registered Republicans voting in the open primary. He did poorly among independents and democrats voting in the primary and did not significantly increase his support from 2008. All of this tells us what I've been trying to tell you on this blog: Mitt Romney is not going anywhere, he simply has a large base of support. Oh, it's very large, I admit. Large enough to win a Republican nomination, but not nearly enough to expect any outcome other than getting completely crushed in the general election. Republicans better start asking themselves if this is the guy they REALLY want to beat Obama. Maybe it is. Maybe they don't mind Obama after all, considering they're throwing their weight behind the Republican clone of Obama.

It's interesting to note that the large base of support for Romney IS mostly republicans. As of this writing, Glenn Beck's lackeys and Rush Limbaugh are falling all over themselves to praise Romney for his speech last night. They make no mention that much of what he said, he obviously doesn't believe. To those who pay attention, much of Romney's words seem strange in light of his affiliations, actions, and past statements.

This is quickly becoming a party that has a hard time differentiating itself from the Democrats. The Democrats love Barrack Obama. The Republicans love Mitt Romney. You tell me the difference.

Also, as expected, Ron Paul finished in second place. What was not expected was how well Ron Paul did. Coming into the day, Paul was falling in the polls. He was estimated to finish with around 17% and some polls even had Paul finishing third behind Huntsman who was supposedly "surging". Instead, Ron Paul became the clear cut second place finisher with less of a margin between he and Romney than was expected, and a sizable lead over Jon Huntsman.

In other words, Ron Paul did surprisingly well and as a result has a tremendous amount of momentum going to the South. The next two primaries will be interesting. Paul is not polling well. He is well behind people who did way worse than him in New Hampshire and Iowa. The Paul campaign needs to make some moves. They need to have "surprising" finishes in South Carolina and Florida. They need to maintain their momentum.

Third place was Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has poured MONTHS, and almost all of his money, into New Hampshire. He moved his national campaign headquarters to New Hampshire in an effort to plant his flag in the state. And he finished in third place with most of his support coming from Democrats. Jon Huntsman said all of the right things about this being a slingshot to the south (where he's struggling for a single percentage point in every poll) but I've got news for the former Obama ambassador: It's over.

Fourth place was a virtual tie between Gingrich and Santorum. Gingrich has had two completely terrible performances. He's done and should have already dropped out. The problem is that he's on a mission to destroy Romney. He'll stick around a while, continue to disappoint in the polls and eventually fade into the sunset. As for Santorum, he can't compete in states like New Hampshire where there aren't a heavy amount of Evangelical Christians and social conservatives to rally behind him ("WHY" they rally behind him is anyone's guess).

Rounding out the field was Rick Perry whom many were surprised to learn still believes he can win the nomination. Bye bye Rick.

So what did we learn? Well one thing that we learned was that none of the candidates, outside of Romney and Paul, can compete on the two spectrums of the Republican party. Iowa is a social conservative haven, Romney and Paul finished first and third respectively. New Hampshire is home of the Rockefeller Republicans, Romney and Paul finished 1 & 2. No one else can claim this.

The question then becomes, can Ron Paul continue this trend in a place like South Carolina, dominated by the Evangelical right, and Florida, dominated by the aging and government dependent pseudo-conservatives. He needs to find a way. If he can, he goes on to be THE alternative to Romney. If not, he's another among the pack that wish they could beat Romney.

Some final observations:

Romney is running a "play not to lose campaign". His speech is highly polished, sound bite ready, and designed to be a rehearsed event. He knows he's ahead and doesn't want to make THE mistake that will be exploitable enough to make him vulnerable.

Paul has a lot of negatives and a lot of positives to the average Republican. I watched CNN last night and was fascinated by the instant focus group analysis they had running during the speeches (great chants by his supporters, by the way). Paul had the highest highs and the lowest lows during his speech. The highs? Ending the Fed, talking about freedom, and his jabs at the main stream media. The lows? All foreign policy.

No one in South Carolina, according the to the CNN focus group, was at all interested in Santorum, Gingrich, or Huntsman. The dial didn't move one way or the other for a bulk of their speeches.

Someone needs to challenge Romney on his record. Frankly someone needs to challenge ALL of them. The primary has become about mud slinging and demographics. It's stopped being about ideas. Someone needs to go into these debates and say "I promise to do 'this and this and this'. Why won't you guys make a similar promise?" and then point out that their records show why. Only one guy, really, has that kind of leverage. The question is. . . will he use it?

I hope so.

New Hampshire - 2012

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:51:00 +0000

Good day all!

The New Hampshire primary is today. I thought it would be good to preview this race and see how those who are going to be stories in New Hampshire stack up.

First of all, it is a forgone conclusion that Mitt Romney will win the race. He'll come out of it today not only with the most votes, but also the most total delegates (which is what really matters). The real question for Mitt is how good is good enough in New Hampshire. Right now, Real Clear Politics has Romney winning by 20 points in their polling average. Let's not kid ourselves, that's a complete victory. If he wins by that or more, he'll emerge as the clear front runner.

Can we pause for a moment and ask ourselves why in the world the Republican party at large is supporting Mitt Romney? If there is one thing that annoys me to no end about the GOP is its propensity to talk like conservatives and then act like democrats in the voting booth. In 1988 and 1992 it was George H.W. Bush, in 1996 it was Bob Dole, in 2000 & 2004 we had Bush shoved down our throats as a conservative despite his reputation as the moderate's moderate, and in 2008 we had, of all people, John McCain who spent of his time making deals with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Now we have Romney. The architect of Obama Care. The tax raiser. The big government spender. The world government advocate. The cheerleader for Wall Street Bailouts. The former governor who appointed mostly liberal judges. The welcome wagon for illegal immigrants. The man who takes advice from THIS GUY. The guy who supports strict gun control. The man who brags about being more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy. The lobbyist's best friend. The property of the banks.

That Mitt Romney. All of this proves is that the GOP at large is no friend of Christians, no friend of conservatives, and frankly. . . DESERVE WHAT THEY GET. Most of all, it proves that they aren't conservative.

Second Place is likely to go to Ron Paul. He's not going to win this one, but he can still do some damage. Although I don't think he can take advantage of the system to get an extra delegate or two, I do think that if he finishes closer than the polls, he'll continue his good momentum coming out of Iowa. Unfortunately, he is going to do terribly in South Carolina. If the election were held today, he'd finish a solid fourth place behind Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. The word out of the Paul campaign is that they are planning a major push in Florida. At this point, it's not looking great for the Paul campaign in Florida.

However, Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman are still in this race. I'd like to point out that Perry and Huntsman don't have enough support to get on the ballot in some states, and Gingrich is done. He might have a last stand in South Carolina, but he's not going to win. The word on the street is that it's personal for Gingrich and he wants to destroy Romney. It's just a matter of time for Perry and Huntsman who should fold up the tent any day now.

I think that Paul's campaign is hoping to be the guy who stays around long enough to pick up the pieces. Cain's departure helped him. Bachman's departure has helped him a little. Huntsman's departure will help him in a HUGE way, and Gingrich's people hate Romney. If Santorum falls. . . and he will. . . Paul could be in a position to have enough delegates to force a real convention in Tampa. But he HAS to start winning.

Third place will probably go to Huntsman, although I wouldn't be surprised if he finished with less than the polls are giving him. Huntsman doesn't matter. He's poured everything he has into New Hampshire and he'll barely finish in third.

Fourth place is where the race gets interesting. Santorum is riding high coming out of Iowa. He is the darling of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most of all Glenn Beck. If Santorum, who has had a new influx of money from his new found popularity can't beat Gingrich, who is reeling, then this will mark the beginning of the end for Santorum. The death blow will come if Santorum loses to Gingrich in a state that is supposed to be his bread and butter: South Carolina.

If I had to guess right now, I'd say it's going to be Romney vs. Obama in 2012 with Obama winning in a landslide. But it's not over yet. The reason Romney would be defeated in a landslide is because no one outside of his 20% of Republicans like him. That means there are 80% of republicans out there who are looking for someone else. It's time the Paul campaign capitalized on that. Sure, not all of them will support Paul, but most of them should. The question is: "will they?"

I'll have a recap tomorrow. We'll get back to some other topics after that, and then we'll have a discussion on this blog amongst us brothers and sisters in the Lord as to why we ought to support no one except Ron Paul in 2012.

NFL Playoffs -- Wildcard Week

noreply@blogger.com (jmarinara) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:03:00 +0000

It's no secret that I'm a Steelers fan, and in general, a fan of all things Pittsburgh and Sports. This city is an interesting place the day after a Steelers loss. I generally think that the city of Pittsburgh is WAY too in love with itself. We're constantly proud of perceived accomplishments, while perpetually sensitive to weaknesses and slights. Above all, we're dominated by an unending inferiority complex. We're not as big as Philadelphia, convinced that we're better than anything in Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and. . . my goodness. . . Maryland. No part of Pittsburgh is more representative of this state of mind than our beloved Pittsburgh Steelers.

So days like today; a day after the Steelers were completely embarrassed by a quarterback on par with Mark Sanchez, a day after they failed to cash in two early redzone opportunities, a day after their #1 pass defense gave up 316 passing yards including a "ripping the heart from the fans chest" 80 yard bomb on the first play in overtime, a day after they ended their season on a loss in the postseason, are difficult to swallow.

But, that's exactly what we have to do.

The Broncos will play New England next weekend.

Some words about Tim Tebow, as this is a Christian blog:

I'm happy for the guy. He played his tail off and deserved to win. Good for him
I like the guy. How could I not like a missionary homeschooled kid who plays the game with class, poise, and a ton of heart, gives a tremendous amount of his money to those in need, and afterward points everyone to the God who gave him that talent to begin with? I praise God for men like Tim Tebow. Others, including other "Christian" athletes, ought to take notes.
I don't think he's a very good QB. His throws are often wounded ducks. His footwork is completely wrong. He has the longest release I've ever seen. None of this is to say that he can't be effective. He can and has been effective. But, let's not put him on par with the Manning, Marino, etc. just yet.
I'm cheering for him the rest of the way.

As for my beloved Steelers. . . well. . .

I didn't think they should have played Ben as he was CLEARLY not healthy. I love Ben as a QB and he showed me that I was wrong. Nonetheless, the injury effected the game.

Ike Taylor played terribly. Still one of the best CB's in the game. I hope he has a monster season next year and I'm not going to blame the game on him.

Ok, before I make my next point, I want to make it clear that the Steelers would have lost this game without any refs at all but. . .

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT OFFICIATING IN THE NFL. Terrible calls were made on both sides of the ball in favor of both teams. I mean, for goodness sake, James Harrison should simply retire rather than be subjected to another season of being completely trashed by the refs. He is held on EVERY. SINGLE. PLAY. It is absolutely amazing that he ever gets to make any play at all. And when I say "held", I don't mean borderline calls. I'm talking being dragged down to the ground with a handful of his jersey, or wrapping your arms around his neck and pulling him down. It's ridiculous. It has to stop. And God forbid he ever touch a player with the ball. He pushed Tebow down yesterday AS (not after) he released the ball for a pass. They throw a flag. It's absurd and it takes away from one of the best games in the world.

The Steelers are way over the cap coming into next year. They also will draft later in the middle part of the draft. Interesting. It's going to be fun to watch how the best front office in football handles themselves.

(Let me digress for moment. . .

All in all, I'm settling in for a LONG sports season. The Pens are basically done. They have almost 15 top guys on the injury list, many are going to stay there for a while. They can't score and can't move the puck. They'll make the playoffs (because that's not a real acomplishment in the NHL) but won't go anywhere. Pitt is having a terrible year. The Pirates are frustrating. They signed Erik Bedard which is nice, but it doesn't put them over the top. Pedro Alverez is going to have to have a rebound career year and a lot of things are going to have to break for the Bucs to have any chance at a winning season. Not the playoffs, a winning season. That's where we're at for them. Good grief.)

Back to football:

The Texans beat the Bengals. The Bengals are going to be an up and coming team in the NFL, but they will never be more than a wildcard team as long as Marvin Lewis is their coach. The guy is terrible. He had no plan for the noise at Reliant Stadium, wasted his timeouts and challenges, and just plain didn't pay attention to the Texans pass rush. Of course the Texans have Arian Foster and that's almost unfair. Texans get the Ravens next weekend.

The Saints beat the Lions. Another terribly officiated game but even so, the Saints would have won. They're my pick to win the Super Bowl. Drew Brees is amazing. They play the 49ers next week.

The Falcons proved they were the worst of the playoff teams by not even showing up against the Giants. The Giants are sneaky good and will surprise the Packers next week with a competitive game. Unfortunately, at this point the Giants are playing guys who won stadium contests in their secondary and the Packers have a the best QB of this generation throwing to a top 5 receiving core.

By the way, 'Bama beats LSU tonight. . . just got a feeling.