Fearless Witness Blog

Theology Thursday: Expiation

2012-02-09T22:45:00.003-05:00

Every Thursday, I thought it would be helpful to set aside some time to write about a certain doctrine. Theology is not just the lofty study of divine abstracts, it is the study of Almighty God. Theology is practical, and the key to living a life in godliness (2 Peter 3:11-12). My goal is not to explain each topic comprehensively (any one doctrine can require an entire book to explain comprehensively), but instead to provide brief, to-the-point summaries of each doctrine, and a few ways that they should influence our thinking and living.

Today, we will talk about expiation.

Defining Expiation

Easton’s Bible Dictionary describes expiation in this manner:

Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be “covered” by vicarious satisfaction.

Expiation is closely connected to propitiation, but the difference between the two is significant. Expiation is done to a thing, while propitiation is done to a person. A person is propitiated (forgiven and made right with God); sin is expiated (cleansed). I will discuss the distinction further in a future article about propitiation, but for now the above information will suffice.

Many have discussed expiation of sin in terms such as “cleansing” or “purifying.” There are a few key verses that get this point across:

Colossians 2:14,

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Paul uses language that describes our sins against God as a “record of debt” that through Christ has been, “Nailed to the cross.” The righteousness of Jesus has been given to us (imputed righteousness) and in turn he takes away our sins and nails them to the cross (expiation).

Another important text is Titus 3:5,

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

The ESV Study Bible describes the “washing of regeneration” as a, “spiritual cleansing.” That language is significant. Our sins and deeds done without faith are described as “filthy rags” to God (Isaiah 64:6). But through Jesus’ death on the cross, by the power of the Holy Spirit, our sins are washed, and we become pure. In Christ, the Bible describes God’s chosen people, “as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).

First John 1, verses 7 and 9 also discuss expiation:

But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Again, the Bible uses the language of “cleansing” to describe Jesus washing out our sins. A final passage is 1 Corinthians 6:11. Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, and he states that, among those who God saved, there are rehabilitated sinners who have been washed clean by Jesus. These people include: idolaters, adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Who among us can say that we did not fall into one of those categories before Jesus saved us? But Paul tells the church:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Notice the specific roles the Trinity has in expiation. The Father appointed the Son and poured out His wrath reserved for sinners. The Son died on the cross, took our sin, and rose again thus showing He conquered sin and death. And the Holy Spirit cleanses our filthy, sin-filled hearts of the stains sin has brought.

Practical Application of Expiation

1. Expiation prevents believers from living in guilt over past sins.

There is a huge difference between regretting our sin and feeling guilty for our sin. Regret is a wise emotion that can help keep us from making the same mistake twice. One of my professors once said that, when he sins and realizes he sinned against a holy God, he prays, “Lord, help me never forget how I feel at this moment.” His point is a profound one: we must always remember that sin never satisfies. It promises life, and then it kills. In his powerful book Precious Remedies, Thomas Brooks explains sin as a fish hook. It promises a meal, but when we bite the book of sin it actually leads to death. Guilt, on the other hand, is when a Christian, despite that repentance toward Jesus has taken place, constantly condemns him or herself because of a past sin. While feeling guilty when we sin can be the Holy Spirit’s prodding and revealing to us that we sinned against God, guilt long after the fact is far from anything holy. Our sin has been expiated, washed, and cleansed. There is no stain on our souls. We are entirely pure before God in Christ because He has washed away the filthy stains of our hearts left by sin. Through Jesus, there is so stain. We need not have long-lasting guilt.

2. Expiation helps us forgive when a Christian sins against us.

In the New Testament, time and time again Jesus’ death on the cross is used as a model of forgiveness (Matt. 18:23-35; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). We discussed above that it is through Jesus’ death that our sin is expiated. Every Christian has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. If Jesus has cleansed us from all unrighteousness, then we also know that everyone who trusts Jesus has experienced that same cleansing. If God can wash away a person’s sin, can we not forgive someone who has sinned against us? If Jesus has cleansed us, should we not see another person as cleansed by God as well? This does not mean that there are not real, painful consequences for sin that must be dealt with. But it does mean that expiation should keep us from the bitterness, anger, and hard-heartedness that inevitably comes from unforgiveness. When a Christian sins against you, and you struggle to forgive them when they approach you seeking forgiveness, do not judgmentally stand above them. See them as God sees them: cleansed of all unrighteousness.

"Real Marriage" by Mark Driscoll

2012-02-04T15:08:00.009-05:00

As a reader, I have an interesting relationship with Mark Driscoll. I have read three of his books (Real Marriage, Death by Love, and Radical Reformission) and have a fourth sitting on my “to read” shelf (Vintage Jesus). He is one of the few authors on the planet who makes me feel bi-polar. One minute I will be saying “A men” to every word he is writing. Then, on the very next page, I will feel like throwing the book across the room (no, I don’t literally want to throw the book, and I am not literally bi-polar, you know what I mean…).

So, I when I first saw Real Marriage (written by Mark and his wife Grace) announced on the internet, I was excited and nervous, especially when I saw the subtitle: “The truth about sex, friendship, & life together.” Anyone who is vaguely familiar with Mark Driscoll knows his teaching on sex is controversial and frequent. And he knows it. In an interview done with Nightline a few years back, the interviewer stated to Driscoll that when people think about his ministry, they think about two things: Jesus and sex. Driscoll responds by saying, “Yeah, I like both, for the record. Sex with my wife, and I dig Jesus. Absolutely.” It is rare that 10 seconds of an interview can effectively summarize a man’s ministry, but that 10 seconds comes pretty close.

Back to Real Marriage. I was excited because Driscoll tries to be honest, practical, and has a lot to say about marriage. I was nervous because Driscoll tries just as hard (if not harder) to be honest and practical about sex. And he sure does have a lot to say.

So, before we get into the book itself, I have three disclaimers.

I would not consider myself a critic of Mark Driscoll. I have listened to quite a few of his sermons, and I have learned a lot from his ministry. There are a lot of things about him I appreciate: his boldness, his passion, his willingness to call out people who are living in sin, and his attempts to make it clear that the Bible has a lot to say about a lot of topics (often controversial topics). However, there are also a lot of things I do not appreciate: his (at times) off color sense of humor, his language, his stance on evangelism (relational only), and how explicit he is at times. I do not want Driscoll’s ministry to fail. I am not part of the camp that cannot stand the guy, but I am also not part of the camp that wants to emulate him. With any teacher, we need to be discerning.
I am not married. By God’s grace, I will be in about six months, but at the moment I am single. For that reason, I am not the wisest or best person to discuss his teachings on marriage. I admit this. Mark and Grace Driscoll have been married for 20 years and have five kids, and I have no right to say, “That is not the best way to do marriage.” So, the goal of this review is not to say their counsel and wisdom on marriage is wrong or unwise. Such criticism, if it needs to be made, is better left to godly, wise, married men.
The book is controversial because it deals so frankly with sexual issues. The subtitle for the book (as stated above) is: “The truth about sex, friendship, & life together.” There is a reason why sex is first on that list. Because of that, it is impossible to review (or even summarize) the book without referencing some of the sexual aspects of it. I will reference some of those aspects here. I will not use the same language the Driscoll’s use, and I will try to be as wise and cautious with my words as possible. So, while I will not be detailed, a large portion of this post will be about how sex is portrayed in the book.

With those introductory comments made, let’s get into the book.

Real Marriage as a whole

Real Marriage is separated into three sections: Marriage, Sex, and the Last Day. The Marriage section opens with the Driscolls' marriage story, then moves on to talk about friendship, husband/wife roles, respect, and how to handle conflict with your spouse. The second section talks about sex. They begin with a discussion on how people view sex: as either god, gross, or gift. Grace Driscoll then writes a chapter on her history with sexual abuse, and how to handle sexual abuse in marriage. Mark then comes in to write a chapter about pornography. The next chapter deals with sex as a way to serve your spouse. The final (and most controversial) chapter deals with a lengthy list of “can we” sex questions. The final section (the Last Day) provides readers with a sort of discussion/journaling plan to help married couples work towards a healthy marriage. Since this last section is essentially a list of questions, I will not go into depth on it here.

The Good

In many ways, it is a shame that the book has been so controversial. I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the book about marriage, and thought that the Driscolls' had a lot of wisdom to offer. The chapter on friendship (Chapter 2) I thought was the best in the book, and I found it helpful and practical. Mark and Grace discuss the importance of being best friends with your spouse, and point out how neglected that aspect of marriage is in modern books. They write:

In researching this book, we read all or part of 187 books on marriage, most written by and for Christians. Not one of those books had one chapter or major section of a chapter on marital friendship.

This chapter, and the other in the marriage section are honest, open, and grounded in the gospel. They discuss your spouse as the number one agent in your life to help you grow in sanctification, and that no one can better help you identify sin than your spouse. In the chapter “Men and Marriage” Driscoll writes about different types of unhealthy men (labeled by him as “Tough Chauvinists” and “Tender Cowards.”) He concludes that godly men are tough and tender, and that your spouse needs both sides for a healthy marriage:

You honor your wife physically by being safe for her, protective of her, and tender with her. In this way she will see your physical strength as a blessing instead of a danger…Because she is a crystal goblet and he is a thermos means she is not only delicate but also precious.

He talks about five ways husbands should honor their wives: physically, emotionally, verbally, financially, and technologically. He also discusses the importance of a good church, Bible study, and prayer in marriage. Grace’s chapter on respect is equally practical and helpful. She defines respect, talks about how respect looks in a marriage, and points out practical ways wives do not respect their husbands (such as gossip or bitterness over a decision). The last chapter in the Marriage section deals with fighting. They helpfully distinguish between complaint and criticism by writing: “Simply, a complaint attacks the problem, whereas a criticism attacks the person.” From there they discuss repentance in marriage, and how the gospel should lead to forgiveness in marriage:

No one has been more wounded, grieved, hurt, betrayed, and mistreated than God. Furthermore, we each have contributed to the pain that God experiences, as all sin is ultimately against God…Our forgiveness of our spouses has very little, if anything, to do with them. Instead, it has everything to do with God…As an act of worship, we must respond to our sinful spouses as God has responded to our sin.

Another thing I loved about this section of the book was the way they talked about church history. Perhaps it is just because I am a complete theological nerd, but I loved two passages of the book that dealt with the marriages of Martin Luther (to Katheryn von Bora) and John Wesley (to Mary Vazeille). They describe the friendship that thrived in Luther’s marriage, and the bitterness that wreaked havoc on Wesley’s. Both stories are well told, beneficial, and good to know from a historical perspective.

One aspect of the book that people are critiquing is the Driscoll’s openness about their past sins. Specifically, the way they talk about Grace’s sexual sin and abuse. I actually disagree with these critiques. Real Marriage is just that: real. They do not pretend to have it all together, and talk openly about struggles they have had in the past. The two examples people are not happy about are a quote about Grace cheating on Mark sexually (before they were married) in high school, and a lengthy discussion of abuse in one of Grace’s previous relationships (lengthy in discussion, not in sexually explicit detail).

Driscoll explains that he had a “vision” from God in which he saw this sexual sin Grace committed. (NOTE: No, I do not like that either. For the purpose of this review, however, I am dealing with the books content, not every theological dilemma that could come up based on references made by Mark and Grace). Mark writes,

I awoke, threw up, and spent the rest of the night sitting on our couch, praying, hoping it was untrue...I asked her if it was true, fearing the answer. Yes, she confessed, it was. Grace started weeping and trying to apologize for lying to me…Had I known about this sin [before we were married], I would not have married her.

Throughout the rest of their marriage testimony, they both explain the struggles they had because of that, and how they worked through it by the grace of God. Many have said they were wrong to even breach this subject. For example, Phil Johnson from Team Pyro (who I love, respect, and think is about 9.9 billion times wiser than I will ever be) said,

There wasn't anything particularly new or stunning in the book—other than the details Driscoll reveals about his wife's personal history and the admission that his own marriage was dysfunctional for more than a decade. Those are facts I didn't need (or want) to know, and I am not interested in analyzing them further.

Johnson goes on to say:

If you ask me (and some readers have), Mark Driscoll fails to safeguard his wife's honor and reputation. He uncovers her sin for all the world to analyze, giving intimate details that should have been kept between husband and wife.

I disagree for two reasons. First, nothing about the descriptions of Grace’s sin are sexually explicit or over the top. We are merely told she committed a sexual sin. There is not an over emphasis on any sex act. It is mentioned to explain a very difficult season they went through, and how they worked through it. Why is it wrong if they, after agreeing about it as a couple, decide to make their struggle (and how they got through it by trusting Jesus and Scripture) public to help others work through similar struggles?

The details of the situation are not revealed, and how they worked through bitterness, forgiveness, and patience is emphasized. Second, I think it is edifying and helpful to the body of Christ to learn from one another’s testimonies. For example, a number of people have testimonies that involve leaving a criminal lifestyle of gang-violence and drug-abuse. Is it wrong for them to tell that story, and then explain how the gospel helped them get through the aftermath their sinful lifestyle brought? Paul certainly did that. In Galatians 1:13 he writes,

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

After pointing out his past sin, Paul praises God and points to the gospel:

But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His son to me…(v. 15-16)

I have also heard testimonies of women saved out of prostitution by Jesus. They explain how they realized their sin, repented, and trusted in Jesus. Then they give God the glory for saving them, and getting them out of that lifestyle. I do not see a gospel-centered testimony intended to encourage and edify other believers as wrong or unwise. If the Driscoll’s story was loaded with sexually explicit descriptions (as other parts of the book are) that would be a problem. In this example, that is simply not the case, nor is it the case in the chapter where Grace discusses her past of sexual abuse.

Two more final positive thoughts on the book: I found Grace’s chapter on sexual abuse and Mark’s chapter on pornography helpful. Grace speaks (again, respectfully) about abuse in her past and about how to get through that in marriage through the gospel. This chapter (titled “Disgrace and Grace”) had a lot of helpful information from both a marriage and counseling perspective. Mark’s chapter on pornography is loaded with statistics, and discusses how pornography is disgusting, sinful, and will kill your marriage. Again, in my opinion he manages to be honest about the reality of pornography with saying anything gratuitous or unwise.

The Bad (and the Ugly)

I hope you continued to read this far. One of my concerns with writing so much positive about the book is that people will assume I recommend it. While I do want to acknowledge the book for what it does well, let me make this as clear as possible: the bad in it is easily enough to keep me from recommending it to anyone. It is difficult to review the sexual parts of the book (simply because it is explicit enough that I am not comfortable quoting it, with a few exceptions).

Before we go there, I want to make a comment on something Driscoll said about those reviewing the book. In an article he wrote for CNN he said,

Those who view sex as gross criticize our book because we speak too openly and frankly about sex for their taste. The accusation is that the private counsel that pastors give to people in the church isn’t suitable to give in a public context.

Assuming that those who criticize your book must view sex as gross is a straw man of the worst kind. I am not afraid to talk about sex. The Bible has a lot to say about the topic, and so should Christians. Sex is a gift from God to married couples, and should be enjoyed to those in that covenant.

When I was a sophomore in college, I did a fairly in-depth study on Song of Songs, and am not uncomfortable or intimidated by what it discusses. In fact, I think a healthy understanding of the Song is one of the best ways to remain pure before marriage. Through studying it, I loved Jesus more and I respected sex more. I remember thinking to myself that if the beautiful, poetic picture described in Solomon’s Song is God’s plan for marriage, then I would never want to sin against Him, disrespect His gift, and trade marital intimacy for a cheap, premarital impersonation that actually brought death and pain instead of joy. So, saying that critiquing the book means I think sex is gross simply does not fly.

The book gets rough around the end of chapter 9, and by the end of chapter 10 it is downright brutal. When reading through the chapter on “can we” questions, I had to stop and put the book down two or three times simply because the language is so explicit that I did not want to read it all at once. So, the warning comes again. From this point on, I will be dealing with the more explicit parts of the book.

He kicks off the “sexually detailed” parts of the book with a five page description of Song of Songs 6:13-7:13, and proceeds to describe it as a strip tease. Instead of treating the Song as a beautiful, poetic piece that leaves room for imagination, Driscoll prefers to rip off all of God’s beautiful poetry and turn the book into a step-by-step how-to sex guide. This poor treatment of the book has been addressed by Christian leaders (see John MacArthur’s article, The Raping of Solomon’s Song), so I will not get into too much “interpretational debate” here.

One note I would like to make however, is on his treatment of Song of Songs 7:2. The verse reads, “Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies.” According to the Driscoll’s, just about every translation on the planet has this verse wrong. Instead, he concludes that the “navel” is actually an intimately private area of a woman’s body. From there, he draws the conclusion that the verse is a reference to a specific sex act. He supports his claim by saying the “navel” is a bowl that never lacks mixed wine that the husband drinks from. He writes,

Sadly, it seems those who translated this verse from the original poetic Hebrew into English were more timid than God…

The word for “navel” is used four times in the original Hebrew. Once it is translated as “cord,” twice as “navel” and once as “body.” It is used in Proverbs 3:8 once, Song of Songs 7:2 once, and Ezekiel 16:4 twice. In Ezekiel, it is used as a reference to an umbilical cord. There is not a single example in Scripture of the Hebrew word used to mean what Driscoll claims. Of the most common translations today, I could only find three that did not translate the word as “navel” in 7:2. Two used “body” (RSV, World English Translation) and one used “waist” (Young’s Literal).

But still, Driscoll quotes a few commentaries to support his thesis. I noticed something interesting in all of the commentaries he quotes: every one of them had phrases such as “more likely,” “almost certainly,” and “[it] may be.” In other words, Driscoll takes an uncertain interpretation, runs with it, and turns a poetic verse (that is at best unclear, and at worst simply not what he is claiming) into a detailed description of a specific sexual
encounter.

The “Can We ___?” Chapter

Now, moving on to chapter 10, the "Can We ____?" chapter. The Driscolls know this chapter is going to cause trouble, but they proceed to speak in explicit terms anyway. Their reasoning is stated in the introduction of the chapter:

The questions today are different, and if people don’t get answers from pastors and parents, they will find them in dark, depraved places.

In other words, the Driscolls want to answer these questions bluntly because people are looking for blunt answers. Why not give them biblical blunt answers? The logic seems reasonable at face value.

Let me say that I do believe the Driscolls' motive in writing the chapter was pure. I don’t think they sat down and thought, “Let’s be as explicit, perverse, and detailed as possible to get people really ticked off at us.” Earlier in the book, he condemns magazines such as Cosmo for putting unbiblical, sinful, depraved sexual content into the hands of people. I do believe the Driscolls' are simply out to give people biblical answers to hard, controversial, specific questions.

Also, I do not believe it is wrong for Christians to provide answers to these questions in a certain context. Some have condemned Driscoll because no Christian should ever attempt to answer such sex questions. I respectfully disagree. I believe we should take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Second Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Word of God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, and it equips us for every good work. For that reason, I believe the Bible has something to say about every aspect of life, including sex. There is not a single question that a friend or stranger could ask me that I would say, “Don’t talk about that. The Bible can’t help you.”

The Bible has the answers to life and teaches us about God. I believe the Bible has something to say about every aspect of life (either directly or indirectly).

Once while part of an open-air preaching team, someone asked us if a specific sex act was forbidden in Scripture. We did not look shocked and say, “Don’t ask about things like that. The Bible doesn’t dare have something to say.” Instead, our team did the best we could to wisely, respectfully, and biblically answer his question, and then point him to Jesus.

The problem is, the Driscoll’s writing is totally void of respect, tact, or frankly, class. Before they unanimously, once-and-for all answer if a given sex act is permissible, they go into a short, but explicit, detailed description of what each sex act is. I will not produce any of these quotes. They are graphic enough that I would not want my fiancé, parents, family, or friends to read them. Not because I am a prude or view sex as gross, but because I do not want them to have to read through brutal, explicit, over-the-top, unnecessary, gratuitous, descriptions of sex acts.

Basically, how the Driscoll’s go about answering the “can we” questions is by dropping the question into a three-level filter. You put the question in the top, and if anything comes out the bottom, then it is okay to do in marriage. The three levels of his filter (based on 1 Corinthians 6:12) are: is it lawful?, is it helpful?, and is it enslaving? By “lawful” they mean is it forbidden in Scripture or by the law. By “helpful” they mean can it benefit your marriage/sex life. And by “enslaving” they mean can it become an unhealthy habit that you become attached to.

But can you even use 1 Corinthians 6:12 to create this filter? 1 Corinthians 6:12 reads, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” Driscoll opens his discussion of the verse by writing:

In the Bible there is a major city called Corinth. They had many questions about cross-dressing, cohabitation, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and whether or not it was okay for one guy to be sleeping with his stepmother.

In other words, he sets up 1 Corinthians as a letter Paul wrote to do exactly what the chapter is going to do: answer “can we” questions. This is a misuse of 1 Corinthians for at least two reasons.

One, although we can safely assume 1 Corinthians is in response to a previously received letter, there is no reason to assume the Corinthians asked, “Is it biblical for me to sleep with my stepmother?” Paul is not answering genuine questions that come from a desire to love Jesus more. He is rebuking the church because they were acting immorally. Two, even if some questions were asked of Paul as Driscoll implies (such as, “Is homosexuality permissible?” or “Is it wrong to sleep with my stepmother?”), Paul manages to answer without explicitly describing what the person means when they ask about sleeping with their stepmother or homosexuality. And saying, “But culture wants those details, the world has changed…” does not justify such language.

Honestly, I doubt our culture is more sexually perverted than Corinth. There are not many open-access religious shrines for public prostitution in America that I am aware of. Both cultures were sexually perverse. In one culture, the pastor managed to be mature, clear (but lacking unnecessary detail), and respectful. The other pastor in the other culture…not so much.

But the question remains: when Paul penned 6:12, did he essentially say, “Anything goes sexually”? Driscoll writes:

This simple taxonomy is brilliantly helpful because it is simultaneously simple enough to remember and broad enough to apply to every sexual question

Using this logic, Driscoll basically says, if it is not illegal and you decide it is “helpful,” then feel free to do it. Out of the 11 “can we” topics the Driscoll’s discuss, they declare that only one is sinful: marital sexual assault. In other words, as long as you do not beat or rape your spouse you are not doing anything wrong. This drastically misses the point of 1 Corinthians 6:12. Paul’s emphasis is on the heart, not on “I guess this is okay to do because it is not illegal.” The Driscolls' try to address this issue by writing,

The Bible often gives more freedom than our conscious’s can accept, and we then choose not to use all our freedoms.

At the end of the chapter they also say,

We want to emphatically state that our intent is to inform heterosexual married couples of the full range of their sexual freedoms. But we do not want this information to be used in any way to force someone to act against his or her conscious.

I appreciate the sentiment, but for all practical purposes they completely obliterate that statement throughout the chapter. In seeking to give straight forward, black-and-white answers to very personal questions, they indirectly leave conscious out of it.

Someone who agrees with the Driscoll’s tone and language would say: “They leave conscious out because it is for the individual to decide. That is their point.”

Exactly. So do not write a book giving a one-size fits all answer to such sexual questions then say, “But if you aren’t okay with this, don’t do it.” That is why I believe answering these questions should be on a one-on-one basis—because only in a personal, one-on-one situation can you truly understand a couple’s hesitancies or motivations for doing a certain act, and therefore declare an act “biblically permissible.” The Bible is concerned with a lot more than, “You can do this…you can’t do that…”

I will talk about one specific topic they address in this topic (one that is less explicit): cosmetic surgery. They declare surgery (such as breast augmentation or tummy tucks) perfectly fine because,

It is legal to have cosmetic surgery. Furthermore, it is not forbidden in Scripture, because it is a more recent medical invention.

In other words, getting a breast augmentation is legal. It is new technology, so the Bible does not forbid it. Therefore, if you want, go ahead and have a breast augmentation. They also declare such procedures “helpful” to marriage because, “It can make us more attractive to our spouses. And if our appearance is improved, we feel more comfortable being seen naked by our spouses, which can increase our freedom in lovemaking.” The only “unhelpful” consequence they list about cosmetic surgery is risk of, “…death, injury, or disfigurement.” Would the Driscolls' say you should have a cosmetic surgery to improve your sex life? Not necessarily. But in their blanket condoning of it, they leave absolutely no room for heart issues.

What is particularly interesting about this topic is that Mark Driscoll unapologetically says husbands should be completely satisfied in their wives elsewhere in the book. He writes, “If your spouse is skinny, you are into skinny. If your spouse is twenty, you are into twenty.” He also says, “…our spouses are to be our standard of beauty.” And lastly:

Spend more time thanking God for what you have from your spouse than you do picking at what she or he does not have or give, and your attraction toward and satisfaction with your spouse will increase.

How can you say you are satisfied in your spouse, but you really want them to have a doctor make them look different so they appear more attractive to you? What is the motivation for having the surgery? Why isn’t the husband satisfied with how God made his wife? Why isn’t the wife encouraged in her physical appearance by her husband enough that she feels no need for such a surgery?

These questions are blatantly missing from the discussion. And such questions can be asked for almost every sex act the Driscoll’s discuss. But, based on the Driscoll’s logic, don’t worry about those questions. As long as the government doesn’t say no, and a verse doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not…” it is okay.

Conclusion

In closing, despite the positive and helpful content presented in the first half (and even some chapters of the second half) of the book, I cannot recommend it. If you want a good, practical book on marriage, look elsewhere (there are a lot of them). If you want the answers to tough sex questions, ask your pastor, wise Christian friend, or parents. They know you, and can give you wise council based on your personal situation. If you turn to Real Marriage, the answer you will get is (paraphrasing), “As long as you aren’t breaking a law or beating your spouse, do it if you want to.” That’s all. And you can understand that message without working through 32 pages of over the top sexual content to get it.

Wretched Radio: MacDonald, Driscoll, and an Elephant

2012-01-31T21:49:00.002-05:00

Out of fear of beating an already dead horse called the Elephant Room 2... This video is too good to pass up. Wretched Radio points out that MacDonald and Driscoll have BOTH taught against T.D. Jakes' theology (without using his name) in the past.

Voddie Bauchum Humble Thoughts on ER2

2012-01-30T13:44:00.004-05:00

Well, the Elephant Room 2 controversy did not end when the event ended.

The battle cry of ER2 has been unity, fairness, gentleness, and friendliness to those who disagree with us theologically. Crawford Loritts decided to express this message by bringing race into the mix and condemning "middle aged, white, reformed guys" who are critiquing James MacDonald and T.D. Jakes.

Voddie Bauchum, who was apparently invited to ER2 when Mark Dever pulled out, decided to address this issue publicly in an article he wrote recently. His thoughts are humble, and in my opinion wise. It is well worth the read.

I encourage you to stay up to date on this, because ER2 has, sadly, started a whole storm of controversies on modalism, trinitarianism, and quite frankly, orthodoxy. A lot more will be said, and as members of the larger body of Christ, it will do us all well to be aware of it.

Poetry About Sexual Sin and Jesus

2012-01-28T21:36:00.003-05:00

After seeing the interview on CBS, I started looking through Jeff's YouTube channel and saw this video. Powerful, gospel centered stuff. If you do not have any sexual sin in your past, praise Jesus and watch this to know how to better help, minister, and counsel those who do. If you do have sexual sin in your past, watch this and know through Jesus you can be completely washing clean by the Savior.

"Love Jesus Hate Religion" Poet on CBS

2012-01-26T16:55:00.004-05:00

The maker of the "Why I love Jesus but hate religion" video that went viral not too long ago recently appeared on CBS to discuss the video with a priest. Here is a clip from the interview:

The full discussion can be seen on CBS's website.

I would encourage you to take note of how Jeff Bethke (the maker of the video) handles himself in this CBS dialogue. When I first heard and saw the "Jesus hates religion" video I was not crazy about it. I wholeheartedly agreed with Kevin DeYoung's critiques of the video, although I do see what message Jeff was trying to convey. And, while I am still not a fan of the video itself, Jeff has impressed me in his humility and grace for two reasons.

One, it is incredibly rare that someone be thankful for theological correction. Yet, thankful is exactly what Jeff was to DeYoung's article. You can read about his response here. How much humility does it take to say on a public blog (a high profile, popular, public blog nonetheless) that you appreciate, am thankful for, and will submit to critiques made against a massively popular YouTube video you made? Sixteen million people have seen the video. Most of them loved it and praised it. And now you are coming out and saying:

I just wanted to say I really appreciate your [Kevin DeYoung's] article man. It hit me hard. I’ll even be honest and say I agree 100%. God has been working with me in the last 6 months on loving Jesus AND loving his church.

THAT is humble. That is Christ-like.

Two, Jeff handled himself incredibly well in this CBS interview. He was gracious, quoted Scripture, smiled and listened during the priest's critiques, and all around handled himself like someone who loves Jesus. He emphasized God's grace, and admitted some of the critiques against the video are fair, while also emphasizing that Jesus does hate man-centered, hypocritical, self-righteous religion.

Jeff Bethke, I tip my hat to you sir. Thank you for your humility and grace, and the way your response and reaction has modeled Jesus to a whole lot of people, including myself.

Chris's Story on Being Prevented Access to ER2

2012-01-25T20:57:00.002-05:00

The previous post mentioned that Chris Rosebrough had been denied admittance into the Elephant Room 2 despite that he had previously bought a ticket. Today on his radio program, he explained what happened. Here is the link:

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012/01/elephant-room-arrest-threat-details.html

Man Threatened With Arrest at Elephant Room 2

2012-01-25T12:38:00.003-05:00

As if this situation could not get even more tragic, a gentleman who showed up at the Elephant Room 2, with a pass he paid for, was told he had to leave. If he did not, he would be arrested. The man is Chris Rosebrough, the host of Pirate Christian Radio. I am friends with Chris on Facebook, and he has been open about the fact that ER2 is unity at the expense of truth.

Read about what happened here. I am curious to see if ER2 actually responds to this, because it makes them look pretty bad. According to Chris (who I trust), he simply showed up and they told him to leave. Why? He clearly was not wanted there for some reason. Time will tell. Is the Elephant Room only interested in "conversation" with people who will pat them on the back and say they are promoting unity? I am hoping they comment on the arrest threat after the event is over.

James MacDonald Resigns from TGC

2012-01-24T16:07:00.004-05:00

Interestingly, James MacDonald just announced that he has resigned from the Gospel Coalition. TGC released a statement on their blog stating:

As the reason for his departure, James notes that he "has very different views on how to relate to the broader church." He added, "I believe their [TGC's] work will be assisted by my absence, given my methodological convictions." We acknowledge that James feels called of God into these spheres, and we wish him well in his far-reaching endeavors, and many years of ministry both faithful and fruitful.

Ironically (or maybe not?) this announcement that MacDonald disagrees on how to "relate to the broader church" comes on the eve of Elephant Room 2, where MacDonald invited T.D. Jakes to "converse" with mainstream evangelicals. Praying for both parties involved, and hoping this does not mean MacDonald is moving towards a "generous orthodoxy" view of Christendom. Time will tell.

Four Keys to Effective Exegesis

2012-01-19T20:38:00.004-05:00

Currently in Greek class, we are covering the basics of exegesis and textual criticism. This past week in class, the professor did a lecture on four important aspects of biblical exegesis. These four point are taken from Bock and Fanning's book Interpreting the New Testament Text.

1. The Authors Original Meaning

In other words, what did the author mean when he wrote the text. This prevents what is commonly known as "springboard preaching." A preacher "springboards" when he, instead of explaining what the text actually says, simply uses the verse as a starting point to jump into a topic of his choice. For example, 1 Samuel 17 contains the popular passage about David and Goliath. Many sermons have been preached by explaining that David had to face a huge problem in Goliath, and, only by the power of God could he defeat his giant. What is the "giant" in your life that you need God to help you defeat? What is your "Goliath." Then the sermon gets really good by picking five ways to slay the troubles in your life based on the five stones David chose.

That may sound good, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the text. There is no indication that the original author had "five solutions" in mind when he wrote that David chose five stones. Nor is there any exegetical reason to assume the author wanted us to think of Goliath as a generic problem that we deal with in the year 2012.

2. The Text's Original Language

Although we have a number of excellent, scholarly translations, there are still nuggets of gold in a given passage that can only be found in the original language. It is important to note that a preacher does not have to know Greek or Hebrew to understand and preach a passage effectively. I have heard numerous sermons and lessons taught that do not even mention Greek syntax. However, understanding the languages of Scripture lets a preacher dive deeper into a text in a way an english translation simply does not allow.

3. Sound Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is simply the science of interpretation. Sound hermeneutical study includes a proper understanding of words, grammar, sentence structure, genre, and historical context. Solid hermeneutics helps us understand historical customs, and thus lets us better see how the text could apply today. Which leads us to the final point...

4. Modern Application

The first three points all lead up to the ultimate goal of exegesis: application. We study God's Word to understand God's Word, so that we can apply God's Word to our lives. Any student, scholar, or layperson can complete the first three aspects of exegesis. Some atheists who have a hefty knowledge of Greek and history understand the Bible more than the average Christian. But a secular scholar cannot possibly, through the leading of the Holy Spirit, powerfully and properly apply a text to today. The Bible cannot stay in our minds, it must come out in our living. Without explaining how a given passage applies today, the preacher fails to practice meaningful, effective, life-changing exegesis.

Thoughts on T.D. Jakes' Invitation to the Elephant Room 2

2012-01-14T19:09:00.009-05:00

Back to the Elephant Room. So, basically what we have are Trinitarians debating with a Modalist in a public forum. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Let me explain why.

Is Debate Inherently a Bad Thing?

Debate is good. Jesus debated the Pharisees. Paul debated with the philosophers of his day. I love debates…I enjoy both watching them and having them. I love debates between Christians and Muslims, atheists and theists, etc. I love debates because they give somebody who is standing for the gospel the opportunity to openly and publicly preach the gospel (and oppose a heresy or anti-biblical point of view).

A great example: a while back Mark Driscoll debated Deepak Chopra on the existence of Satan. Driscoll clearly proclaimed the gospel on a national forum while systematically debunking every argument Chopra used. I loved it.

So, when I first heard about the Elephant Room 2 I was excited—some orthodox followers of Jesus are finally going to publicly call T.D. Jakes out. Calling false teaching what it is, pointing out the errors in non-Trinitarian thinking, and calling Bishop Jakes to repentance is a good thing in my book. It honors the gospel and glorifies Jesus.

But here is the problem: time has revealed this is not at all what the Elephant Room 2 is about.

James MacDonald’s Troubling Statement

James MacDonald, the organizer of the Elephant Room, released a video about the event after T.D. Jakes was brought on board:

The comments that could be made on this video are endless, so I will just focus on the biggest problem: using the word “brothers.” MacDonald states in the video, “We are going to be getting some brothers together to talk about the issues that separate us…Men that believe the word of God, men that preach the gospel.”

Now we have a problem.

MacDonald just openly and publicly embraced T.D. Jakes as three things: a brother in Christ, an orthodox Christian, and a biblical teacher. As we saw in the previous article, wrong on all three counts.

My heart sank when I saw this clip. The hope I (and so many others) was holding out for burned to the ground.

Any confusion on what the intentions of Elephant Room 2 are ceased with that video. Many of us excited about the event assumed it was: biblical Christians openly rebuking an unorthodox Christian and calling him back to the gospel. Time has shown it to be: a bunch of men discuss issues that have been deemed secondary.

Thabiti Anayabwile voiced his disappointment with Elephant Room 2 in a blog post he wrote back in October 2011. In that post he stated:

This kind of invitation undermines that long, hard battle many of us have been waging in a community often neglected by many of our peers. And because we’ve often been attempting to introduce African-American Christians to the wider Evangelical and Reformed world as an alternative to the heresy and blasphemy so commonplace in some African-American churches and on popular television outlets, the invitation of Jakes to perform in “our circles” simply feels like a swift tug of the rug from beneath our feet and our efforts to bring health to a sick church. (1)

But other teachers, such as Mark Driscoll (who will moderate the Elephant Room 2), are asking Christians not to condemn the event so quickly. In a post Driscoll wrote on the topic, he said:

Regarding Bishop Jakes, my preference is to simply let the man speak for himself and see what he says. As moderator, I assure you, I don’t want to do anything but let the men speak for themselves without being disrespected, set-up, or pushed into an unfair position—and I know this is MacDonald’s stance too. The Bible is clear about loving people and truth telling. Our plan is to have both. (2)

I appreciate the sentiment, and I agree we should let Jakes speak for himself. But that is exactly the point. He has. Saying, “I am not a Modalist,” then saying, “He [God] is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration,” is like saying, “I am not a Muslim. I confess Muhammad as the highest prophet, I pray five times a day, and I love the Koran.” As said in the article about Jakes’ Modalism, refusing to accept a label does not mean you do not fit it.

Interestingly, in that same article Driscoll wrote:

For the record, I am staunchly Trinitarian, consider it a closed-handed issue that is necessary for Christian orthodoxy, and am certain MacDonald is also Trinitarian.

Here is my question then: why is Elephant Room 2 being marketed as “brothers” getting together? T.D. Jakes is a nationally known, best selling, preaching, high-profile “Christian celebrity.” He has a huge platform and following. He has written over 30 books and preached who knows how many sermons, and he can’t clear up this confusion before January 25?

I can only think of one reason: Jakes does reject a historical understanding of the Trinity, and he knows it.

I am still desperately trying to give Driscoll, MacDonald, and others involved the benefit of the doubt. But time has made that more and more difficult. Is the event to be a grand revealing of T.D. Jakes as orthodox? Is Jakes going to publicly say, “I know I have been confusing. Let me make it clear: I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, but one God. I believe in the Trinity.” Unfortunately, I highly doubt it.

Can this possibly turn out well?

I still see one way this event will not be a train wreck: Driscoll, in his controversial no holds barred style, will question Jakes on his theology. If/when he does deny the Trinity (again) Driscoll will openly and publicly label Jakes what he is when he persists in his modalist theology: a heretic.

A number of people have said there is no way this will happen, but I am not so sure. Say what you want about Driscoll’s style, but you have to give the man credit for at least one thing: he is blunt. It has gotten him into some trouble, but it has also made him one of the very few high profile guys out there who is willing to call certain doctrines heresy. I do not know if that will happen or not. In his article, Driscoll plainly said non-Trinitarians are not orthodox. Yet, he seems to think Jakes does not fit that, despite the things he has said.

I guess time will tell.

UPDATE 1/30/2012: Time has revealed that my "hope" here was wrong. Instead of boldly challenging Jakes, Driscoll and the others involved solf-balled the issue and essentially treated Jakes as an honored guest. At the event, Jakes said he was uncomfortable with the word "persons" in reference to the Trinity, and that he still embraces those with modalist theology (even though he supposedly does not consider himself a modalist). The theological uncertainty and "uncomfortableness" Jakes expressed toward the Trinity was written off because, apparently, the thought of the Trinity makes James MacDonald's head want to "explode."

So, is it wrong?

I will close out this post by attempting to answer the question a lot of people have been asking from the very beginning: was it wrong to invite Jakes to the Elephant Room? I would say yes for one simple reason: the Elephant Room 2 is being marketed as a debate of Christians. This is not Frank Turek debating Christopher Hitchens. This is not Mark Driscoll debating Deepok Chopra. In events such as those, a clear line was drawn to show the debate was between people with starkly different worldviews. In the Elephant Room 2, those lines have been blurred into oblivion.

Scripture could not be more clear that believers should not embrace with wolves. In other words, we should not entertain the teachings of teachers who claim the name of Christ in profession but attack the character of the Godhead with their words.

In 1 Timothy 1:3-7, Paul admonishes Timothy to correct false teaching, not “dialogue” with it. Why? Because teaching contrary to Scripture is not all the 21st century (American) Church has cracked it up to be. It is not helpful, edifying, or a good way to grow by expanding your “perspective.” False teaching is a bunch of “myths” that give rise to “mere speculation.”

Paul’s next letter to Timothy urges him to “avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” (2 Timothy 2:16). In the next verse, Paul says giving false teachers a platform to spread their heresies will make their talk “spread like gangrene.”

Finally, in Titus 1:10-11 Paul says that false teachers are selfish men who should be “silenced.”

I will conclude with a quote from Charles Spurgeon. Commenting on Galatians, he wrote these words:

The modern style of speaking is, "Let us fraternize with him [a heretic]; he is a man of original thought. Surely, you would not bind all men down to one mode of speech. Perhaps, if he has made mistakes, you will bring him round to your way of thinking by receiving him kindly into your fellowship."

"No, no;" says Paul, "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

(1) http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2011/10/01/collateral-damage-in-the-invitation-of-t-d-jakes-to-the-elephant-room/

(2) http://pastormark.tv/2011/09/29/reflections-on-james-macdonald-td-jakes-and-the-trinity

T.D. Jakes and the Elephant Room

2012-01-13T18:18:00.007-05:00

If you have not heard about the Elephant Room, then you probably should get acquainted with it. The premise of the first Elephant Room in 2011 was fairly simple: bring a lot of guys together who agree that Jesus is God, but do not agree on too much else. Then, have them debate/talk out their plethora of differences. Last year, the “debaters” included James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Greg Laurie, Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, and David Platt. They wrestled with a lot of issues, including church philosophy, evangelism, and ministry.

Basically, “We all love Jesus,” says the Elephant Room, “So let’s get together dear brothers, and let’s seriously talk about our differences.” That is not an official quote, but one that I think summarizes the event. Here is the purpose of the Elephant Room according to the official website:

The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

January 25, 2012 marks the Elephant Room 2—an event that has became Ground Zero for a pretty heated evangelical debate. Why? Because this year, James MacDonald (the master planner behind the Elephant Room conferences) has thrown a curve ball to the evangelical community by inviting T.D. Jakes to the event.

That is a problem, because T.D. Jakes is a pretty popular heretic. Setting aside the issues with his word of faith and prosperity preaching, he is a Modalist. Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) is a doctrine that teaches that the three persons of the Trinity exist in three “modes.” Kevin DeYoung puts it this way:

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects modalism which believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different names for the same God acting in different roles or manifestations. (1)

In other words, Modalists deny the Trinity. Before we discuss the Elephant Room debacle further, let’s briefly look at Bishop Jakes’ theology. His statement of faith reads as follows:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (2)

Hearing the word “Manifestations” in reference the Trinity is like loud music playing in a scary movie…something pretty bad is about to happen.

Jakes has been confronted on this issue, and has responded with enough evangelical lingo to escape the fire (or at least, to try):

The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as “manifestations” does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5—8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament? (3)

So, if you ask Bishop Jakes if he is a modalist he will say no. But if you ask Rob Bell he is a universalist he will also say no. The question is not: do you embrace a label? The question is: does the label accurately describe your theology and teaching? But still, Bishop Jakes persists in using Modalist language:

I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions — so separate each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods. (4)

In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H20. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.... (5)

When God got ready to make a man that looked like Him, He didn't make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul and spirit. We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. (6)

Why does the last quote not completely settle this issue? God is the Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in Regeneration. Three functions. Not three persons. All the other theological issues aside (Oneness Pentecostalism, Word of Faith preaching, etc.), let’s agree on one thing: T.D. Jakes rejects the Trinity.

“But the Trinity is a complex issue,” his supporters say. True, but complexity is not as excuse for blatantly sloppy, confusing, and downright inaccurate theological statements. We are not talking about a new believer who struggles to understand the Hypostatic Union of Christ. We are talking about an internationally known, "Christian celebrity," mega church pastor and author who refuses to admit the errors in his theology.

EDIT: This article focused specifically on T.D. Jakes' Trinitarian theology. A second article coming in a day or due will discuss what this means for the Elephant Room 2.

(1) http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/09/28/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-no-christianity-without-it/

(2) http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx

(4) http://www.equip.org/articles/t-d-jakes-responds-to-the-journal

(3) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html

(5) http://www.equip.org/articles/t-d-jakes-responds-to-the-journal

(6) http://www.forgottenword.org/jakes.html

Straight From Spurgeon—Hypocrisy as an Excuse to Reject God

2012-01-11T21:23:00.004-05:00

Back in 2009 I wrote a blog about the claim that many unbelievers reject the gospel because Christians are hypocrites. In the post, I tried to make it clear that Christians who do not live like Christians do great harm to the gospel. However, I also stated (and tried to show from Scripture) that no one has ever rejected Jesus because they met a "Christian hypocrite." There is a deeper heart issue going on.

Recently, while studying some of Spurgeon's writings, I came across this excellent quote that I think sheds further light on the issue:

If all the world were hypocrites, that would not exonerate you before your God. When you came before the Master, if you were still at enmity with Him, could you venture to plead such as excuse as this: "All the world was full of hypocrites"? "Well," He would say, "What did that have to do with you? So much the more why you should have been an honest man. If you say the church was drifting away into quicksand, through the evil conduct and folly of the members thereof, so much the more why you should have helped to make it sound, if you thought you could have done so." Spurgeon on the Holy Spirit, p. 26

Lessons From Lot

2012-01-09T18:17:00.004-05:00

In Genesis 13, Scripture records Abraham (then Abram) talking to Lot about land. Abram’s herdsmen were having troubles with Lot’s (v. 7), so Abram proposed that he and Lot go in opposite directions to avoid conflict. Lot sees how fertile the valley of Jordan is, and chooses to settle down there. But as he settles, he ignores the fact that he will live near Sodom, a land that verse 13 tells us is filled with people who are, “wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord.” In other words, Lot was willing to live in the vicinity of blatant sin in order to have farmable land.

The story picks up in Genesis 19. Two angels show up at Lot’s doorstep. He welcomes them into his home, and serves them by giving them a place to stay. This welcoming clearly indicates that Lot was a righteous man who loved the Lord. His righteousness is also affirmed in 2 Peter 2:7-8. But despite that Scripture affirms Lot as a man who trusted in the promises of God, he made some undeniably ungodly decisions. When a group of men show up to literally gang rape his house guests, his solution is to offer his two daughters up instead. Think about that for a moment. A man who the New Testament affirms as righteous basically says to a sexually charged, violent crowd, “Please do not take these men, but my daughters are virgins. Please take them instead.” I like how the ESV Study Bible describes Lot’s act: “In desperation, he offers his two unmarried daughters as substitutes—a shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act.”

Yet, in a scene where man’s sin is so disgustingly clear, God’s grace is gloriously displayed. In verse 15, God warns Lot about His impending judgment on Sodom. God saves all of Lot’s family, except for his wife (who chooses to look back at Sodom).

We live in a modern Sodom. Every day people are raped, molested, murdered, robbed, and assaulted. I watched a television show the other day that talked about a gang called “Satan’s Disciples.” One of the brutal murders committed by the gang involved a man murdering two people and dismembering his victims. He then hid the limbs of his victims all over an American city. Indeed, we live in a modern Sodom.

But as we see in Genesis 19, God is involved in Sodoms. When I read this section of Scripture, I see three things that I think are helpful for us to remember.

1. God is patient, but He will always ultimately judge sin.

God did not judge Sodom the moment somebody sinned. The text indicates that He also did not judge Sodom as soon as sexual sin began to include homosexuality. I say this because I find it hard to believe the first ever case of homosexuality in Sodom involved a large, violent, homosexual gang. Depravity like that does not just happen one day, it gradually develops. God allowed the Sodomites to practice their lawlessness reached this boiling point. How many sins were committed in Sodom before God’s patience ran out? In evangelism, we praise God for His patience with the lost and continue to plea with Him to continuously soften the hardest heart. In culture, we praise God that no act of evil will go unpunished. Every sin will be paid for through either Jesus’ death or God’s wrath.

2. God will always protect and deliver His people.

Even in the midst of such immorality and eventual judgment, God protected His people. He told Noah to build an ark. He had Moses deliver His people from Pharaoh. And He told Lot to leave Sodom before it was too late. Deliverance may come through escape, as with Lot, or it may come through martyrdom, as with Stephen. But He always holds His people in the palm of His hand.

3. God’s people are not immune from worldly influences.

Although Lot and his family (minus his wife) are spared, the damage of them living in such a sin-ridden land has dramatically impacted their family. The next section of Scripture (vv. 30-38) describes how his daughters intentionally get him drunk and sleep with him in order to “preserve their family.” The world influenced their thinking. And it just as easily influences ours.

The atmosphere we put ourselves in effects our thinking, and plays itself out in our living. For example, Proverbs 22:24-25 warns that ill-tempered people can negatively influence those they associate with. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul states that bad company corrupts good morals. Proverbs 13:20 says the companion of fools will suffer harm.

This is not to say that believers should not associate with unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). However, Christians must always be wisely discerning their culture, friends, and surroundings. Lot was willing to live in the vicinity of wickedness for fertile land. There is no indication his purpose was evangelistic, or that he made any attempt to bring Sodom back to God. Instead of engaging and confronting the gang, he offers his daughters. Instead of his daughters trusting God with their family, they sleep with their father (no doubt such an act was influenced by the sexually immoral atmosphere they were raised in).

Learn from Lot. Praise God for His patience and faithfulness. Trust God to deal with sin in His timing. And remember that God desires his people to be in the world to change it, not to allow it to change us.

Repost: Three Theological Quandries

2011-12-12T20:30:00.003-05:00

I am still hard at work making the new website, but did not want that to make the blog go completely stagnant. So, today we have a repost of an article I originally wrote in 2010.

-

What if I told you that in one article, I can solve three theological debates that have been going on for 2,000 years? What if I said that in one blog post, we will clearly see if the gospel is God's message, why Jesus came to this earth, and if Jesus was God or simply a man? Well, I have no illusions that this post will ultimately get rid of these debates, but I do think we can "solve" each of these questions by simply looking to Scripture.

Recently, I began a study of the gospel of Matthew. I am not quite through chapter two, but the Lord has already used this book to teach me numerous things. Don't you love how you can read the same text 20 times, pick it up a few months later, and God teaches you something totally new you never noticed before?

I am going to try to share at least one post per chapter from Matthew. I hope these truths that I have learned will be beneficial to you as well. Soli Deo Gloria.

Before we jump into the text I will mention today, I want to briefly mention a little bit of historical background. This is by no means exhaustive, but I do hope it provides a sort of backdrop for you when approaching Matthew's gospel.

Matthew, the books author, was a tax collector. He was one of Jesus' twelve apostles, and possibly wrote his gospel as early as 50 A.D. Without a doubt we know that is was written prior to 70 A.D. Matthew wrote the book to Jews, and constantly refers to Christ as the "Son of David." The main emphasis of this gospel is present and show that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah who was prophesied to come in the Old Testament.

With that foundation laid, let's jump into the text itself. Today I want to focus on Matthew 1:18-25. These brief seven verses have a lot to say about Jesus and the gospel itself. Before the end of this short article, we are going to learn: if Jesus was God, why Jesus came to earth, and if His message was from God. Sound good? Let's get started.

First, we see clearly that the gospel is from God, and is God's message. Verse 18 reads,

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with Child by the Holy Spirit.

The Greek word translated "by" is ἐκ. It literally means, "from" or "out of." It is a preposition that denotes origin. In other words, here Matthew is making the claim that Jesus (the Child) is not simply a human being. This is a human being who has come OUT OF the Holy Spirit. Matthew goes on to say in verse 20 that the Child is, "of the Holy Spirit." The same Greek word is used here and translated "of".

Immediately we see that whatever Jesus has to say or do in His lifetime is directly from God. Jesus' message is God's message. We do not get to change it, adapt it, or tamper with it. Do we really think we can take God's plan of salvation, a plan that is directly out of God, change it, and make it more palatable to the world? Friends, the gospel is God's message. The gospel is glorious, powerful, and true. Only one gospel is out of God...is it the one you are preaching?

Second, we see clearly that Jesus came to save His people from their sins. Verse 21 reads, "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Have you ever wondered why Jesus ultimately came to die? There is your answer! He did not come to show us how to live moral lives (although His life certainly shows us how to live in a God-honoring way). He did not came to cure social ills (although he cared for the poor and needy). He came to save His people from their sin!

Please do not miss this. There is a subtle, yet dangerous teaching going around today that Jesus' life was not about saving sinners. It was not about living morally and social justice (paging Jim Wallis). How much more clear can Scripture be? Jesus came to save sinners.

Consider this: do you mention sin and judgment in your gospel presentations? I met a young man this week who is a bold soldier for Christ. In a basic Christian theology class, he was told it is not loving to mention sin when sharing the gospel. When he challenged this point, he was called a pharisee. Friends, if we remove sin from our message, we remove the very reason Matthew 1 says Jesus came in the first place. How dare we rob the gospel (that we know from verse 18 is from God) of its own message as stated in Scripture?

Third, we see in these verses that Jesus is God. Verse 23 says, "'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son. And they shall call His name Immanuel,' which translated means, 'God with us.'"

Did you just glaze over that statement because you have heard is a thousand times? Take a moment to re-read it. The God of this universe, who made the sun, moon, stars, eyes, fish, and electrons, came into the world He created, lived as a human being, and allowed Himself to be harassed, tortured, and killed by the very men He created. Why? So that He may ultimately save His creation from their rebellion against Him. And you thought Monday Night Football was exciting! I pray that I never get over the gospel. I pray I never get used to hearing that God Himself came to the earth He created and died for me.

In summary, we have see from Matthew 1:18-25 three incredible truths: 1) The gospel is from God, and is God's message, 2) Jesus came to save His people from their sins, and 3) Jesus is God. We can put these all together to say that: Jesus, God the Son manifest in the flesh, came to earth to fulfill the will of God the Father, by the power of God the Holy Spirit, so that He might save sinful human beings and ultimately give all honor and glory to God alone. I pray that the Lord will use these verses in your life as He has used them in mine.

The Powerful Influence of 180

2011-12-01T12:15:00.003-05:00

"I was planning on getting an abortion because I couldn't support my child, but my sister showed me this video the day of my appointment. When finished watching the video I couldn't stop crying. I couldn't believe I was going to kill my child."

Praise God. This one quote makes the film worth it. Hundreds of unborn lives have been saved because of this film. Even better, people are getting saved. If you have not watch 180 yet, please do so now:

www.180movie.com

What Exactly is Abortion?

2011-11-09T14:43:00.002-05:00

As politics and elections are in the air and continuously gaining momentum as we lead up to this, just a quick thought: Christian, do not claim you follow Jesus if you are willing to support a candidate that supports this barbaric procedure being done to unborn children.

Inside the Womb, Outside the Womb: What's the Difference?

2011-10-17T22:21:00.003-04:00

This is a a powerful pro life post that is making its way around Facebook:

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.'

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.'

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

If you agree, please SHARE.

Together we can help save precious lives!

Love says, 'I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.' Abortion says, 'I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.'

180 Official Release

2011-09-26T18:29:00.003-04:00

Today the new documentary "180" is officially released publicly. As I have said before, this documentary is incredibly powerful and has incredible potential for the gospel and the unborn. I have watched through it twice, and both times was brought to tears.

People are already watching it and becoming pro life, and hearing the gospel. Currently, the film is listed as one of the top videos on YouTube's "Activism" page. But the publicity brings with it a lot of resistance from pro-choice groups.

WE NEED YOU TO SPEAK UP.

The goal is to get this film into millions of homes, and it will not happen without your prayer and support. For information on how you can help you, check out this post from Living Waters:

http://www.onthebox.us/2011/09/call-to-action.html

Below is the shocking, award winning documentary 180:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

View now for FREE and help spread the word!

Children of Who?

2011-09-23T23:02:00.004-04:00

The world often says we are all children of God. Mormonism teaches that everyone alive is a child of God because everyone was created by God. While the Bible clearly affirms that God created all mankind (Acts 17:24-26), it also clearly affirms that we are not all children of God.

Most Christians do not have a problem with that statement. Christians are true children of God, right? But the real problem comes when you ask: if you are not a child of God, then who are you a child of?

Satan?

I remember one time this conversation surfaced, a couple of Christians in a Bible study said rather adamantly that they were never a child of Satan. Nor is anyone, Christian or not, a child of Satan. In fact, they found the entire thought highly offensive. The answer Scripture gives to this question is terrifying to some: if you are not a child of God, you are a child of Satan.

...and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one. Matthew 13:38.

I [Jesus] speak the things which I have have with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father...You are of your father the devil...John 8:38, 44.

[Paul] filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:9-10.

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10.

That is a tough pill to swallow. In our sin, we were not simply imperfect or people who sinned from time to time. We were fist shaking, sin loving, depraved, sons of the devil. No doubt a lot of people who read that think it is hate filled and bigoted. Are you actually saying that ALL people who do not trust Jesus are sons of the devil? God has spoken, and I am simply reporting what He has said.

But praise be to God that He does not abandon us and leave us as children of the evil one. Galatians 4:4-5 proclaims this truth beautifully:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Ephesians 2:4 says,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.

In our sin we are children of Satan. But the perfect, holy, awesome, loving God who owes us nothing chose to send Jesus. Why? So that we might become children of God! We cross from death to light. From the family of Satan to the family of God Himself.

Common Sense Has Died

2011-09-22T21:27:00.002-04:00

This is currently making its way around the internet. It is one of those things that makes you smile and chuckle, but then you realize it is true and you are not sure if you should laugh or not.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:-Knowing when to come in out of the rain; - Why the early bird gets the worm;- Life isn't always fair; - And maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, don't spend more than you can earn and adults, not children, are in charge. His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights,I Want It Now,Someone Else Is To Blame,I'm A Victim.Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, do nothing.

Do I Have to Read a Bad Book to Know a Bad Book is Bad?

2011-09-19T22:11:00.001-04:00

Dear Evangelicals: Before you take someone off at the knees, READ THEIR MATERIAL. You do not have a right to speak if you haven't read them.

That is a tweet that has been making its way around Twitter for the last couple of days. It is, for the most part, being spread around my wise, dear Christian brothers who have more knowledge of Scripture in their pinky then I do in my entire body. But, with (I pray) humility and grace, I must question the wisdom and practicality of such a statement.

Christians should be educated. In wisdom, we should engage others and be aware of what is being said. In grey areas, it is unreasonable and unfair to critique someone you have not read. For example, imagine a teacher clearly within the bounds of orthodoxy writes a book about how tattoos are inherently sinful. I will disagree with the book because I do not have that conviction. But it would be wrong of me to rail against the book (or the author) when I have not read a word he has written on the topic.

In the above example, I disagree with a sound teacher on a secondary issue. Thus, it would certainly be unwise for me to declare him foolish, biblically unsound, and attack his book unless I read it first. Even then, I should not attack anything, but instead try to biblically point out why I disagree.

That does not mean I always need to read a book before a critique it. Making the claim that you never have a right to critique something before you read it can be down right dangerous. I will begin with an extreme example, then move into more applicable scenarios.

A while ago a storm of controversy exploded because Amazon.com sold a book called The Pedaphile's Guide to Life and Pleasure. The subtitle read, "A child lover's code of conduct." That is repulsive. I do not need to read it to know its contents are foul, depraved, and wicked in the most extreme sense. Do I not have the right to speak out against this book because I have not read it? Such a claim is logically absurd and morally reprehensible.

Now, at this point you should be objecting, "That is an unrealistically extreme case. Such a despicable book is not what this quote has in mind." Probably true, and a fair critique.

I do not question for a moment whether the author of the tweet in question would say it is wrong to critique a book about pedophilia. I am sure such a disgusting book he would have no problem condemning, even if he has never read it. But that is exactly the point. There is a type of book that is so evil and contrary to God's Word that you do not read it in order to critique it. The extreme example is appropriate because the tweet makes an extreme claim.

"You do not have a right to speak if you haven't read them." That is a blanket statement: you should not critique any book unless you have read it. Nonsense. Now, it is probably safe to assume that the author of this quote did not have in mind secular books about blatant immorality, but instead he was referring to Christian books.

What "Christian" books does he have in mind? Books about secondary issues like tongues or women in ministry? Or, does he mean more primary issues like the exclusive nature of the gospel (a la Rob Bell's Love Wins?)? The quote unwisely fails to specify.

For the sake of example, let's consider Rob Bell's Love Wins since it is a recent publication.

I attend University at a Christian college. A lot of people loved Love Wins, and a lot of other people did not. I was infinitely grateful that many of those who did not support the book spoke out against it. But the truth is, a number of those students never actually read the book. They knew what Bell said. They loved Jesus. They loved the gospel that saved them from their sin. And they spoke out against the blasphemous heresy that spewed from Rob Bell's pages.

But they were supposedly wrong to defend the reputation of God because they had not actually read the book? Imagine I see someone spike a glass of water with arsenic. A friend of mine walks up to drink the water and I warn him, "Do not drink that water! It will kill you! Avoid it because your life is in danger if you consume it!" My friend responds, "You have not tasted the water, nor have the studied the chemical composition of it to know it has actually been tampered with." Thus, he drinks the water.

My friend is a fool. Who cares if I tasted the laced water if I know the water is dangerous? You do not have to taste poison to know it is present. Although I do think many Christians (pastors, leaders, teachers, etc.) should read books like Love Wins so they can know in better detail how to warn others, it is unwise to say the average Christian has no right to critique a bad book simply because they have not read it.

A plain reading of the tweet implies the following: you should never critique a book you have never read. This claim is unreasonable because we are all willing to critique evil books we have not read.

A benefit-of-the-doubt reading of the tweet implies the following: Christians should not critique a theological work they have not read. This statement is also unwise, because one does not need to taste poison to know it is deadly. In the same way, a Christian does not need to read false teaching to comment on it. They simply need to know what is falsely being said about God, and love God's reputation enough to speak out against it.

In Romans 16:17-18, Paul warns believers to turn away from those who cause dissensions. He does not only urge Christians who study false teaching to flea it, but ALL believers to flee it. In 2 Timothy 2:16-17, Paul warns Christians about two false teachers (Hymenaeus and Philetus) who are infiltrating the churches. He does not say, "Brothers, attempt to study the doctrines of Hymanaeus and Philetus so you can truly understand where they are coming from before you critique them." Paul is aware of the false teaching, so he tells his readers to avoid them because their doctrine is as putrid and vile as gangrene

Now, for the sake of completion let's give the tweet an unreasonable and unbalanced benefit of the doubt. Let's assume the author agrees you can critique books you have not read that are evil (such as books about pedophilia). He also agrees you can critique books and teachers you have not read that are unorthodox and attack the character of God (thus making the book evil).

Thus, what he actually meant is that a Christian should not critique a book about a secondary issue simply because they disagree. Instead, they should wisely engage the book they disagree with before critiquing it or the author because the character of God and the gospel is not at stake.

If that is what he meant, I agree wholeheartedly! But that is an entirely different statement than, "Before you take someone off at the knees, READ THEIR MATERIAL. You do not have a right to speak if you haven't read them."

Two Step Theology

2011-09-08T20:46:00.006-04:00

In Vietnam, soldiers sometimes told stories of a venomous snake. Supposedly, if you were bitten by the snake you would fall dead after taking two steps because of its potent venom (thus earning it the name, the Two Step). Numerous ophiologists believe this snake was actually the krait, a highly venomous serpent that lives in southern India. The soldiers at the time did not know their notorious "Two Step" was the krait. They dealt with this same predator, but simply changed the name.

Evangelicalism is currently dealing with its own Two Step day: inclusivism. Inclusivism is a doctrine that holds one can be a Christian without actually knowing they are, or without even knowing the name of Jesus. Just as soldiers in Vietnam renamed their killer snake the Two Step, so have many renamed and repackaged universalism as inclusivism. The only difference is, all the soldiers knew their threat was dangerous.

Put simply, inclusivism holds that a person can/will be saved whether they knowingly trust in Jesus or not. They do not need to hear the gospel, nor do they need to submit to it. They are saved by the gospel whether they like it or not. It is a common way to deal with the question of, "What happens to people who never hear the gospel?" Simple. They go to Heaven because they never had the opportunity to reject Jesus. "God can do what He wants," the inclusivist declares. "And if that includes saving somebody who never had a chance to reject Him, then He can do that."

No. Actually, He can't. Romans 10 is is essentially a direct rebuttal of such claims.

Inclusivists often claim that those who truly seek God in foreign nations without actually knowing about Jesus will be saved. The thinking goes that they are seeking truth, they just do not have the head knowledge to know Jesus is that truth. Paul writes in Romans 10:2, "For I testify about them [the Jews] that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge." In other words, Paul is admitting that the Jews had a zeal for spiritual service. But their service meant nothing because they did not know who Jesus was. He goes on to say, "For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." The Jews were passionately trying to seek their own salvation, and Paul lovingly and bluntly declares that their zeal does them absolutely no good.

A person who supposedly passionately pursues God apart from Jesus cannot be saved.

Inclusivism also holds that those who never hear about Jesus will be saved. How can God hold someone accountable if they never actually hear the gospel? No one will go to Hell because they simply fail to believe in Jesus. People go to Hell because they have sinned against a holy God. Paul teaches in Romans 10:9 that if we confess Jesus as Lord and believe in Him, we will be saved.

He then makes a very interesting statement in verse 12, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is the Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him." that last phrase is crucial. He is abounding in riches and mercy for all who call on Him. How do you call on somebody whose name you do not know?

The inclusivist responds, "You are putting God in a box. God can know somebody is calling upon Him without the person using the name of Jesus." How? And if so, why does Paul go on in verse 14 to say, "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not hear? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? Paul is not using confusing words here. You cannot trust in a person whose name you do not know. And you cannot be saved without trusting in Jesus. Thus, you cannot be saved unless you have heard the name of Jesus!

Let's assume for a moment inclusivism is right: if you never hear about Jesus, God will save you automatically. Why would we ever talk about Jesus then? Why take the gospel to the far corners of the Earth? If a person is by default "included" in salvation until they hear about Jesus (at which point they become accountable to God), then telling them about Jesus is one of the most unloving things we can possibly do. Why put their soul at stake? Why risk placing them in the path of the wrath of God? In ignorance, they will die and inevitably be united with Him for eternity. If inclusivism is true, please be loving enough to never talk about Jesus.

Inclusivism is simply revamped universalism. The truth is, people do need to know the name of Jesus to be saved. They cannot call on someone they have never heard of. This is what Paul lived for. This is what all Christians should live for: preaching the gospel so souls may be saved, and God may be glorified.

Straight From Spurgeon—The Necessity of Prayer

2011-09-06T21:52:00.002-04:00

Today's quote from Spurgeon's autobiography The Early Years was particularly challenging to me. I cannot help but ask myself if, in the deepest valleys of my soul, I can honestly say I feel the same way:

Prayer is to me now what the suckling of the milk was in my infancy. Although I do not always feel the same relish for it, yet I am sure I cannot live without it.

180 The Movie

2011-08-31T19:55:00.005-04:00

If you have been following Living Waters/Ray Comfort recently, you are aware that the ministry has just announced a new DVD documentary called 180 that focuses on abortion. I had the privilege of watching the film a week or so before it was officially announced, and was absolutely blown away.

If your heart breaks at the thought of millions of unborn children losing their lives because our government has declared women have the right to "choose" then this DVD will thrill you. If you currently think abortion is morally acceptable, or should be legal, then please view 180 with an open mind. This movie will possibly (probably) change yours.

In the film, Ray Comfort interviews a number of people and literally, on screen, makes many of them go from pro-choice to pro-life. I cannot over state the potential of this film for the gospel or for the unborn.

Please, right now visit the website for the film, watch the trailer, and contribute in any way you can to the release of the DVD:

www.180movie.com

If this documentary gets the publicity Living Waters desires, people will be saved, and unborn lives will be spared. Also, at the moment, hundreds of supporters on Twitter are trying to set the Twittersphere on fire with talk about the film. For the world to view it it must know about it!

If you have a Twitter, please follow @180movie and help spread the word (NOTE: There is a fake twitter account called "180themovie" that is put on by atheists. Do NOT follow this account). Please also consider posting this DVD on your Facebook, and spread the word any other way you can.