The following is the first chapter of the book 40 Mormon Beliefs and What the Bible Says. It is divided into 5 chapters with 8 points each. This first chapter explores what the Mormons believe about their founder, Joseph Smith. The book will be available on May 31, 2016 through wwutt.com in paperback, a simple guide to help the reader know about Mormonism and in loving response some basic teachings of the Bible.

What the Mormons Believe About Joseph Smith

1) Joseph Smith is God's prophet.
The Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844) is a prophet of God. His being appointed as a prophet and the writing of the Book of Mormon were prophesied in the Bible in Ezekiel 37:15-28. The stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph mentioned there describe the Bible and the Book of Mormon respectively, and the two will become one in God's hand. The "stick" is the wood ancient scrolls were wrapped around.

The Book of Mormon, which Smith wrote by his own hand, prophesied about Smith in 2 Nephi 3. The preface to the chapter reads, "Joseph in Egypt saw the Nephites in a vision—He prophesied of Joseph Smith, the latter-day seer; of Moses, who would deliver Israel; and of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. About 588-570 B.C."

What the Bible Says:
In the King James Bible, Ezekiel 37:16-17 reads like this: "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."

The "Joseph" in v.16 is clearly not Joseph Smith, but Joseph the father of Ephraim (Genesis 46:20) from whom would come the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua 14:4). In Ezekiel 37, Ephraim represents the northern kingdom and Judah the southern kingdom, which had been divided following Solomon's reign (the book of Hosea also refers to Israel, the northern kingdom, as Ephraim).

Ezekiel prophesied their rejoining. This had nothing to do with a Book of Mormon and the Bible. The word that appears in this passage for "stick" appears over a hundred times in the Old Testament, and it is always used to describe either a tree or wood (examples include Genesis 1:11, Exodus 31:5, Deuteronomy 28:36). Not one time is it used to describe a scroll. The analogy then is more like two branches grafted together by God's hand.

The Apostle John cautioned, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Joseph Smith's testimony is the utmost test of the Mormon faith. All of it is built on the teaching of Joseph Smith.

2) God the Father and God the Son personally appeared to Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith claimed that at the age of 14, God the Father and God the Son appeared to him in a grove of trees near his parents' home in western New York. He wrote several accounts of what is called the First Vision which have been the subject of much criticism as there are inconsistencies in his own recollections.

According to the most famous account written in the Pearl of Great Price, Smith had grown frustrated with the church, naming Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists in particular. Following the advice of James 1:5, he asked God for wisdom, and two persons of God appeared to him. One person said of the other, "This is my beloved son. Hear him!"

Smith asked which church he should join. God told him to join none of them for their professors were corrupt and their creeds were an abomination in his sight. God again forbade Smith to join any church, then disappeared.

What the Bible Says:
According to John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, Jesus Christ, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." God told Moses in Exodus 33:20, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (1)

So how is it that there are various accounts of people in the Bible seeing God, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Isaiah? Because Abraham and Jacob both saw God in the appearance of a man, and who they saw was a pre-incarnate Christ, not God the Father (Genesis 18:1-2, 32:24-30). What Isaiah saw was so startlingly glorious he feared for his life, and whom he saw was a pre-incarnate vision of the Son (Isaiah 6:1-7). Again, no one has seen God the Father.

Furthermore, it could be argued that Joseph Smith did not see God the Son either. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, the Apostle Paul gave a list of succession of those to whom Jesus appeared following his resurrection, including as many as five hundred brothers at one time (v.6). He said, "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

Paul was the last to see Christ and be appointed as an apostle. Jesus's appearance to Paul was witnessed by the men who were with him (Acts 9:7) and his appointment as an apostle was verified by the other apostles (Acts 9:27, Galatians 2:9). There were no witnesses to Joseph Smith's claim that as a teenager he saw God.

No one will see Jesus again until his Second Coming, and it will be seen by the whole world. In Matthew 24:23-25, Jesus said, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before."

Joseph Smith did not see God the Father nor God the Son, nor has anyone else in this time who has claimed to have seen an appearance of God before their very eyes.

3) The Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the Book of Mormon.
The testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith is given at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. There it says that in 1823, again when Smith was still a teenager, the angel Moroni appeared to him with a message that God had a work for him to do. The two of them conversed all night through several appearances.

Moroni said that there was a book written on gold plates that gave an account of the former inhabitants of North America. With the plates were two seer stones in silver bows fastened to a breastplate. Those stones, called Urim and Thummim, Smith would use to translate the writing on the plates. He told Smith that the devil would try to tempt him to use the plates to get rich, but he must use the plates only for God's glory.

Smith found the location of the plates, but because he was under transgression, he couldn't take them with him. It was in the fourth year when he acquired the plates. Once the work of "translation" had concluded, Moroni took the plates back into his possession. They do not exist on earth today.

A printed copy of the Book of Mormon contains the names of eleven witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates. The Three Witnesses claimed that an angel showed them the plates and they heard the voice of God. All three witnesses eventually broke fellowship with Smith and were excommunicated from the church. The other Eight Witnesses were all from either the Smith or Whitmer families, and said they were shown the plates by Smith rather than an angel.

In the introduction, the Book of Mormon states, "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible." According to Joseph Smith, it was "the most correct of any Book on earth and the keystone of our religion and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts than by any other Book." (2)

The Mormons believe that over the centuries the Bible became corrupted. According to the Articles of Faith, 1:8, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." So the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, but the Bible has been corrupted and we need help to understand it rightly.

It was prophesied by Nephi in 600 B.C. that the words of the Bible would be changed. "For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men" (1 Nephi 13:26-27). (3)

It is through the Book of Mormon that the true church of Jesus Christ is realized, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. All other churches are following false teaching.

What the Bible Says:
Galatians 1:8-9 reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (emphasis added).

Colossians 2:18 reads, "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind." Jude 1:8 says, "Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that on this rock he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The idea that the former church failed and a new church was actualized through the Book of Mormon and the teaching of Joseph Smith would go against Matthew 16:18.

4) Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from Reformed Egyptian.
It is believed that the plates given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni were written in a language called Reformed Egyptian. According to Moroni 9:32, "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us according to our manner of speech." (4)

In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith claims a copy of Reformed Egyptian characters was taken by Martin Harris to Charles Anthon, a professor at Columbia University. Anthon first claimed the translation was correct, and that the language was a mix of Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters. He wrote a certificate authenticating the language, but upon finding out the book the characters originated from was given by an angel, he tore up the certificate (Joseph Smith—History 1:64-65). (5)

What the Bible Says:
In the book of Nehemiah, the Israelites had failed to keep the Law of God and had fallen into intermarrying with the pagan people God told them not to marry. Nehemiah 13:23-27 addressed how shameful it was that half the children spoke a pagan language rather than the language of Judah. They were cursed and beaten and made to take an oath, reminded that Solomon fell into sin when he married foreign women who worshiped false gods. They were then cleansed of everything foreign (v.30), which would have included their language.

The point is this: the Book of Mormon would not have been written in such a pagan language as Reformed Egyptian by one of God's prophets at that point in history. Egypt was not heralded by the Jewish people as some great nation, nor was their language learned and cherished, regardless as to whether or not it was "altered." The Egyptians persecuted, enslaved, and killed the Jews. Before the common Greek, the words of the prophets were written in only two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic, both Jewish languages.

And—this might seem a minor technicality, but there's a point—Smith could not have translated the Book of Mormon from Reformed Egyptian into English. He did not know Reformed Egyptian, so he did no translating. By his own accounts, the seer stones allowed him to read Reformed Egyptian in English. Smith would have transcribed the Book of Mormon, making a copy in English of what he read in English.

Throughout the Book of Mormon, there are multiple ways Smith displayed a lack of understanding regarding languages. For example, Alma, for whom the book of Alma is named, is a Hebrew name which means "Betrothed Virgin." It would not have been the name of a man. In 1 Nephi 2:5, Smith used the name Sam, an American name. Samuel is the Jewish name. In Jacob 7:27, Smith uses the word "Adieu," which is French, a language that did not exist in the 6th century B.C. when the book of Jacob was purportedly written. (6)

These discrepancies are significant enough to reveal the faults of a man. They would not have been errors made by one of God's messengers and especially not God himself.

5) Through prayer, God will reveal that the Book of Mormon is true.
Moroni 10:4-5 reads, "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith mentioned that he did not know which church was true, and prayed to God for wisdom according to James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." He then claimed that God appeared to him and told him that all the churches were corrupt and an abomination to him.

This is why if you've ever had a Mormon missionary come to your door, they invite you to pray and ask God to reveal to you that the Book of Mormon is true.

What the Bible Says:
Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible does not invite the reader to have a religious experience in order to verify its truthfulness. The Bible says the heart is wicked and not to be trusted. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Proverbs 28:26 says whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool.

Religious experiences are subjective, not objective truth. We are to test all things not by our experiences but with the word of God. The Bereans tested the words of Paul with the word of God to see if what he said was true (Acts 17:11).

Looking at the context, James 1:5-8 says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

Test Joseph Smith by those words: Did he not lack faith, and therefore expect something from God, was driven with the wind and tossed, double-minded and unstable in all his ways?

6) The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.
After 1981, printings of the Book of Mormon featured on its cover the subtitle, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." The purpose of the book as stated on its title page is to convince "the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

It's written in mostly chronological order, detailing the events of the Jewish people in the Americas whose descendants became the Native American Indians. There are several appearances of Jesus hundreds of years before he was born in the Middle East.

Of central importance is his coming to the North American people, an event that happened shortly after his resurrection, but doesn't occur until 3 Nephi 11, almost at the end of the book. During his visit to the Americas, as he did in Palestine, Jesus performed many miracles, healing the sick, taught his gospel, issued his blessings, and called twelve disciples to build his church.

Though Mormons claim that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the words of God (Articles of Faith 1:8), the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be inspired by God. Rather, it claims over and over to be written according to the knowledge of men.

The book of 1 Nephi opens, "And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge." In chapter 19, he said that he wrote down what he thought to be sacred (v.6). In 2 Nephi 11:1, he wrote down only that which "sufficeth me." And in Jacob 7:26, the writer said that he wrote to the best of his knowledge.

What the Bible Says:
Anyone who has read and understands the Bible would ask why it's necessary to have another testament of Jesus Christ. In the introduction of his letter, Jude said that he was writing to contend for the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Proverbs 30:6 says not to add to the word of God, "lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

Again in Matthew 24:23-27, Jesus warned that if anyone says, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There he is!" not to believe it. For false christs and false prophets would perform great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. If someone says, "Look, he is in the wilderness," do not go out. If they say, "Look, he is in the inner rooms," do not believe it.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible does not claim to be the knowledge of man but was inspired by God. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

As it says in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "We impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." And 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Peter also said that they did not follow cleverly devised myths but were eyewitnesses to the majesty of God (2 Peter 1:16).

No historian has ever authenticated any of the events contained in the Book of Mormon. None of the North American cities mentioned in its pages have been discovered. No ancient writings have been found. There is no archaeological evidence at all. Its claims are unverifiable. To borrow Peter's phrasing, it is a cleverly devised myth. The Book of Mormon is, at best, historical fiction.

7) Joseph Smith taught he would become a God and take the place of God.
Joseph Smith said, "When I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself" (King Follett Discourse, 1844). (7)

Boasting in himself, he preached, "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg 408-409).

Smith's successor, Brigham Young, said, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme being in his sphere, capacity, and calling as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim, 'Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!' But it is true" (Journal of Discourses, vol 7, pg 289-291).

The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was martyred for his devotion to the faith and preaching the gospel.

What the Bible Says:
When Smith famously boasted of himself, he was preaching from 2 Corinthians 11. There the Apostle Paul was "boasting" about what he'd been through as an apostle. This was not to give Smith or any other a license to boast, for Paul called his own boasting folly and madness. Rather, he was trying to convince the Corinthians to turn away from false apostles, or whom he sarcastically called "chiefest apostles" (or in some translations "super apostles") to whom he was not the least bit inferior (2 Corinthians 11:5).

In reading 2 Corinthians 11, it becomes clear that Joseph Smith did not accomplish more than the Apostle Paul. He wrote, "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes saved one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep" (v.23-25).

Paul went on to speak of his travels and perils, farther than Smith ever ventured or suffered. There is simply no comparison between the Apostle Paul and Joseph Smith. Paul said just as Eve was deceived in the garden, so they were being deceived by false teachers.

"For such are false apostles," he said, "deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (v.13-15).

The very passage Joseph Smith used to justify his boasting is the very passage that condemns his false teaching.

A man cannot ascend to become God. Isaiah 43:10 reads, "Before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me." And in Isaiah 45:5-6, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else."

One might also think of God's response to Job: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2)

Though the Mormons believe Joseph Smith, like Paul, was martyred for his faith, aggression against Smith was motivated by a variety of factors, including trying to marry other men's wives, destroying a newspaper, perjury, treason, and inciting a riot, and that was just in his last few weeks. The Apostle Paul was executed by Rome for preaching Christ as Lord instead of Caesar as Lord. At his trials, no one could find any false charge against him (Acts 26:32). (8)

8) It is necessary to believe in Joseph Smith as God's prophet to attain salvation.
Doctrine and Covenants 135:3 says, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it." Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the LDS church, said that there is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth, no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pg 190).

Brigham Young said that whoever "does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne, nor how much divinity it may profess, nor what it professes with regard to revealed religion and the account that is given of the Savior and his Father in the Bible" (Journal of Discourses, vol 8, pg 176-177).

To be sure that he didn't misspeak, Young said again, "He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist" (Journal of Discourses, Vol 9, pg 312).

Referring to Young's teaching on Joseph Smith, former Mormon apostle George Q. Cannon said, "Joseph holds the keys." He added, "If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him; if we enter into our glory, it will be through the authority that he has received. We cannot get around him; we cannot get around President Young." If we get into heaven, it will be because they "permit us to pass by."

Regarding judgment, Cannon went on to say, "Joseph, then, stands at the head; and then every man in his place after him," including the true biblical apostles who are behind Joseph Smith. He added, "He will sit as a judge to judge those who have received or those who have rejected his testimony. He will stand as a swift witness before the judgment seat of God against this generation" (Journal of Discourses, Vol 23, pg 361).

In the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 21:8 reads, "Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, O isles of the sea, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee my servant for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages." The footnotes refer to 2 Nephi 3:11, which suggests that this servant for salvation is Joseph Smith.

What the Bible Says: 
Isaiah 49:8 reads, "Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages." Look familiar? That's because 1 Nephi 21:8 is quoting Isaiah 49:8 but adding in the words "my servant" and then referring the reader to 2 Nephi 3:11 which mentions Joseph Smith.

This is the kind of slight-of-hand Smith would use to make it appear as if the Bible spoke of him. This is also the kind of thing that makes a Mormon believe the Bible is the word of God only "as it is translated correctly," while the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants are perfect. Mormons judge the Bible based on the Mormon texts rather than judging the Mormon texts according to the Bible.

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads, "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to me."

But that prophet or dreamer of dreams, the passage goes on to say, shall be put to death. So it will be in judgment for any prophet who teaches falsely. Joseph Smith was not God's prophet. He taught people he would become a god and they would also become gods, encouraging them to chase after other gods. The Scriptures are clear: men like Joseph Smith are liars.

Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice, he goes before them, and they follow him. His sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger but will flee from him. All who try to enter the sheepfold another way, except through Jesus Christ, are thieves and robbers. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10).

Though Joseph Smith preached about God, it was a different god than the one of the Bible. Though Smith preached about Jesus Christ, it was a different Jesus than the one of the Bible. He spoke of salvation and right living, but they were not as the Bible talks of these things. That is what we will look at in the next sections.

The next four chapters include what the Mormons believe about God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, and Right-Living.


1) Previously in v.11, the Bible talks about God and Moses speaking face to face. But this is only a figure of speech to describe the closeness by which God and Moses spoke. Verse 20 clarifies Moses did not see God's face. See also Numbers 14:14.

2) Wilford Woodruff journal, November 28, 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

The following is a statement that was made on the WWUTT podcast on June 3, 2016. It was made into transcript form to be posted on this blog. Some of the wording may vary a bit.


On Thabiti Anyabwile's blog through the Gospel Coalition website, he featured a guest post from Nick Rodriguez, fellow church member at Anacosta River Church in Washington D.C., the Southern Baptist church where Thabiti is a pastor. In that blog, Rodriguez gives six reasons why evangelical leaders should tell Christians to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I've had much respect in the past for Thabiti Anyabwile (a name that is quite fun to say). His Nine-Marks book What Is a Healthy Church Member sits on my shelf. In fact, I can see it from where I'm sitting. I've shared his articles and his videos. I've quoted him in sermons. As much as I've appreciated some of the things he's said and written, his recent turn on certain social issues is quite concerning.

Thabiti has drawn criticism for encouraging others to vote for Bernie Sanders and most recently Hillary Clinton. To say, "I'm voting for Hillary" is one thing. To say that every evangelical leader should be encouraging the rest of the Christian community to vote for Hillary is something else entirely.

One of the reasons Rodriguez gives (and having read many of Thabiti's recent statements, I knew this would be in the blog) is because of Trump's racist and misogynistic comments. It's a very generalized criticism. He gives no examples. But I'm not going to argue. Trump is a bigot and he has a horrible track-record in the comments he's made about women and the way he treats them.

Here's the thing though: I cannot fathom the idea that voting for Hillary Clinton is some kind of morally justifiable alternative to Trump's brashness, bigotry, and misogyny. Think about what you're saying -- Hillary Clinton. Hillary. Clinton. Is not brash, bigoted, or a misogynist? Where have you been the last two-dozen years?

Look, Hillary may not wear it on her sleeve. It may not come out her mouth and spill out on her attire like it does Donald Trump's. But both of them are strategic in their own ways. Trump is drawing his side of the aisle in his way, and she's drawing her side of the aisle in hers. Though her words are not the same, she is every bit as brash, bigoted, and misogynistic as Trump is.

The things she's said about the women who have accused her husband, Bill, of sexual harrassment -- Hillary called those women trailer park trash and all kinds of other names, and said "no one's ever going to believe them." Do you remember that she dismissed their accusations as being a right-wing conspiracy? Of one of those women, Hillary said, "She is the war on women." She says that women who speak up about harassment should be listened to, unless, apparently, it's about her husband.

Hillary has received millions in campaign donations from Saudi Arabia, Oman, Algeria, and the United Arab Emirates -- countries with horrid records concerning women's rights.

She has made fun of stay-at-home moms: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

Hillary is radically pro-choice which is about as anti-woman as any issue in our era. Look, I don't believe Donald Trump when he says he's pro-life. That's a discussion for another day. But Hillary says she's not pro-life. She openly and unapologetically advocates for and defends abortion. From her own mouth she has said, "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights." Get that -- person.

How is that not worse than saying we're going to build a wall to keep people out or we're going to ban all Muslim travel to the U.S. or talking about deportations and the like? Donald Trump makes prejudiced statements to be sure, but he's not advocating for genocide. Hillary will defend the murder of 3,000 babies per day with every breath she has -- a million children per year through the barbaric practice of abortion. If half those babies were girls, she's killing 1,500 girls per day. Weak women are being duped under the guise of "women's rights" just for their vote. That's misogyny.

Hillary is the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger: The Killer Angel, as she's been dubbed -- the woman who said, "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race," who created the Negro Project for the purpose of exterminating blacks in America. She said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

And this is not a thing of the past. Blacks make up 12% of the U.S. population, but 35% of all abortions. Margaret Sanger's dream is still alive and well. Roughly 80% of her Planned Parenthood clinics are located within walking distance of an African American or Hispanic neighborhood in America.

When Hillary received the Margaret Sanger Award she said she was "in awe of" Margaret Sanger. And this woman is the least racist between her and Donald Trump? Are you out of your mind?

One last comment from Hillary: "I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."

Now, I am not advocating voting for Donald Trump. I've said in the past and I still stand by this statement: A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for adultery, porn, misogyny, divorce, fatherlessness, abortion, bankruptcy, gambling, racism, bullying, arrogance, obscenity, and overall godlessness.

Do you know what you would get if you voted for Hillary Clinton? Pretty much the same thing. It's not as obvious, but come on -- use your head. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for everything that Margaret Sanger stood for, and then some.

Thabiti once wrote an article called The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and 'Gay Marriage.' It was a great article. Thabiti rightly pointed out we've forgotten what we're talking about whenever we use the words "gay" or "homosexual." (I'm not going to get descriptive because I know I've got kids listening.)

In the spirit of that article, I would appeal to Thabiti this way: Do not forget your gag reflex when you are reminded how synonymous the democratic party is with abortion, eugenics, genocide, Planned Parenthood, and slavery. The democratic party does not care about black people -- only using them for their vote. I believe you're smarter than that, Thabiti. Don't fall for it.

I'm still holding out hope a third party candidate will emerge. We've still got a ways to go until November. But if who we're stuck with is Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, I won't be voting for any of the three. (I do think Bernie's going to end up running as an independent. Expect at least a three-person race in 2016.)

I still want to encourage you to go to the polls in November. The office of the president is not the only thing on the ballot. There are other local matters that need to be decided. It's still your duty to vote -- I firmly believe that. But I defy anyone to tell me I need to use my pastoral position and encourage others to vote for an admirer of the Killer Angel. Such a thing definitely doesn't belong on a Gospel blog.

So I've been watching the NBA Finals even though they're rigged (I figured I'd go ahead and infuriate a few at the beginning of the blog this time). Even if you haven't been watching, you might have heard that Steph Curry, star of the Golden State Warriors and reigning MVP, chucked his mouthpiece at a fan in frustration after fouling out in game 6 in Cleveland. (He wasn't targeting the fan. The guy was an innocent bystander.)

Said Coach Kerr after the game, he was glad Curry got frustrated. Half the fouls were ticky-tack stuff that shouldn't have been called, he said, especially on the MVP. Lebron flopped on that last play, the one where Curry earned his sixth foul. The ref should have known better than to buy it because Lebron is a champion flopper -- or so I've heard. Curry deserved to be frustrated and the coach seemed proud to get that kind of emotion out of his star player.

For Curry's emotional outburst and Kerr calling out the refs, they both got fined $25,000. (That's just pennies for Kerr and Curry compared to your salary and mine -- assuming I don't have many millionaires reading. And if I do, buy a book! Or a thousand of them!)

A friend of mine mentioned he noticed a particular word -- or rather, pair of words -- escape from Curry's mouth when he hinged his mouth guard. It's the first time Curry has fouled-out since 2013 and the first time he's been ejected from a game -- ever.

Curry says he's a Christian. His shoes, marketed by Under Armor, have Bible verse references on them like Philippians 4:13 (because of course that one) and Proverbs 27:17. He's been the subject of various blogs on ministry websites like Christianity Today, Desiring God, and The Gospel Coalition. One of the articles on TGC (there are several) is about The Joy of Adversity.

Yet here we had Curry on national television in a moment of frustration very clearly not showing joy in adversity (neither did his wife, in case you missed that story). His tongue got away from him -- and his mouthpiece, too, apparently. His flesh got the better of him, and he paid for it -- literally.

Surely one incident of a person losing their cool is not enough to make us doubt the genuineness of their faith. But sure enough, there were people who did. I saw several comments on social media, but this one in particular stood out: "Perhaps the Gospel Coalition will think twice before having Steph Curry in another article."

This kind of graceless knee-jerk reaction to human failings should not exist among the body of Christ.

We're not talking about Curry having an affair or hitting his wife or getting pulled over for drunk driving. He lost his cool during a basketball game -- in a high-pressure situation with the title on the line. He was ejected for the first time ever. What I've seen of Curry's character, it's up there with Tim Tebow's. But the moment a situation got the better of him, some were ready to say his example had been tarnished. Really?

Now, maybe the person who made that particular comment really didn't mean it that way. Maybe they thought TGC was that ungracious and wouldn't put Curry in such an admirable piece again. Either way, the comment was still very ungracious.

I can be rather sensitive to the lack of grace between Christian brothers. I once had three young men in my church who asked a lot of questions. Between the three of them, they took more of my time than anyone else in the congregation combined. I thought the reason they wanted to hang around me and ask so many questions was because they wanted to learn.

I was wrong. They were sizing me up. Everything I said or my family did was being picked apart and analyzed. I didn't know it was happening. Eventually everything came to a head and false accusations started flying. I was being accused of saying things I either didn't mean, didn't say, or had said months ago and couldn't remember the context of the comment.

One of them accused me of putting things in sermons directly targeting him, to which I said, "If you're feeling guilty about something, you should probably consider it." Well that just fueled him all the more to believe I was being sneaky and underhanded, using my pulpit to bully rather than teach.

I don't think they were plotting to humiliate me. It wasn't some deliberate ploy. But because of their lack of grace, they thought less of others instead of the best of their brothers and sisters. It affected everyone. They became miserable at church, and others found it miserable to be around them.

We politely encouraged the young men to straighten up or move on, and they chose the latter. All of it was very petty. A friend of mine suggested it might have been the result of some cage stage behavior (for those who know what that means). Still, the experience was so baffling I spent months trying to figure it out. Some of it was wounded pride, like I should have seen it coming. (My wife did, but she's sharp like that.)

About that same time, I was listening to a series by Matt Chandler in which he said the following: "It is a good, godly discipline for you to watch your mind concerning other Christians. If you are meditating on their weaknesses, you are sinning against God and you are sinning against them. It is an evil thing -- it is an evil thing -- for you to be an expert in the weaknesses of your brothers and sisters."

I wish I could say that was an "Ah ha!" moment when I went, "So that's what was wrong with those guys!" Rather, I realized that's what was wrong with me. Why did God give me that experience of being sized up and belittled by those guys? To head off at the pass something that was brewing in my own heart. So that as a pastor, I wouldn't do to members of my congregation what was being done to me.

Chandler went on: "The discipline God has called you to and me to is to be an expert in the strengths of our brothers and sisters... It becomes difficult to disdain the person you see the work of God in." That's the kind of shepherd I want to be: the kind that is an expert in the strengths of my brothers and sisters. The kind that looks at a person and sees Christ and knows how to give them more Christ.

I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of graceless, petty analysis. As I said, it's miserable. That's about the best word to describe it. Praise God he doesn't look at me that way. I'd wither away at the thought. He knows my frame and knows that I am dust. But as a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him (Psalm 103:13-14).

Because of his great love for me, I'm covered with the blood of Christ and stand before him justified. Because of the blood of Christ, I am being sanctified and shaped more in his image. God gives me more grace. The more I read his word and the more I see my selfish sinfulness, the more grace he gives. Grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20).

He has taken my record of debt and nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14). He has blotted out my transgressions, and I have been redeemed (Isaiah 44:22). For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love for me. As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed my transgression from me (Psalm 103:12).

That's the grace God has shown me. That is the grace I must show to you. That is the grace we must show to one another. If there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1), then how can we live as the body of Christ if we're constantly thinking less of one another at a moment's weakness? There's a time and a place and a way to admonish. But when the occasion arises that we must call a brother or sister to correction, even this must be done with love and grace.

Steph Curry threw his mouth guard and probably said a curse word. I've probably done that in less stressful circumstances (okay, minus the mouthpiece). Fortunately, no one was around to hear me say it. My flesh is just as weak. If what I've read about Curry is to be believed, he'll experience God's grace, rejoice in adversity, and be the first to say, "I'm weak, but he is strong."

I'm not going to close by saying you should show the same grace to Steph Curry. I'm pretty sure he'll survive with or without knowing how you feel. Instead, I must urge you to go and show God's grace to everyone, especially to those of the household of faith (Galatians 6:10). Don't react so quickly the moment a person stumbles. It's likely an opportunity for you to show more grace.

Enjoy game 7 of the finals on Sunday. It's probably rigged. But it should still be fun. (Come on, all sports are rigged to some degree, right?)

This sermon was delivered on June 26, 2016, on the one-year anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in the United States. An expanded version can be purchased in a printed manuscript form by clicking here.

Introduction
The world sure loves to talk about sex. Sex, sex, sex. Money, power, sex, money, and sex. Then the church speaks into the world's sinful passions and says, "The answer is Jesus." And the world responds, "Why do Christians just want to talk about sex all the time?"

That will likely be the response to this message, re-writing a sermon that I first preached on April 28, 2013, addressing the subject of same-sex marriage and how the church should respond.

Incredibly, the world changed a lot in just three short years. Same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide on June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. With that decision, the United States became the 22nd nation in the world to recognize same-sex marriage as marriage.

Prior to 2000, when the Netherlands became the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage, no country in the history of the world considered a union between two people of the same sex to be a marriage. Yes, there were peoples and nations that engaged in and accepted homoerotic practices. We see that as far back as Genesis 19 in the city of Sodom. But marriage was still marriage: a union between a man and a woman.

If you went to the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary today, you would find three different definitions of marriage. Marriage is:

• The relationship that exists between a husband and a wife.
• A similar relationship between people of the same sex.
• A ceremony in which two people are married to each other.

The importance of the sexes is gone. If a man and a woman are no longer necessary to define a marriage, neither will a definition of the sexes matter anywhere else, including, as we're now being told, on the bathroom door.

Our world has become obsessed with redefining marriage, sex, and the sexes. For years we've listened to them say, "Same-sex marriage won't hurt anyone!" And then they try to sue someone out of their livelihood when they refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage, or fine someone because they don't use the right pronouns. They are hurting others. And—They are hurting themselves.

The church is to be the light of Christ shining into this sexually depraved culture. When Jesus said in Matthew 5:14 that we are the light of the world, what does that mean? Paul explained it to the Philippians when he told them to be blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which we shine as lights in the world, holding out the word of Christ (Philippians 2:14-16). By sharing the words of Jesus, we are exposing sin, presenting the gospel, and calling for repentance.

That is the loving response that the church should make to the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender movement (LGBT). At one point every one of us were dead in our sins and our trespasses in which we once walked, following the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were under the wrath of God like the rest of mankind.

But God who is rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, didn't leave us dead in our sins. He sent his Son, Jesus, to die in our place, taking upon himself the wrath of God that we deserved. God sent someone to speak the gospel into our lives, our eyes were opened to our sin, and our hearts have been turned by his Holy Spirit toward the righteousness of Christ.

That is exactly what God did for each one of us, and so we must take this message to the whole world—because we love them, too. A year after same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States, I present this sermon again with updated information. This is LGBT and How the Church Should Respond.

A Church Address
It is important to clarify who I am speaking to. I am addressing the church, the unified body under the head that is Christ. More specifically, I'm talking to First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, KS. This is a call to advance the gospel, not to be rancorous or quarrelsome.

Ultimately, what I want us to understand is this: We must respond to the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). To withhold the gospel and encourage a person in sin that God has promised he will judge is the most unloving response we as the church could make.

There is a lot here to fit into one sermon, so we will divide this up in the following ways: First, our culture's evolution on homosexuality; Next, what the Bible says about homosexuality; Third, what the gay marriage debate is about and what it's not about; and finally, warnings and further instructions for the church.

The LGBT (R)evolution
Think about this: a year ago, a man would be arrested for persistently and willfully using the women's bathroom. Today, you could be arrested for trying to stop him.

On the Monday, May 16 edition of The Briefing, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the following: "Just a matter of a few months ago, America was assured that the LGBT revolution, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and all that is included in this revolution, wouldn't really change anything fundamental. It was just about a matter of fairness and inclusion. Now we are told, less than a year after the Obergefell decision, that schools must now join the moral revolution, even when it comes to bathrooms and changing areas, locker rooms and other facilities, and the absolute decree handed down by our federal government is clear in its complexity, but also its moral clarity. This is an absolute demand for total obedience to the moral revolution."

This was in response to the news the previous Friday that the Obama administration, through the departments of Justice and Education, demanded that every public education institution in the country must bow the knee and allow every boy or girl to use the bathroom of their choice. Should they refuse, swift consequences would be enforced, not the least of which was the withholding of federal funds to that institution.

There's a joke that goes, "Eight years of Obama, and we can't decide which bathroom to use." It's hilarious that this is the kind of legacy Obama will be leaving behind. But it's also deeply sad and heart-wrenching, looking toward future generations, when we realize: this is the kind of legacy Obama wants to leave behind.

Once defending the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, Obama says that he has "evolved" on the issue. With same-sex marriage legalized, he has turned his attention to the T in LGBT, pushing "executive orders" that infringe upon the conscience of most Americans in the special treatment of transgender behavior. It is on LGBT issues that he means to cement his legacy.

This past November, heading into Obama's final year in office, The Economist did a public opinion poll to find out what Americans thought of the work Obama has done as president. They singled out 15 policy issues, including abortion, the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit, the economy, education, the environment, foreign policy, gun control, health care, immigration, Medicare, Social Security, taxes, and terrorism. Obama's disapproval rating was higher than his approval rating on every single issue except one—gay rights.

There's another joke that goes, "Kennedy's legacy was to put a man on the moon, Obama's is to put a man in the women's restroom. Reagan was famous for saying, 'Tear down this wall!' Obama is famous for saying, 'Tear down this stall.'"

But let's be realistic: President Obama is not the one to blame. If he were impeached and we removed him from office, the person who would take his place would be just as liberally progressive on social issues as he is. Both presumptive presidential nominees, Donald Trump of the Republican party and Hillary Clinton of the Democrats, defend gay marriage and transgender laws. Even Republicans—long-held to be the conservative party—have evolved.

On the late night of Wednesday, May 25, house Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment which codified Obama's executive order 13672 making transgenderism the law of the land. The amendment passed 223-195 with 43 Republicans supporting it. Said Daniel Horowitz of the Conservative Review, "The GOP House just supported arguably the most radical Democrat agenda item in the dead of night."

So you see, Obama is merely a part, not the cause, of our changing moral ethic. Lest you forget, it was in 1969 that no-fault divorce was first introduced under then-Governor Ronald Reagan, hailed today as a conservative hero. The legal definition of marriage was being changed in 1969 before it happened in 2015. The law has changed to reflect the attitudes of the culture rather than guide, protect, and establish boundaries, as the law should.

The truth is that even American churches, are "evolving" on this issue. According to an August 3, 2015 article in The Greenville News, the First Baptist Church of Greenville, SC has taken it upon themselves to not only perform same-sex marriages, but to ordain gay and transgender ministers. At the members meeting where this was decided, every single person stood unanimously in support of the decision.

First Baptist Church in Greenville is the church home of the first Southern Baptist Convention president, and the birthplace of what is today Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (FBC Greenville left the Southern Baptist Convention in 1999. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has been located in Louisville, KY since 1877.) Pastor Jim Dant said, "We need to do the right thing, regardless of what anybody says or thinks about us," and that they needed to be "diverse and respectful of God's unique work."

Well, let the church not be led astray, and those who seek the truth of God's Holy Word understand that affirming gay and transgender behavior is not respectful to God or to the people made in his image. In fact, embracing, supporting, or approving the gay-rights cause is one of the most destructive and unloving things that we can do.

If this concept seems crazy to you—if you wonder how supporting same-sex marriage is actually the unloving and uncaring thing—please stick with me because it's one of the major points that I wish to address.

Perhaps none of this backstory is news to you, but I bring it up to make this point: We must not be surprised when the world acts like the world, nor should we be in terror or despair. The hope for this world is not in the government or what laws are passed. The only salvation for this world is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We must not back down from sharing that message or soften it in any way. We must tell the world, our neighbors, and teach it to our children. We must be vocal about what sin is, what the consequence for sin is, and that in Christ our sin is forgiven. "For the wages of sin is death," the Scripture says, "but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

When the world acts like the world, our response is to share the gospel. We preach because we love.

To Inherit the Kingdom of God
In my first few weeks as senior pastor here, my wife and I visited with a young woman who said she was a lesbian. She wanted to know how she could still be a lesbian and be sure she would go to heaven when she died.

I read to her 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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."

It was important to help her understand that one of the sins that will keep a person from the kingdom of God is homosexuality. "Idolatry" is grouped together with sexual sins because to engage in any sexually immoral practice is to bow at an altar to a false god—a god of your own design who will fulfill all your desires and give you all the pleasures you want to have.

But those who belong to Christ "have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). Peter said to "live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God" (1 Peter 4:2). Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it" (Luke 9:23-24).

She responded with a common rebuttal: that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. So I took her to the part of Scripture where Jesus talked about marriage and the sexes in Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus said, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate."

Or in other words, "Let man not redefine." Jesus gave the definition of marriage as God created it to be: one man and one woman for life. When we read in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or 1 Timothy 1 that homosexuality is sin, though those words were written by the Apostle Paul, they are also the words of Christ. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit who would reveal more truth (John 16:13, 1 John 4:6, 5:6). As the Holy Spirit is God just as Christ is God, whatever the Spirit has said through the Apostles and the Prophets is also what Christ has said.

The Bible strictly condemns homoerotic behavior. To encourage someone in sin that God has promised he will judge is not loving. With the love of Christ for this woman sitting in our living room, I was not about to leave her believing that she could practice a gay lifestyle and still inherit the kingdom of God when the Bible says the opposite.

I told her to notice the part where Paul said, "'But you were washed!' Some of the men and women Paul wrote to formerly committed homosexual sins. But they were loved by God and forgiven of their sins. They were washed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit. Sitting among the people of the Corinthian church were those who could say, 'I once was that, but I've been washed.' They were being made into the image of Christ, who died for their sins so that he might present us before God purified and holy with great joy."

So I put this before her: "The question you need to ask is not, 'Can I still be this and still get to heaven?' The question is rather this: 'Do I want God?' Do you want him so much that you would be willing to give up every desire of the flesh you have to be like Jesus? The Bible says it is they who will be given life, and given it more abundantly. It is they who will receive his kingdom. 'They have conquered [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death,' Revelation 12:11."

She said she believed the words that I told her. She wanted to repent of her sins and no longer be identified by a label of her flesh, but by the name of Jesus. Hers was the first baptism I ever did here at First Southern Baptist Church.

Our responsibility as Christians is to take the gospel, preached in the whole world for 2,000 years, and speak it into the context of our modern culture. We do not need to change it. But we do need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves (Matthew 10:16). It is a biblical thing to have an understanding of the times and how to respond to them (1 Chronicles 12:32, Colossians 4:5-6). For that reason, it is necessary for us to see the lie of this sexual revolution for what it is. We do this not because we hate, but because we love.

Let us revisit the arguments as I presented them three years ago regarding same-sex marriage. When we looked at these arguments the first time, we were looking ahead at a turn our culture was about to take. Now we'll be looking back at a turn our culture has taken to better understand the road we're on. Let's understand what this debate is not about, borrowing in part from arguments presented by apologist Frank Turek:

What This Debate is Not About

• It is not about equality or civil rights.
• It is not about bigotry, discrimination, or homophobia.
• It is not about religion.
• It is not about love.
• It is not even about marriage or bathrooms.

Equality, civil rights, discrimination, love, marriage and bathrooms—these are the things we always talk about when it comes to the debate, but they are a smokescreen. They are not the issue or the goal. Both same-sex marriage advocates and opponents have been forced into a debate controlled by certain language influenced by a propaganda machine conceived of nearly 30 years ago.

In 1988 in Warrentown, VA, a meeting was held by a group of prominent homosexuals where they laid out a plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. The next year, a book was published by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. In the book, they talk about how they will achieve their goal "without references to facts, logic, or proof." By doing so, "the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not" (pg. 152 and 153).

In other words the strategy is based purely on propaganda: to portray gays as victims and to make those who disagree with the lifestyle look like vicious haters. The agenda has worked, using bumper-sticker rhetoric and appeals to emotion while completely ignoring evidence and reason. Responding to this debate though will take more than quips and one-liners. I ask you to patiently process what we will unfold as we go through these things in order.

First of all, it's not about equality or civil rights.
The LGBT agenda wishes to paint the battle for sexual-orientation rights as similar to the civil rights struggle for blacks that peaked in the 1960s. It is not anything like the civil rights struggle. The segregation prevalent during that era was literally a black and white issue. Simply by looking at a person were they discriminated against because of the outward color of their skin. But the fight for homosexual "equality" is not an issue where a person can look at someone else and discriminate against them by their appearance.

In July of 2012, Voddie Baucham wrote an article entitled Gay is Not the New Black. One of the things Baucham mentioned in the article is that it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation. In fact, the homosexual community will distance itself from same-sex behavior they find undesirable. Try calling a pedophile a homosexual, and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. So same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual.

Baucham also referenced anti-miscegenation laws—when it was once illegal for mixed-race couples to get married. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." However, a homosexual can't interbreed! How can it be considered racist to point out any two homosexual men or any two lesbian women are completely incapable of procreation? One cannot be denied something that doesn't exist.

Secondly, the debate is not about bigotry, discrimination, or homophobia.
In 2013, when the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act was being challenged before the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia made a valid point. He said, "We don't prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the fourteenth amendment was adopted?" Attorney Ted Olson conceded that he could not answer the question.

Prior to 2015, a homosexual adult male always had the exact same rights as a heterosexual adult male. It was always within their legal right to get married so long as the person they married was of the opposite sex—because that's what marriage is. And here's the thing: A homosexual male could not marry a person of the same sex, and neither could the heterosexual male. It was the same law for both orientations. What changed in 2015 was not that homosexuals won any rights they didn't previously have—they received special privilege.

For those who disagree with this argument, consider two things: one is a legal definition, and the second a logic argument. First, the legal definition. When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, they said the following: "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex." Even though Iowa legalized same-sex marriage, the courts acknowledged that marriage law did not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Second, here's the logic argument. Same-sex marriage advocates wish to suggest that there is no difference between a two parent home consisting of a mother and father, and a home consisting of two parents of the same gender. So according to the gay-rights lobby, when it comes to parenting, men and women are interchangeable. But when it comes to sex partners, they aren't. Do you see the contradiction in the argument? If men and women really are interchangeable, then why not marry someone of the opposite sex?

The fact of the matter is that even the gay-rights campaign inherently understands that the definition of marriage, as has been the case in all of human history, is a union between two people of the opposite sex. Just as stated in Romans 1:24-27, they know what is natural and what is contrary to nature, but they exchange the truth for a lie.

Princeton Professor Robert George in his book The Clash of Orthodoxies points out that marriage is made real by acts that are reproductive, whether or not these acts result in children. Only a mated pair, a man and a woman, can be a complete organism capable of human procreation. By contrast, no two gay men or two lesbian women can ever be procreative.

Consider it this way: If all couples were one man and one woman, the human race would thrive. If all couples were only same-sex unions, the human race would end. Now, in no scenario would society ever be comprised of only same-sex couples. The point is merely to show that if it's bigotry to not give same-sex couples the same consideration one would give a heterosexual couple, then nature is the ultimate bigot. The man-and-woman union is the very foundation of civilization. It is the foundation of humanity.

The opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on bigotry, but on good reason. Our laws rightly discriminate against all kinds of behaviors with no intention of hating anyone. A 40-year old man cannot marry a 10-year-old girl; brothers and sisters can't marry one another; a husband cannot take more than one wife. This is no more hatred than denying two men a marriage license.

But as I said before, this is all propaganda using bigotry, discrimination, and homophobia as tools of persuasion. Who wants to be considered a bigot? I know that discrimination does exist, but merely disagreeing with same-sex marriage does not make one a hate-monger. Such a position can be based on evidence, not prejudice.

Third, this is not about religion.
Again, opposition to homosexual and transgender laws can be based simply on evidence and reason. Former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Paul McHugh, has outright opposed gender reassignment surgery. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, he said, "Claiming that this is a civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."

In a statement posted in March, the American College of Pediatricians urged all "educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex." They stated, "Facts—not ideology—determine reality."

Even those on the liberal left are uncomfortable with some of the extremes the LGBT movement has taken. Yale Law Professor Peter H. Schuck, writing for The New York Times, criticized President Obama's edict that required all public schools to allow boys and girls to use the bathroom of their choice. Earlier this month, Life Site News reported that Maya Dillard Smith, a liberal democrat and member of the ACLU in Georgia, resigned because she was opposed to the way the ACLU was forcing transgender bathroom laws.

There are even homosexuals who do not favor same-sex marriage. Dr. Jason Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and an openly gay man. In an article last month entitled Loveless, Narcissistic Sex Addicts: A Gay Man Critiques His Community, he said, "Marriage between two men in our contemporary culture is a colossal waste of time, a hopeless undertaking doomed for failure, and, fundamentally, a naïve endeavor profoundly at odds with the hypersexual, broken, and ethically bankrupt ethos and nature of gay male culture."

Because gay-marriage is not about religion, it is not just the religious whom LGBT activists will come up against. Rather, anyone who opposes the LGBT movement in any way will be attacked by what some have dubbed the "gay gestapo" or the gaystapo.

In June, 2015, Dr. Paul Church, an urologist at a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital in Boston, was expelled for warning about the increased health risks of gay activity, "including STD's, HIV and AIDS, anal cancer, hepatitis, parasitic intestinal infections, psychiatric disorders." He's a leading medical expert who had been with the hospital for over 30 years, and he was fired just for doing his job.

According to a May 17 edition of The Washington Post, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio drafted new rules that require businesses to address customers by the neutral pronouns "ze" or "zir." Any business that addresses their customers as "Mr." or "Mrs." or "sir" or "madam" could be subject to penalties of up to $250,000. Referred to as the New York City Human Rights Law, violations of the law include an "intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman 'him' or 'Mr.' after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses."

Embracing LGBT political-correctness is creating a perpetually confused culture. The only way to receive love and acceptance is to always be encouraging of all LGBT behavior all the time. Christianity is going to be in the cross-hairs more-so than anyone else because our text, the Bible, speaks the truth. Not all religion will be targeted—specifically Christianity.

After the tragic shooting at a gay night club in Orlando, FL two weeks ago—in which a Muslim terrorist, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and injured at least as many others, who has since been revealed to be a gay man himself—Sarah Jones, who works for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in Washington D.C., said that by calling the LGBT movement a threat to our values, Christians "ensured that an event like Orlando was inevitable."

Chase Strangio of the ACLU said, "The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people [are] blaming Islam for this? No." Lawyer and political commentator Sally Kohn said, "Simple fact is that progressive Muslims recognize my fundamental humanity and equality as a queer person more than the Christian right does."

Even though Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi has expressed support for the LGBT community, Anderson Cooper grilled her on CNN for being a hypocrite because she had opposed LGBT rights legislation in the past.

Now, we've come to expect this kind of behavior from the left, but folks, it's coming from the right, too. Look at Georgia governor Nathan Deal, for example. I've also mentioned Donald Trump and other Republicans.

Worse yet, it's coming from those who claim to be Christians. Popular women's blogger and pastor's wife Jen Hatmaker chastised Christian ethics on her Facebook page: "We cannot with any integrity honor in death those we failed to honor in life… Anti-LGBTQ sentiment has paved a long runway to hate crimes… We are complicit." Other evangelical bloggers like Rachel Held Evans echoed her sentiment.

Said David French of the National Review, "The principles, such as they exist, seem to be this: If you oppose same-sex marriage or mixed-gender bathrooms, then you not only can't legitimately grieve the loss of gay lives, you're partially responsible for the massacre in Orlando. Conservative efforts to protect religious freedom and freedom of association from unprecedented infringement will kill people."

French demonstrated that opposition to same-sex marriage is not solely a religious issue. But LGBT activists and sympathizers have made the true church a target.

Fourth, it's not about love.
The fact of the matter is that two homosexual men could commit to one another with or without a same-sex marriage law. There's a whole cottage industry that has been specializing in same-sex weddings for decades—before same-sex marriage was legally recognized. But gay-rights are not about love. In fact the gay community is one of the most unloving and competitive communities of people. Just ask those who are in it.

Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez has spent more than forty years in the LGBT community. He was raised by a lesbian and her partner, identified himself as gay at the age of twenty and bisexual at the age of thirty, having worked in a gay sex club in the 90s. He saw how gays and lesbians clung to their vices and took their frustrations out on each other.

He pointed out that a homosexual male's accelerated sex drive causes an increase in rivalry as well as eating disorders. Lesbian women deal with the cloistering, smothering tendencies of other women, feuding and holding grudges against each other. And don't you dare ever become a person who was once a part of the homosexual lifestyle and then leave it. The worst attacks, it seems, are reserved for those who once were gay. Homosexual radicals will bully a person questioning their sexuality into coming out as gay and then staying gay.

Furthermore, Lopez has pointed out that homosexual-rights pundits are among the vilest commentators you can find. Here's one example. On the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher, activist and author Dan Savage expressed a desire to anally rape then presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Comedian Marc Maron, part of the same banter, said he'd like to do the same to Congresswoman Michelle Bauchmann. Unashamedly verbalizing sexual acts of violence is their response to those who oppose same-sex marriage.

Now, it might be easy for someone to look down on anyone who claims to be homosexual as being like Savage and his fan-base, but understand I'm not trying to paint them all with the same brush. Rather, I want you to understand why it is so damaging for anyone who says they're a homosexual to engage in this kind of community—the hurt, the rage, the confusion, and harmful behaviors that exist there. Again, one of the worst things we can do is actually encourage them to embrace and express a homosexual lifestyle. It is not as loving and inclusive as the homosexual lobby wants you to believe that it is.

The LGBT community has been very spiteful toward those who are intersex, or hermaphrodites, born neither male nor female. In an online article, an intersex person anonymously named Emily said, "In most mainstream LGBTQ groups, intersex people only come up when it's time to refute the gender binary. They don't care about actually helping intersex people; we're just a token to be played when people say that the gender binary is only right and natural because the sex binary is only right and natural."

Dr. Jason Hill has also been lambasted by the gay community for pulling back the curtain on the gay lifestyle. He said, "Promiscuous sex and drug use are not exceptional or marginalized currents in gay culture. They are an omnipresent force in every register, crook, and cranny of the gay world."

Hill revealed a disturbing trend emerging in the gay culture called "Poz Me," where gay men who are HIV negative hook up with men who are HIV positive. This is the gay community's version of breeding. He called it, "a desperate cry for intimacy and deep contact with another on the—literally—deepest form: an exchange of infected bodily fluids."

Hill also pointed to studies showing that 43 percent of all gay men in the Western world claimed to have had more than 500 partners in their lifetime, and 28 percent claimed to have had more than 1,000. For the few homosexuals who actually do get married, their sexual promiscuity doesn't end and their marriages are often open relationships. Popular music icon Elton John has one of those marriages. You can find articles about how he and his partner, David Furnish, have sex with numerous other partners, even flying thousands of miles to meet up with other gay men to engage in lavish and expensive orgies.

The Center for Disease Control has revealed that more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases are the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Gay and bisexual men account for 60 percent of all syphilis cases. And this affects you, too. The gay lobby has strong-armed the government into preventing health insurance companies from asking consumers any medical questions, including if they have any sexually transmitted diseases. As a result, every consumer in America is paying a higher premium because a health insurance company is not allowed to identify clients who engage in high-risk sexual behavior.

Lesbians are at greater risk for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world. They have higher risk of cervical cancers, they are more likely to be obese and abuse drugs and alcohol, they have higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C. And only 7 percent of lesbians say they have sex exclusively with women. More than 9 out of 10 lesbian women admit to sleeping with both men and women.

Just like how abortion lobbyists don't want to talk about what abortion actually is—the murder of children—so the gay-rights lobby doesn't want to talk about what homosexuality actually is—gay and lesbian sex. Pardon me for being graphic, but it's like trying to put a round peg in a star-shaped hole. Homosexual acts are in direct opposition to the body's design. It is not natural nor is it healthy to insert the penis into the rectum, the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body. And calling its abuse an act of "love" does not change how much it harms the body.

And please understand me here—I do not mention these things so that you will be reviled and repulsed by someone who identifies as gay. We must be filled with compassion and realize that you should never encourage anyone in this kind of behavior or lifestyle. Encouraging anyone to be gay or lesbian will always be unloving. In fact, it's hateful to tell a person, "It's alright to be gay."

The same goes for being transgender. Denny Burk, professor of Boyce College and author of the book Transforming Homosexuality, pointed to a 2009 interview that Fox News did with a man named "John." Ever since he was a child, John has felt like a one-legged man trapped inside a two-legged man's body and has a longing desire to cut off one of his limbs.

It's a condition referred to as "Body Integrity Identity Disorder." According to a 2012 study, the only known psychological relief is amputation. But most doctors won't participate. One man who froze his leg in dry ice until it was irreparably damaged. Another shot himself in the leg with a shotgun and it had to be amputated.

Asked Burk, "Is it right for people to amputate otherwise healthy limbs? Is it loving or helpful for friends and loved ones to encourage them to amputate healthy limbs? Is the problem here damaged limbs or a damaged mind? Does the body need adjusting, or does the thinking?" Now apply this to a man who wants to be surgically altered into a woman, or a woman into a man.

It is inconsiderate for our sex-crazed society to let people do whatever they want and force the rest to go along with it. Last month, the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina ran an editorial telling girls that they needed to overcome their discomfort at the sight of male genitalia because it was only a matter of time until transgender bathroom laws would be enacted. Our secular culture's solution to this is: "Girls, get used to seeing a man's private parts."

Consider what David Kupelian writes in his book The Marketing of Evil: "We've forgotten as a society what love is, because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer. The most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient and firm opposition."

Ethicist and political philosopher Jay Budziszewski observes that real "compassion ought to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier is it to forget the prisoner, give the drunk a drink, send the girl to an abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true."

False love is the way of our culture; exploiting people to advance selfish pursuits. Many men and women, boys and girls, confused about their sexuality have been sucked into this agenda the goals and intentions of which do not reflect upon every single individual. But despite their mantra of, "Love Wins!" it is an agenda that certainly cannot be called a movement of love.

Finally, this is not about marriage itself.
I've mentioned already that most homosexuals don't even want marriage. Looking at countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for a longer period of time, what we see is that an average of 96% of those who claim to be homosexual never get married. There's an initial burst of participation when same-sex marriage is legalized, which has happened here in the U.S., and then it drops off. Those who do get married break up at a higher rate than heterosexual couples. Statistics show that monogamy exists in 83% of heterosexual couples, but in only 2% of homosexual couples. (Even the most moderate results show a difference of greater than 60%.)

In fact, there is more reason to believe that the homosexual agenda wants to abolish marriage than to practice it. Beginning in New York in 1969, during the free-love movement, the Gay Liberation Front stated, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression."

Paula Ettelbrick, a long-time legal figure in the gay-rights movement, once wrote, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships." Law professor Nan D. Hunter said that government-backed same-sex marriage has the "enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone."

Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay-rights activist and editor for The Huffington Post, encouraged other activists, quote, "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." He went on to write, "The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of marriage entirely."

In May, 2012, in a panel discussion before a live audience at the Sydney Writers Festival, lesbian author and journalist Masha Gessen said the following: "It's a no-brainer that gays should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist." The audience cheered approvingly. "Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that's a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist."

Church, we need to realize exactly what these homosexual and anti-family zealots realize: same-sex marriage will destroy the family. It is robbing individual Americans of basic fundamental freedoms. It is hurting everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

Andrew Sullivan, a gay man and one of their more conservative voices on gay-rights, has said that heterosexuals can learn something from homosexuals and engage in more openly sexual relationships. And again, that's the conservative viewpoint on the family.

And talk about being gay is absolutely everywhere. As Dr. Mohler pointed out in a June 8 edition of The Briefing, the "House and Home" section of the Financial Times mentioned gay life in every single article of its 14 pages. Said Dr. Mohler, "Here you have the Financial Times signaling to the public that it intends to push the LGBT agenda in every section, including the real estate section."

The effort to legalize same-sex marriage is not about marriage. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legalized in this country, and yet the fight just seems to be getting stronger, and all the things they promised wouldn't happen are happening—is further evidence that this has never been about marriage.

So What is This About?
So if it's not about equal rights, if it's not about discrimination, if it's not about religion, love, or even marriage itself, what is this all about? To borrow from Jonathan Leeman writing for The Gospel Coalition, it's because for both gay and transgender adults, this is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

We as Christians should have no problem with recognizing someone as fully human though they identify as gay or transgender. They're human beings made in the image of God. We love them no matter what, as we should love all no matter what. We're capable of loving them with a love greater than the love with which they love themselves. A Christian loves others contrary to what they deserve, just as Christ loves each and every one of us despite what we truly deserve.

Church, all of us would do well to remember Romans 5:8 which says that "God showed His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." All of us have sinned. All of us deserve God's wrath. But the death and blood of Jesus Christ satisfied the wrath of God. We need to humbly recognize that as Christ saved us from our sins, he can also save someone living as gay or transgender.

What we should not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human. Same-sex marriage or changing one's gender is a false hope when it comes to humanness. In fact, homosexuality de-humanizes. Everything that a homosexual must do to rationalize their desires actually takes something human away. Think about some of the rhetoric. One of the common arguments is that animals naturally experience same-sex attraction, therefore it's natural for people to experience it, too. Really? Comparing yourself to animals?

By arguing that homosexuality is "natural" and therefore must be embraced and celebrated is also an admission of defeat. The homosexual is saying that their desires are nothing more than chemical reactions they can't control. They enslave themselves to them. Remember that a slave is someone who is treated as less than human—who is dominated by someone or something else. In an effort to quantify themselves as fully human, they instead reduce themselves to a level that is less than human.

The world we live in is actively conspiring to suppress the truth with unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). What can be known about God is plain to every single person because God has revealed it to them (v.19). But they trade the image of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men (v.23). It only resembles humanity. But it's something less than human, They give up what they know is natural—acting against the human body's obvious design—exchanging it for something unnatural (v.26). The establishment of same-sex marriage is a religious act because it's trading in one God for another. God will judge idolatry—even among those who don't believe in Him.

Christian brothers and sisters: never, ever encourage someone in acts that make them less than human—less than being created in the image of God. How can this possibly be loving? We must not ever support rights for gays or transgenders. By voting for it, protesting for it, legislating it, telling your friends you approve of their behavior, letting your family members know that you think what they're doing is just fine—this is sin. You are approving of things that God has promised to judge. You cannot love your neighbor if you encourage them in behaviors that will exclude them from the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, Christian, I warn you—Romans 1:32 says that those who approve of such things are just as guilty as those who do them.

If the culture forces you to refer to little Johnny as little Suzy because that's what Johnny wants, you cannot comply, for to do this would be to participate in sin. Jesus said that if anyone causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and drowned in the depth of the sea (Luke 17:2). Genesis 1:27 says, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." We must love them as God created them to be and in doing so giving glory to God.

Joe Carter, Senior Editor at the Action Institute and author of the book How to Argue Like Jesus, says, "The true Christian response to those who are tempted by same-sex desire or suffering from gender identity confusion is to apply a gospel-centric expression of care, concern, and compassion. This requires, first of all, that we tell the truth about mankind and sin, and that we see people as God sees them rather than through their own preferred self-distorting labels and worldview. There are no 'LGBTQ' people, only men and women made in the image of God who are suffering from the consequences of the Fall and their own sin. We do our friends, family, and neighbors no favors by 'affirming' what God says must be renounced."

What Else the Church Should Know
Paul David Washer, a Southern Baptist evangelist, has said the following: "The church in America is going to suffer so terribly. We laugh now, but they will come after us and they will come after our children. They will close the net around us while we are playing soccer mom and soccer dad, while we're arguing over so many little things and mesmerized by so many trinkets. The net, even now, is closing around you and your children and your grandchildren, and it does not cause you to fear.

"You will be isolated from society as has already happened. Anyone who believes the Bible who tries to run for office will be considered a lunatic until finally we are silenced. We will be called things that we are not and persecuted not for being followers of Christ, but for being radical fundamentalists who do not know the true way of Christ which of course is love and tolerance. You'll go down as the greatest bigots and haters of mankind in history. They've already come after your children, and for most of you they got them; through indoctrination in public schools and universities and you wonder why your children come out not serving the Lord. It's because you fed them right into the devil's mouth."

And so, Washer says, "Your mind must be filled with the Word of God when all people persecute you and turn on you." He said, "You want revival and great awakening, but know this—for the most part great awakenings have come only preceding great national catastrophes or the persecution of the church. I believe God is bringing a great awakening. I believe He is raising up young men who are strong in the providence of God to be able to wade through the hell that's going to break loose on us. And it will be on us before we even recognize it—unless in God's providence He is not done."

Kevin DeYoung writes, "The church is sometimes the most vibrant, the most articulate, and the most holy when the world presses down on her most. But only sometimes. I care about the decisions of the Supreme Court and the laws our politicians put in place. But what's more important to me—because I believe it's more crucial to the spread of the gospel, the growth of the church, and the honor of Christ—is what happens in our churches, our mission agencies, our denominations, our parachurch organizations, and in our educational institutions. I fear that younger Christians may not have the stomach for disagreement or the critical mind for careful reasoning. We're going to need a good dose of fundamental obstinacy that most evangelicals love to lampoon. The challenge before the church is to convince ourselves, as much as anyone, that believing the Bible does not make us bigots, just as reflecting the times does not make us relevant."

In a separate article, DeYoung asks, "So what can be done? The momentum, the media, the slogans, the meta-stories, all seem to be on the other side. Now what? For starters, churches and pastors and Christian parents can prepare their families both intellectually and psychologically for the opposition that is sure to come. Conservative Christians have more kids; make sure they know what the Bible says and how to think. We should also remember that the church's mission in life is not to defeat gay marriage. While too many Christians have already retreated, there may be others who reckon that everything hangs in the balance on this one issue. Let's keep preaching, persevering, pursuing joy, and praying for conversions. Christians should care about the issue, and then carry on."

DeYoung went on to say, "We need more courage. The days of social acceptability for evangelicals, let alone privilege, are fading fast in many parts of the country. If we aren't prepared to be counter-cultural we aren't ready to be Christians. And we need courage not only to say what the Bible says, but to dare say what almost no one will say—that gay sex is unnatural and harmful to the body, that abandoning gender distinctions will be catastrophic for our society and our children, and that monogamy and exclusivity is often understood differently in the gay community. Let's keep preaching, teaching, and laboring for faithful churches. Let's be fruitful and multiply. Let's train our kids in the way they should go. Let's keep sharing the good news and praying for revival. And let's also find ways to make the truth plausible in a lost world. Not only the truth about marriage, but the truth about life and sex and creation and beauty and family and freedom and a hundred other things humans tend to forget on this side of Adam. The cultural assumptions in our day are not on our side, but if the last 50 years has shown us anything it's that those assumptions can change more quickly than we think."

What Else the Church Should Do
As I bring this to a conclusion, here are three more things I must urge you to do: Guard the teaching, guard your children, and guard yourselves.

In 1 Timothy 6:20 and 2 Timothy 1:14, the Apostle Paul urged his protégé to guard the good deposit entrusted to him: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'"

This deposit is very simply the message of the gospel. Know the sound words of Scripture and be able to defend it when it is misused. In our hearts, we must set apart Christ as holy, always ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us, doing this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). We must share it with one another, we must teach it to our children, and we must preach it to the world.

We must understand the truth of the song we have learned since childhood: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Know the authority and the power in these 5 words: "Because the Bible says so." The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

We must guard the teaching, and secondly, you must guard your children. Just yesterday, I was in a restaurant and went to use the bathroom. In the men's room, by himself, was a boy that could have been no older than four, possibly even three. I was terrified for him and asked him, "Where are your parents?" and so he took me to where they were sitting. Folks, public bathrooms are not safe places anymore. Neither are public schools.

A year ago, the Sunday after the Supreme Court made their decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, I told this congregation that if you want to protect your children from this crooked and twisted generation, pull them out of public schools and homeschool them, or send them to a Christian school. You must know my suggestion was not unique. An exit strategy to encourage withdrawing children from the public school system was proposed at the Southern Baptist Convention over ten years ago.

It was then Dr. Mohler said, "Every week, new reports of atrocities in the public schools appear. Radical sex education programs, offensive curricula and class materials, school-based health clinics, and ideologies hostile to Christian truth and parental authority abound. These reports are no longer isolated and anecdotal. Forces opposed to what Southern Baptist churches and families believe dominate the public school arena—especially at the national level where policies are made and the future is shaped."

He pointed out, "Fueled by a secularist agenda and influenced by an elite of radical educational bureaucrats and theorists, government schools now serve as engines for secularizing and radicalizing children." And added, "The public school system in America has been controversial at various turns in our national history—but never as now." And again—this was over ten years ago. Parents, it's something you need to take seriously. No one's going to be church-disciplined for putting their kids in public school. Perhaps I won't convince you now, but you must consider the cost. I will tell you I still have a passion and a desire to start a Christian school. But that is a vision I can't share alone.

Be careful what your children watch and listen to. Know closely the friends they hang out with. Don't let them go into the home of anyone you don't know. Teach your children about sex and the sexes. Do not let the culture or their secular friends teach them. If you won't teach your children the sound doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ that accords with godliness (1 Timothy 6:3), there is an enemy who is ready to teach them his false doctrine.

Guard your children. And third, guard yourselves. If we are going to be a light to the world, we must be honorable in our conduct so that when they speak against us as evildoers, they may see our good deeds and give glory to God on the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:12). There must not even be a hint of sexual immorality (Ephesians 5:3). This is the will of God, our sanctification, that we abstain from sexual immorality (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

Men need to act like men (1 Corinthians 16:13), and women like women (Proverbs 31:30). Let the men of the church teach the younger men, and women teach younger women. With joy, fulfill the role that God has designed you for. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:25-26). Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Colossians 3:18).

Men, stop looking at porn. Let your hands be holy (1 Timothy 2:8). Women, stop gossiping and control your tongue. Dress modestly and be self-controlled (1 Timothy 2:9). In Philippians 4:6-7, Paul said, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

Guard the teaching, guard your children, and guard yourselves. As Paul said to Titus in Titus 2:15, "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you."

"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time, now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24).

Perhaps you've heard the rumor that Donald Trump is a Christian now. It happened just recently, according to Dr. Dobson. "I don't know when it was, but it has not been long," Dr. Dobson said. "I believe he really made a commitment, but he's a baby Christian."

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus On the Family and someone I grew up listening to, is among a list of evangelicals that make up Trump's evangelical advisory board, or more specifically what's called his "Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee."

It's a pretty eclectic mix that includes Southern Baptists like Jerry Falwell Jr, David Jeremiah, and Ronnie Floyd; word of faith preachers like Ken and Gloria Copeland and Paula White; politicians like Michele Bachman and Ralph Reed; and megachurch pastors such as James Robison, James MacDonald, and Robert Morris (more popular for Kari Jobe than for being Robert Morris).

According to Christianity Today, not everyone on the board endorses Trump, which is news to me. I find it silly that anyone would be on that panel who hasn't made up their mind about Trump. Truly they have to know that he's using their name and influence to make himself look pretty (see Proverbs 23:1-8 about dining at the table of a ruler). Of course, that can go both ways. Someone can also use Trump's name to make themselves look important.

One thing is for sure: Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. is all in for Donald Trump... with a very embarrassing endorsement...


As a quick evangelical American history lesson, what makes that endorsement even more embarrassing is that Falwell's father, Jerry Falwell Sr., waged a major crusade against pornography back in the 80s. He sued Penthouse and Hustler, and he had public debates with Hustler founder Larry Flynt. He protested against Playboy and banned the magazine from the Liberty campus.

That last one's kind of a no-brainer -- of course a porn mag is going to be banned from a Christian college campus. The irony is that Junior, Falwell's son and Liberty's current president, would take a photo with playboy Donald Trump giving him a thumbs up with said magazine hanging on the wall over Junior's wife's shoulder. Clearly Junior's judgment is impaired.

How about the rest on this advisory panel? Are we to take the word of anyone on the committee, like Dr. Dobson's, and believe that Donald Trump is in fact a brother in Christ? Here are five rhetorical questions; reasons as to why you should remain skeptical (I talked about some of this on the podcast today):

1) Wasn't Donald Trump already a Christian?
We've been told by some of these evangelical leaders that Trump was already a Christian. We've been told by Donald Trump himself that he's a Christian. Now we're supposed to believe that he never was, but now he really is? Was he or wasn't he? Is he or isn't he?

2) Whose God does Donald Trump believe in?
With a pretty eclectic evangelical board, whose version of God has Donald Trump heard about? Ken Copeland's? Paula White's? They believe in a false god. Paula has even said that Jesus Christ is not the only begotten Son of God. If Trump has heard the Copeland's tell him about Jesus, their version of Jesus will make him rich and give him everything he wants -- which is right up Trump's casino-laden alley. [Edit: It turns out it was probably Paula White who witnessed to Trump.]

3) What does Donald Trump have to gain?
Some of these teachers surely have good intentions. They desire Trump would be saved, or may be endorsing Trump because they have the best interest of the people in mind. Trump has a history of using people for his benefit. Isn't it fair to say Trump will take advantage of the kindness of some of these teachers to make himself look good, especially in trying to convince those skeptics who have questioned the legitimacy of his claims to faith? [Edit: This has been re-phrased from my previous statement which questioned the motives of evangelicals rather than Trump. I noticed my error later.]

4) Does Donald Trump's character reflect that of a Christian?
So far, the answer is no. Right after he met with this evangelical advisory board, he took a picture with a Christian university president and had the cover of a porno hanging on the wall. This is Christian Life Basics, Class 101, folks. When you leave your old life of sin and follow in the righteousness of Christ, you don't have porno mags hanging on the wall.

Is no one on this advisory board saying to Trump, "Donald, you need to take that down"? Is he getting any advice from anyone about how to live a Christian life? Is he taking that advice? Falwell lashed out at his critics and told them not to judge or throw stones. What he did not say was anything resembling, "You're right, Trump needs to get rid of the porno mag. I'll talk to him about that." What is the point of this advisory board if it's not to advise?

5) Has Donald Trump said anything?
Again, these are rhetorical questions, and the answer to this is no, he hasn't. If it's true that he's repented of his sins and is now a follower of Jesus Christ, he needs to say that. It needs to come from him, not some third-party. Our confession of faith cannot be done with someone else's mouth but with our own (Romans 10:9). When Donald Trump does confess his faith, I hope it would sound something like this:

I've done a lot of terrible things in my life: I've lied, I've cheated, I've manipulated people, I've been unfaithful to more than one wife. I'm an adulterer, I have promoted adultery, and I've made money from adultery. I've taken advantage of women, I've said horrible things about them and about other people. Some of my business decisions were completely self-serving and destroyed the lives of others, including entire families.  

And this is just the short list. You could write books about all of the terrible things I've done, and maybe someday someone will. Some people have already, I suppose. What I'm trying to say is this: I have sinned. I have sinned against God and I have sinned against you. Whatever you think I deserve for that sin, the fact is I deserve worse. I deserve to go to hell. But praise God, he saved me. He sent his Son, Jesus, to die on the cross for my sins. It's by the death of Jesus Christ that I know I have been saved, and it is by the resurrection of Jesus that I know I have eternal life. It is the life of Jesus Christ that I now want to follow after. I know, according to the godly teachers I'm surrounding myself with right now, it is by his grace that he will make that possible. 

The list of people I need to apologize to is so long, I probably wouldn't be able to get to the end of that list in the years I have left. I have been self-absorbed, advancing and promoting myself even during this presidential campaign. What I want to ask of you is this: that you would forgive me. I'm not asking for your vote. Not right now. I'm just asking that you would forgive me and show me grace, because God has forgiven me. 

The Bible says with many counselors there is wisdom. It is the Bible that is my source of wisdom. It's my favorite book, and now I can actually say that and mean it. I will no longer use the name of God to get what I want. I will praise his name because he is worthy to be praised. 

I know that I cannot do this on my own. I don't have as big or as smart a brain as I've said I have -- some of my critics are nodding in agreement. I have some God-fearing men helping me with the things I still need help with. I have a long way to go, but by the grace of God, I will get there. I am learning to die to myself and live for Christ. If you need to find me this weekend, I'll be at church, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

Something to that effect. It would be even more powerful and more genuine if he didn't read such a statement but it came directly from the heart -- a heart that has been changed by Christ and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

This kind of confession is what I've prayed Obama would do. His disciples are ridiculously loyal. If he were to make such a statement as this -- saying that he's repented of his sins and has become a follower of Christ, realizing that he's been responsible for the murder of millions of children but has begged God for mercy -- I truly believe a revival would break out in this country. The legacy he would leave behind would be far greater than the one he's currently leaving behind.

As I pointed out in the sermon on Sunday, Obama's legacy right now is that he was able to put a man in the woman's restroom. That's it. That's as great a legacy as he can leave on his current trajectory. His disapproval rating is lower than his approval rating on every single major issue except one -- gay rights. He can change that if he repents of his sins and points this nation to Jesus Christ. But that's if it's God's will and not his that is done.

All of us once lived in the passions of the flesh, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. It is by God's mercy and his providence that he saved us -- not by any work that we have done, but because of the work that Christ has done. There is no room for anyone to boast in their own righteousness. We have the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Lord (see Ephesians 2:1-10).

Our reception of Donald Trump right now should be in light of the character we currently see: a brash, foul-mouthed man who belittles women, talks down about minorities and the disabled, slanders people he doesn't agree with, has been unfaithful to his wives (plural), owns casinos and strip joints, elevates himself, talks about himself, loves himself, loves pornos, and loves that he's been in a porno. He uses people to get what he wants. He's using many evangelical leaders who, like it or not, are being played, not inquired of.

Donald Trump is not a baby Christian. He is a lost man. From his own mouth he has said he doesn't need to ask forgiveness for anything and that he can take care of it on his own. That is a man who is bound for hell unless he repents and is set free from the bonds of death by Jesus Christ.

We as the church have every right to discern whether or not Donald Trump is walking in forgiveness (John 20:23). He is not. He needs prayer. Not pandering.

Dear First Southern Baptist Church; grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is with a heavy heart that I am writing to inform you that our dear sister in the Christ, Chong Sun "Margaret" Rainwater, passed away last night due to complications from cancer affecting primarily her brain and her lungs. She is gone from this earth and with her Lord forever. My fingers tremble as I type it, a mixture of pain and mourning but also great relief and rejoicing. I know that she is home.

The last time I was with Margaret was a little over a week ago, when the elders and I came to her home and participated in the Lord's Supper together. In our prayers, we praised God for this wonderful woman and all that she had been to our church since being baptized here in 1978, born again and alive in Christ longer than I've been alive and breathing the air of this world.

We rejoiced and understood, as Margaret understood, that her body would die and she would pass in a matter of days. Oh, but she spoke so fondly of heaven and her God and Savior, Jesus Christ. As her body was falling apart and shutting down, she had such joy to say, "These are the happiest days of my life." I never once heard her complain.

That kind of hope is so convicting. Over the last couple of weeks, I have complained about the fatigue I'm experiencing from a lack of sleep, taking a physical and emotional toll, among other things I've been quick to grumble over. I have been short with my children and the dogs. I have been meditating more on the things of this world than the things of heaven. I have failed to surrender my thoughts to God.

And yet Margaret, dying of cancer and struggling to breathe, said that she was so happy. More so, that these were the happiest moments of her life. Oh God, that I would be restored and rejoice in my salvation that you have given and hold me steadfast to the end, being thankful in all circumstances, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is right for me to feel this way. I want to mourn. I want to suffer. I want to miss my sister in the Lord. To the glory of God. Yes, we celebrate her passing into the arms of Jesus, but we also mourn at this reminder that the wages of sin is death. But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Margaret knew she was a sinner, but she knew she was saved in Christ, to the glory of God.

I've sat with Margaret and listened to her stories, in the hospital and in her home. I've heard about her wonderful experiences and her trials. She showed me pictures of her son and his children, so happy and proud of each one of them. She was not a techy woman, but she got a smart phone just so she could keep in touch with her family.

On this last visit, after telling another story, she sighed and with a smile she said, "A day is coming soon when God is going to take my hand, he is going to say, 'No more stories, Enough stories," and I am going to walk through the gates of heaven and hear him say, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant.'"

I am so grateful to God for her friendship. She was grateful for ours. She expressed thankfulness for our church and how wonderful everyone has been to her. She finished the race, and she finished strong. I have watched many walk away from the church, slandering me and the body of Christ. Though I rejoice and labor on even that I should suffer for the name of Christ, I cannot deny the hurt it has caused me and the anguish that I feel.

Margaret is no longer suffering in her body. She finished strong. She finished very strong. I'm so, so honored to have been her pastor. I know I will see her again we we are together with our Lord forever.

This life is so temporary, my friends. What comes after it is one of the most important questions we can ask. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Son of God, to the glory of God the Father, who satisfied the wrath of God and took away the penalty of death which we are all under.

But God loved the world so much -- a great volume of love we can hardly fathom, that we will never come to the end of -- that he did not leave us dead in our sins. He sent his Son Jesus to be the atoning sacrifice on the cross. He lived the perfect life we could not live, and took upon himself a penalty we deserved, paying a price we could not pay.

Repent of your sins and follow Jesus Christ as Lord. Believe that he was crucified and buried in a tomb, and that he came back to life, taught many more things and performed miracles for 40 days before ascending into heaven where he is seated at the right hand of the Father, He will return again to judge the living and the dead. And only if you are in Christ will we escape the judgment of God.

When God ushers in his peaceful kingdom forever, removing all evil and establishing all righteousness, who we believed in the Son shall have eternal life in a place where there is no more dying, no more tears, no more pain. It is that day that I long for. It is that day I know I will be united with God and with the people of God who have gone before us.

I am going to fast this week and also step away from the internet, keeping contact only with members of our church congregation. I won't be doing WWUTT videos or the podcast, which will resume on Tuesday, July 19. We will update you on information about the funeral, which will be in cooperation with the Korean Baptist Church but held in our building. Please frequent the church Facebook page for updates.

My body mourns. My mind is a cloud. I am tired and hungry. But I am thankful. I am washed. I am sanctified. I am justified in the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Grace to you, First Southern Baptist Church. I will speak to you again soon.

Pastor Gabe

The last couple of weeks have seen a very crazy and often heart-breaking news cycle. So you probably missed a blog by Trevin Wax in which he listened to two hours of K-Love and offered his critique. His conclusion was that Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is not that bad, and that "the critique that there is little to no theological substance is unjustified."

His blog was titled Christian Music Radio Is More Theological Than You Think. I don't have any doubt that it's theological. If you're opening your mouth and talking about God, you are being theological. The problem is, if it's not grounded in biblical historical orthodoxy, it's probably pretty bad. I agree with Wax that it's not fair to say Christian radio has nothing theologically substantive to offer. But I disagree that it's more than "little."

Still, I will concede that listening to K-Love is much better for a person's brain than listening to secular Top 40 or even a country music station. That doesn't excuse the fact that K-Love would flunk out of any theology course higher than a flannel-board level Sunday school class and needs a major overhaul. More specifically, Christian radio needs reformation. It's dipped in Osteen, Warren, and Meyer's theology and savors nothing anywhere as lasting or as flavorful as Piper, MacArthur, or Sproul's.

The last time I listened to K-Love was in April. I confess that I turned it on specifically to hear how bad it still was. In that sense, I was not disappointed. The moment I tuned in, I heard  the afternoon DJ talking about the Loch Ness Monster. She ended the segment open, entertaining the notion the monster might actually be real. News flash: it's not.

This photo of the Loch Ness Monster is as authentic as a K-Love radio DJ.

The only Bible verse I heard was from the NLT, and the same verse was quoted three times in the hour, context never given (it was some kind of "verse of the day" sort of thing). The DJ also read a quote from C.S. Lewis, and apparently she didn't screen the quote before she read it. She got to a part where Lewis mentioned "hell," and she actually paused, changed the word "hell" to "hades," ad libbed "whatever," then continued with the quote.

See, it's not just the music that's bad. The entire Christian radio image is a great big mess. Ask a Christian radio DJ what words like theology, orthodoxy, and doctrine mean, and they probably wouldn't be able to tell you. I know that's a very general criticism, but the point is if they sound ignorant about the Bible and theology, they probably are.

A song or two might be able to hit the right theological notes, but it's incidental. The radio station itself likely doesn't have a doctrinally sound base. When you know something about how the behind-the-scenes stuff works, you'll realize just how far from missional Christian radio really is. I should know. I did it for over 20 years.

At the end of Wax's article, he furthered his critique by asking six insightful questions. There are answers to those questions, and I'd like to respond to them. I had thought about doing the same thing Wax did and listening to two hours of K-Love, but I don't think I need to bother (sigh of relief).

I have much respect for Wax as the editor of The Gospel Project, a Sunday school curriculum that we use at our church. I'm a semi-regular reader of his blog. So I offer this respectfully and also to provide insight into the cookie jar we know as Contemporary Christian Music radio. Wax's questions are in bold, and I'll answer them in the order he asked them:

Why is it that in a two-hour bloc there was only one (one!) female vocalist?
Because people connect with male vocalists more than they do female vocalists. Research has shown that both men and women are more likely to enjoy and sing along with a male voice than a female voice. Did you also notice they were almost all white?

Like most radio and television programming, Christian radio caters to a specific demographic, and that demographic is women between the ages of 20 and 50 (give or take). Whether or not Christian radio is doing it on purpose, that demographic is also mostly white.

It gets way more specific than that: this target woman lives in suburbia in a house with a mortgage, drives a mini-van, has three kids, a dog and a cat, a husband who works full-time, she also works but it's probably part-time, has a household income between $55 and $70K, vacations in July, doesn't have enough time to read her Bible but she has enough time to journal, loves Beth Moore and Joyce Meyer, and goes to church about 3 times a month. This woman even has a name -- Becky.

Some radio stations will put up a mock picture of this woman in the studio, and the DJs are told to look at it and know that's who they're talking to. I've attended seminars where this was the whole focus of each session: Becky, Becky, Becky. The entire radio station is programmed for her -- not her husband and not her kids. Giving glory to God is incidental, or it's presented like this: "By reaching Becky, you're giving glory to God." Becky's name is mentioned more often at these conferences than God's name is.

Becky: "Why couldn't you have made my name, like, Scarlett Johansson or Wonder Woman?"

This is unofficially referred to as Becky Programming or the Becky Mentality. The gospel-minded might recognize this as exactly how not to evangelize. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for we are all one in Christ, right (Galatians 3:28)? But rather than giving an audience what they need to hear, Christian radio sections out a particular audience and gives her what the research says she wants to hear.

The Becky mentality is inadvertently prejudiced and sexist. It's so common that every once in a while, you will hear Becky Radio made fun of in some Christian songs. Chris Rice has perhaps the most notable example, a song called Me and Becky from his album Run the Earth, Watch the Sky. This was the same album that contained a song about everyone singing the same song on the radio. I can't help but think that song was also rather tongue-in-cheek.

Hearing the Becky Mentality regurgitated at every conference for so many years apparently had an effect on me. The same year I left radio, I married a Becky (though she spells her name Beki and can't stand Beth Moore or Joyce Meyer, and we don't have a cat).

Why do so many of the songs sound alike?
Because radio is about producing the least number of negatives. Technically a radio station is not actually trying to give you something that you like. They're trying to give you something you don't dislike. As long as they can remain as even as possible without too much variation or fluctuation, they're more likely to keep you on their radio station and not flipping to something else.

When the radio station maintains a continuous blend of sound, it just kind of melts into the background and you become oblivious that you're still listening to it. You know how when you drive the same route to work every day, sometimes entire stretches of the trip will go by, and you'll wonder where those miles went? Listening to the radio is kind of like that.

If your listening experience were to change drastically -- like a loud up-tempo song were to be followed by a soft, slow song, for example -- you come out of your trance, realize that something has changed, and so cognitively you're more likely to want to change as well and will turn the radio station to something else.

Even when it comes to production quality, songs have been equalized to be at the exact same volume level. Put on your headphones, find a song from the late 80s or early 90s, and give it a listen. Then pick a song from within the past decade and listen at the same volume. Notice the difference? The older song has more dynamics, highs and lows, crescendo and decrescendo, and the more current song is a lot louder and dynamically consistent throughout.

The reason why every single Christian recording artist sounds like they're recording the exact same song is because they know K-Love won't play it unless it sounds like every other song. Yes, Christian radio is the very reason every Christian artist sounds the same. It's not necessarily the artist's fault. They just have to play along (pun implied).

Where are the brilliant songwriters like Andrew Peterson and Audrey Assad?
Sorry, but the content of the song is less important than how it sounds. It's not that the lyrics aren't important at all -- obviously a song has to pass certain criteria in order to be a Christian song (and then sometimes, of course, there are songs that have no Christian content to them whatsoever). But the lyrics are less important than how catchy it is.

K-Love loves American idols.

See, there's this annoying little thing called auditorium testing. A focus group sits in a room (or an auditorium, hence the name) with a little device in their hand that has a dial on it. Fragments of songs are played for them -- not whole songs, just pieces of songs. The person will turn the dial one direction if they love the song, and the other direction if they don't like it. This is not how anyone listens to the radio, but this is how the research is done. Great songs don't get played because they tested poorly with a sample audience.

You've probably seen this method in action before. Have you ever been watching a political debate and noticed a moving line-graph at the bottom of the screen? As a candidate is making an argument, the line on that graph will either go up or start dropping. That line represents the candidate's favorability rating among a sample group. Each person in that group has a little knob in their hands which they turn to indicate how much they like or don't like what they're hearing a candidate say. That same method is used to pick songs for Christian radio.

Obama: "Too much Chris Tomlin puts me to sleep." Poll numbers rise.

Not every song is chosen this way. Some bands do manage to sneak through the system, though they don't often last if they don't follow the rules. There are also praise and worship songs that might gain popularity in certain churches and then they're picked up and recorded -- by artists and distributed on labels who know how to play according to the system. Getting a song on the radio costs a lot of money, too. There's the cost in producing and distributing the song, and then there's the marketing and the testing to get radio stations to play it.

Had an artist like Keith Green or Rich Mullins tried to make it in Christian music today, I'm convinced we'd have never heard of them. To call popular CCM "artistry" is a lot like calling Little Debbie a "chef." You're listening to mostly factory-made songs produced on a conveyor belt and shrink-wrapped, not made in the kitchen with love served fresh and piping hot.

Why do certain aspects of Christian theology get overlooked?
Again, lyrics aren't as important as how catchy the song is. Another reason deep songs get hardly any airplay is that they make a person think. Remember, we don't want a listener to think too much or they might change the station. A thought-provoking song also runs a higher risk of making a person disagree with what the artist is saying. That means, oohh, it might offend someone, and we just can't have that. The more widely appealing the song lyrics are, the better.

K-Love's sugar slogan is "Positive, encouraging," and they try as hard as they can to fulfill that mission statement. My dad started a Christian radio station in the 70s whose slogan was "Making Him Known." That's not K-Love's primary objective. It's not to preach Christ and share the gospel; it's just to be positive and encouraging. Their version of God is always positive and encouraging -- hence why their DJs avoid references to hell, and would rather talk about the Loch Ness Monster than sin and repentance and how Christ saves us from the wrath of God (John 3:36).

Contemporary Christian radio does not exist to teach. It exists to entertain with Christian-themed content. I'm sure there are people who work at K-Love or the Fish or Way-FM who care about people. But if they were truly genuine, they would know the gospel well and they would share it. They have the perfect opportunity to do it. But they don't.

I've said for years Christian radio doesn't care about teaching. The response I often heard was, "It's not the job of Christian radio to teach people. That's the job of the church!" You're right, it is the job of the church. It's also the job of Christian radio. Very plainly, Colossians 3:16 instructs, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God."

When it comes down to it, the problems in Christian radio are the result of the problems in the church. Why is it that Christian radio eschews sound doctrine and is driven by demographics and marketing strategies? Because many churches are that way. Until the church abandons this approach to ministry and becomes committed to sound doctrine, eating and serving the meat of God's word, Christian radio will continue to be Little Debbie (Little Becky?) and glass-of-milk theology.

When Rick Warren started Saddleback Church, he said he went door-to-door and asked everyone what they wanted in a church. He didn't share the gospel with them -- he asked them what they wanted their church to be like. Many other churches have followed that course, eating up the strategies of the "Purpose Driven Church."

This approach to ministry is not "gospel driven," which focuses entirely on Christ; it's "Purpose Driven" which focuses entirely on the consumer. Likewise, Christian radio is full of consumer-focused slogans like "Positive, Encouraging" or "Safe for the Whole Family" or "Uplifting, Upbeat, Real."

By the way, that station my dad started in the 70s was bought out by K-Love less than two years ago. "Making Him Known" has been replaced with "Positive, Encouraging."

And their sister-station, which changed their approach from "negative hits" to positive ones.

What do we do when aberrant theological affirmations make their way into a song?
If this is being asked of the radio station, nothing. Is the song up-beat? Did it test well? Does it mention God in a positive and encouraging way? Then it's fine. It fits the criteria.

You're talking about an industry (it's an industry before it's a ministry) where one of the top-played artists over the last twenty-five years is Phillips, Craig, and Dean -- three pastors from three different churches who are all oneness pentecostals in their theology. They reject that God is three persons in one. Rather, he manifests himself as a Father, or as a Son, or as the Holy Spirit.

To be blunt, Randy Phillips, Shawn Craig, and Dan Dean do not know God. They do not understand a fundamental tenet of Christianity that the Father sent the Son to die on the cross for our sins. The beliefs of Phillips, Craig, and Dean would prevent them from receiving baptism in almost any orthodox church throughout church history. But testing the theology of the artists doesn't matter. As long as their music tests well, they'll get airplay.

Now, that's if the question is being asked of Christian radio. If this question is being asked of the listener, well, we should hold Christian stations accountable for what they play and who they play. Call the station. Write them a letter. (Don't bother with e-mail. I ignored way more messages than I ever read.) If they ignore you, post on their Facebook wall. But don't be an obnoxious pest. Do this with gentleness and respect.

I will forewarn you that sometimes any feedback is positive, whether you like or don't like what a station is doing. Even if you're logging a complaint, the station is probably thinking, "Thanks for listening!" If you weren't listening, you wouldn't know what to complain about. They don't often care about the content of a comment -- just that they're getting comments.

Why does so much Christian art mimic other forms instead of innovating?
This non-gospel, non-evangelism approach to programming exploded in the early 2000s after 9/11. Christian radio programmers in the big cities began consulting secular media experts to help them capture larger audiences and higher ratings. The number was the goal. The whole method is an imitation of secular market tactics. Therefore, the music itself is an imitation of the secular.

I don't think the secular stuff is any better. It sounds just as pre-packaged and over-produced, and the lyrics are just as dumbed-down and mind-numbingly bad without any substance. Sometimes Christian music gets made fun of as a bad imitation of the secular stuff. Heh. No. Secular music has had the market cornered on "Same Thing, Different Day" for much longer.

Surely you've heard or made jokes about how Christian music is the same four chords over and over again? Well, it used to be that Christian music was miles away in terms of musical talent and artistry, and secular music was the perpetrator of the same four-chord scheme. This comedy band goes through more than 30 hits over the last 40 years in less than 4 minutes using only 4 chords. And secular songs are just as guilty of being overly-repetitive as praise songs.

The church used to be the purveyor of genuine musical artistry. Handle's "Messiah," one of the greatest musical works ever written, came out of the church written in praise to our great God. The same goes for composers like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, who wrote music for the church. There's even a Wikipedia page for classical composers of church music.

"Verily." ~Beethoven

Consider also the great hymn-writers like Luther, Lowry, Watts, Wesley, Crosby, Bliss, Bonar, Gabriel, Mason, Havergal, and any other I can't think of off the top of my head. Not only are their hymns masterful musical pieces, they're theologically deep, rooted in the Scriptures, communicating rich truth. Even a more modern composer like Bill Gaither has been writing stuff way more challenging than the typical four-chord praise song. There's Something About that Name sounds like such a simple melody. Have you ever tried to play it?

I learned to read music through the church hymnal. I'm convinced that more public schools are having to fight to keep their orchestra and choir programs because fewer churches have them. There's less interest in learning an instrument or singing in the choir because there's less interest in the church. Music is no longer being sung out of hymnals in four-part harmony -- we're reading words on a screen following a band playing the same four chords (guilty as charged).

When I was in college majoring in music, my music theory teacher, who was agnostic, told us that church hymns were the most perfect pieces of music ever written. One of our assignments was to write a hymn-style choral piece for SATB. My piano theory teacher told me that if I ever wanted to master sight-reading, I should try to learn and play a hymn every single day.

As I'm talking here about the influence of Christian music on the culture, I'm deliberately avoiding saying something like, "The church used to be the trend-setter." It should not be about setting trends. It's about making music to God (Psalm 92:3, 101:1) and doing so skillfully because the Bible says so (Psalm 33:3). It's not about making music to compete with, impress, or impact the mainstream. In fact, the Psalmist says if that's our objective, "let my right hand forget its skill! Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth!" (Psalm 137:5-6)

The music that comes from the church can influence the culture, but it's not our objective. Since today's church music is being made largely to attract the worldly before it's giving praise to God, so Christian radio is also suffering both in theology and artistry. Whether or not it's better for a person to listen to Christian radio rather than secular doesn't excuse the fact that Christian radio desperately needs reformation. Such a revival must first happen in the church.

So what can we do?
I'm asking that question, not Wax. How do we change how terrible Christian radio has become? Well, I've said it several times already -- the change has to come from within the church. First the church needs to love sound doctrine, teach it, and rebuke those who contradict it. The church must also be holy and set apart, not conforming to the patterns of this world (Romans 12:1-2).

But we also need to be willing to recognize that Christian radio is bad. If we make excuses like, "Well, it's better than secular radio," or, "Come on, it's not that bad," then it isn't going to get fixed. Christian radio is terrible, and that's a shame. But teaching in the American church is also terrible, and that also needs to change. I believe if the church has a sound approach to teaching the word of God, many other areas of ministry will be solid as well, including Christian radio.

What if the church was raising up sound orators, both men and women, who loved the word of God and knew how to communicate it well? Wouldn't such a person make a fine radio DJ or general manager? What if the church was training those who have an ear for good music to also be listening for sound lyrics? Would that person make a great programmer? What if the church was encouraging those who play skillfully or write beautiful lyrics and poetry?

What if a church started a Christian radio station for the purpose of beaming the gospel to their community? Now, that's not easy to do. It's a long process and requires quite a bit of legalities. It also needs to be done professionally or it could be another wasted opportunity.

These things have to be considered as long-term investments. Such changes are not going to happen overnight. But they definitely need to happen. Some churches take years to root out bad teaching and encourage people to fall in love with the sound words of the Lord Jesus Christ that leads to godliness. So it will also take a long time to see such a change occur in Christian radio.

Radio is such a fantastic medium for spreading the gospel. I still believe that. But it's a resource that has been squandered. Christian radio -- like many Americans and many American churches -- needs to turn away from worldliness and turn to the Lord, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When I first came on at First Southern Baptist Church, I was an associate pastor with an emphasis in worship. In other words, I was the worship pastor, which is a title I didn't much care for. Technically the head teaching pastor is a worship pastor. I still lead the music, leaning mostly toward hymns, but we sing some modern tunes as well.

I try to be as careful with the music as I am with the teaching. Regarding the songs we sing, I examine the lyrics but also the writers. Those addressing the church in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16) should also be sound in their doctrine. Have you put much thought into what's being sung at your church and where it came from?

Every 6 months, CCLI releases the Top 100 praise songs sung in churches (CCLI stands for Christian Copyright Licensing International). The following is a list of the Top 10 most popular praise songs for the most recent reporting period. I'd like to offer a review of these songs, the artists who sing them, and whether or not it's a good idea for your church to be singing them. The title of the song is also a link to a video performance of the song if you'd like to hear it.

1) "This Is Amazing Grace" written by Jeremy Riddle, Josh Farro, and Phil Wickham.
The song first appeared in August of 2013 on Phil Wickham's album The Ascension. It was a number 1 hit on the Christian music charts in 2014. Another of its known performers is co-writer Jeremy Riddle who is the worship leader of Bethel Church in Redding, CA.

Good Lyrics
I like the way the song begins: "Who breaks the power of sin and darkness, whose love is mighty and so much stronger, the King of Glory, the King above all kings."

Questionable Lyrics
In the chorus is the line, "That You would take my place, that you would bear my cross." I get where the artist is coming from, another way of saying Jesus died for me. But the Bible doesn't say he bore our cross. It says that he bore our sins in his body on the cross (Isaiah 53:12, 1 Peter 2:24). Why am I being particular about that line? Because Jesus said that if we are to be his disciples, we must take up our cross daily and follow after him (Luke 9:23). There is still a cross to bear, though we have peace with God in knowing that Jesus has paid for our sins on the cross. And it's His cross, not ours (Galatians 6:14).

Another questionable line is in the second verse which begins, "Who brings our chaos back into order." I'm not real sure what that means. In Isaiah 45:7, God says, "I make well-being and create calamity. I am the Lord, who does all these things." In Matthew 5:45, Jesus says the Father "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."

The line has the potential to set a person up for disappointment: "Why is my world a mess? Why is there chaos all around me? I thought following God would put everything back into order!" The Bible says that all things have been subjected to futility because of sin, and all of creation is groaning and awaiting deliverance (Romans 8:21-23). A day is coming when indeed God will restore all things, but that day is not yet. When Paul begged for his "chaos" to be taken from him, Jesus said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in your weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9). We are told to rejoice in suffering (Romans 5:3).

Should the song be sung in your church?
No, it shouldn't. The lyrics are not necessarily what disqualifies the song. Bethel Church disqualifies the song. Bethel is a hodgepodge of false teaching and their gimmicks are outright lies. They pipe fog, feathers, and gold dust through their ventilation ducts and claim God is manifesting himself in their presence through "glory clouds." This is what they consider worship. Bethel should be given no credibility. There are much better songs to sing. This is not that great a song anyway, musically or lyrically. Personally I don't understand why it's number 1.

2) "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" by Jonas Myrin and Matt Redman.
More commonly known as Bless the Lord, O My Soul as sung in the chorus. There are several songs with that title, so it has the more original name 10,000 Reasons as sung in the second verse. It's the title cut from an album released by Matt Redman in 2011. The tune has been a top worship song ever since.

Good Lyrics
It's hard to get that chorus out of your head: "Bless the Lord O my soul, O my soul, Worship His holy name. Sing like never before, O my soul, I'll worship Your holy name." Redman has written several songs that contain lyrics about praising the Lord in any and all circumstances to the very end of life. This is one of those songs.

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Sure. There are many songs written by Matt Redman that I really enjoy, particularly his most popular, Blessed Be Your Name. But I'm not crazy about some of his associations. You'll find his name on Steven Furtick's books giving them his endorsement, like the ironically entitled Unqualified. He's a great artist, but his theology needs some work.

3) "Holy Spirit" by Bryan and Katie Torwalt.
From what I can tell, the song was first introduced by the Torwalts of Jesus Culture in 2013. It is most famously sung by either Kim Walker-Smith or Kari Jobe. There's also a popular radio version performed by Francesca Battistelli.

Good Lyrics
That's complicated. I like the line "Your glory God is what our hearts long for." But the whole song is rather cryptic and contains no solid theology. When put in context, it's hard for me to appreciate anything about it. With every phrase, I'm left going, "What does this mean?" and never, "That's a good line."

Questionable Lyrics
The song begins, "There's nothing worth more that will ever come close. Nothing can compare, you're our living hope, your presence, Lord." Huh? What's not worth more or will ever come close? His presence? It goes on, "I've tasted and seen of the sweetest loves, where my heart becomes free and my shame is undone, your presence Lord." Again, is it his presence that's the sweetest love? I don't get what it's saying. When you actually listen to the song, it's no less confusing. Someone might say what the song means to them, but that doesn't make it a good song. It makes it ambiguous.

The chorus is catchy but theologically off: "Holy Spirit you are welcome here, Come flood this place and fill the atmosphere. Your glory God is what our hearts long for, to be overcome by Your presence Lord." This was written out of the mentality that the more we summon the Holy Spirit the more he fills a place. We invite the Holy Spirit into our presence. The Bible says nothing of the sort.

I happen to have been studying John 6 today. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life" (John 6:37, 45-47). It is to them are given the Holy Spirit (John 3:34). The Holy Spirit does not respond to invitation.

Should the song be sung in your church?
No. The lyrics contain nothing of any biblical value. But the song should also not be sung for the same reason This Is Amazing Grace shouldn't be. The song comes from Jesus Culture, a youth outreach ministry formed out of Bethel Church. When they sing about the presence of God, they're singing about "glory clouds" piped through the air ducts. Kim Walker-Smith is a mess theologically, claiming that Jesus appears to her and that she's seen God the Father, whom the Bible says no one but Christ has seen (John 1:18, 6:46).

4) "Lord I Need You" by Christy Nockels, Daniel Carson, Jesse Reeves, Kristian Stanfill, and Matt Maher.
The song is most famously performed by Matt Maher from his album All the People Said Amen released in 2013. Some of the song is clearly inspired by Annie Hawks and Robert Lowry's I Need Thee Every Hour. The first half of the chorus is almost exactly like the famous hymn. But they didn't get a writing credit. I guess five names was enough.

Good Lyrics
I really like the song. The chorus is very catchy, again reminiscent of Hawks and Lowry's old hymn. But I think the second verse is my favorite part: "Where sin runs deep your grace is more. Where grace is found is where you are. And where you are, Lord, I am free. Holiness is Christ in me."

Questionable Lyrics
None. Though if I really wanted to be nitpicky, it would be in the bridge where Maher sings, "And when I cannot stand I'll fall on you. Jesus, you're my hope and stay." We should be dependent upon Christ whether we stand or fall. But alright, I digress.

Should the song be sung in your church?
The song is solid, but you must know that Matt Maher is a Roman Catholic (also Audrey Assad, the female vocalist singing with him in the radio version). He comes from a completely different doctrinal base, one that is incompatible with the Scriptures. Not all of the song's writers are Catholic, but what's the point of being protestant if we can worship with the Catholic church? Just sing I Need Thee Every Hour instead.

5) "Cornerstone" by Edward Mote, Eric Liljero, Jonas Myrin, Reuben Morgan, William Batchelder Bradbury.
The song was recorded live in October of 2011 by Hillsong. It's basically the old hymn The Solid Rock (aka, My Hope Is Built) by Edward Mote and William Bradbury with a modern chorus thrown in. And for some reason, those four lines of that chorus took three more writers.

Good Lyrics
I love The Solid Rock. It's one of my favorite hymns: "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but holy lean on Jesus's name." The next part you probably know as "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." That part isn't in Cornerstone, replaced with a chorus that isn't better.

Questionable Lyrics
None. Though the song loses points for removing the refrain of The Solid Rock and inserting its own chorus. That's not a good swap.

Should the song be sung in your church?
I've sung the song before, but I didn't know it was a Hillsong tune. And when I sang it, I rebelled and sang the refrain of The Solid Rock at the end. I've stopped singing Hillsong in our church. With gay worship performers, appearances by Austin Powers and the Naked Cowboy, and a scandalous rendition of Silent Night, they're just way too worldly to think of their worship music as genuine. Why not just sing The Solid Rock? It's a much better song. It's more up-tempo (unless you want to sing it slow) and available in the public domain. And it contains fewer writers.

6) "How Great is Our God" by Chris Tomlin, Ed Cash, and Jesse Reeves
Who doesn't know this song? It was first released in September of 2004 on Tomlin's album Arriving. It's a rather simple song lyrically and very easy to sing along with. Perhaps it's that simplicity in the lyrics combined with the hook in the melody that make it stand out.

Good Lyrics
I like the Trinitarian doctrine presented and sung about in the second verse: "The Godhead Three in One, Father Spirit Son." There aren't too many Trinitarian songs, particularly modern songs. As if the chorus "How great is our God" wasn't enough of a hook, there's also that great bridge: "Name above all names, you are worthy of our praise. My heart will sing how great is our God."

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
I think it's a great song. I was a little annoyed with it when I was in Christian radio. The moment I heard it, I knew how popular it was going to become and I was going to hear it over and over again. But it's a solid song. When future generations examine the praise and worship era that we're in now and weed out all the terrible songs it produced, I think How Great Is Our God is a song that will continue to be sung.

7) "Our God" by Chris Tomlin, Jesse Reeves, Jonas Myrin, and Matt Redman.
The song has been around since 2010, the first track on Tomlin's album And If Our God Is for Us... Surprisingly there are only two Chris Tomlin songs in this Top 10 list. Jesse Reeves, the song's co-writer and a worship leader himself, appears on this list more than Tomlin does.

Good Lyrics
The bridge is definitely the best part: "And if our God is for us, then who could ever stop us. And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?" Like How Great Is Our God, it's a pretty simple song.

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Sure. It's not terribly deep, but it's fine. Jonas Myrin, one of the co-writers, used to sing with Hillsong, but he's primarily known for his work with Matt Redman. He was also the co-writer of 10,000 Reasons. The reason why you see a lot of the same names among the most popular church songs is because church music has become a lot like Christian radio. It's an industry, and these are the guys at the top.

8) "In Christ Alone" by Keith Getty and Stuwart Townend.
The song was first introduced in the UK in 2001, the first collaboration between Townend who wrote the lyrics and Getty who did the music. It has been recorded by many artists, but is perhaps best attributed to worship leaders Keith and Kristyn Getty.

Good Lyrics
It's all good, right from the beginning: "In Christ alone my hope is found, He is my light, my strength, my song. This Cornerstone, this solid ground, firm through the fiercest drought and storm." The lyric that perhaps stands out the most is in the second verse: "Til on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied. For every sin on Him was laid. Here in the death of Christ I live."

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
I think this is the one of the greatest modern hymns to come out of our era. I'd consider it the best song on this list, and has been disruptive in the modern church. The Presbyterian Church USA wanted to publish the song in their hymnal, but they wanted to change the line "the wrath of God was satisfied" to "the love of God was magnified." Getty and Townend refused the change. They gave up increased royalties to keep the doctrine of substitutionary atonement sung about in the second verse. Whenever the song is recorded and a verse gets omitted, that's usually the one that gets cut (as in Owl City's cover of the song).

9) "Mighty to Save" by Ben Fielding and Reuben Morgan.
Another from the Hillsong repertoire, the song was introduced in 2006 and has since been covered by many well-knowns including Michael W. Smith, Jeremy Camp, and the Newsboys. There was a time it was the most popular worship song in the world.

Good Lyrics
Isaiah 63:1 says that God speaks in righteousness and is mighty to save. So for me, the chorus is the best part: "Savior, he can move the mountains. My God is mighty to save, He is mighty to save forever, author of salvation. He rose and conquered the grave. Jesus conquered the grave."

Questionable Lyrics
The weakest part of the song is the second verse: "So take me as you find me, all my fears and failures. Fill my life again. I give my life to follow everything I believe in. Now I surrender." That's really soft and rather self-serving. Doesn't everyone give their lives to follow what they believe in, whether or not what they follow is God? There's no sense of confession in the song. Christ indeed is mighty to save us from the grave, but he also saves us from our sin and the wrath of God.

Should the song be sung in your church?
I must admit, I wept when I first heard the song. But I heard it while I was coming out of some false teaching and beginning to embrace more solid and gospel-centered doctrine. I was singing that God was mighty to save while I was examining my sin in light of his holiness. It wasn't until years later that I realized the song isn't really about that. That's what I was singing about even though it's not what the song is about. I'd consider that the song shouldn't be sung in your church for the same reasons I gave above regarding Hillsong.

10) "Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)" by Joel Houston, Matt Crocker, and Salomon Ligthelm.
This is the third Hillsong tune in the Top 10. It was first released in 2013 and is sung at just about every Christian conference there is. Just about. I've heard the song referred to as the praise anthem for my generation. Meh.

Good Lyrics
The song never really grabs me until the second verse: "Your grace abounds in deepest waters. Your sovereign hand will be my guide. Where feet may fail and fear surrounds me, you've never failed and you won't start now."

Questionable Lyrics
None. But the song is not terribly significant. It's not rich in theological truth or deep in meaning (ironic since it's called Oceans). It sounds like a CCM radio single, and that's probably where it should stay. It's a "sing it in your car" song. I don't think it really has a good place as a worship song in church.

Like Mighty to Save, this is another tune where "fears" are addressed. But Hillsong sings about fears as uncertainty. The Bible talks about fear another way: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love" (1 John 4:18). Fear has to do with judgment, which we have no reason to fear if we are in Christ for he has taken our record of debt and nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14).

Should the song be sung in your church?
Man, Shane & Shane covered it, and I like Shane & Shane, so how can I tell you not to sing this song? Well, I think I've given my reasons. There are some really, really good songs out there -- from the history of the church to the present day. You can have some very deep teaching songs or very moving and heartfelt choruses without ever touching Hillsong or Jesus Culture. Be as discerning about the songs that you sing in church as you should be about the teaching. Test everything, the Scriptures tell us. That includes our worship music.

Last week I did a blog reviewing CCLI's Top 10 most popular praise songs sung in churches. I received some wonderful comments saying that the blog was very helpful. Most of the comments I read were in disagreement, though for the most part respectful (except for the guy who started "With all due respect" and then proceeded to bash his Southern Baptist stereotype).

The disagreement was largely due to my statements regarding Bethel Church and Hillsong, sacred cows in American evangelical music. In pursuit of holiness, this is an important topic that must be understood not according to personal tastes or styles, but according to Scripture. The following are some of the comments given in bold, and my response follows...

"Sounds like a church curmudgeon to me. I am not for dismissing church history and hymns, but I also don't want to dismiss everything that's not a hymn either. And I'm certainly not comfortable dismissing artists who have associations with Bethel or judging a song based on its number of writers, just like I follow Jesus even though he spent time with sinners and I read the Bible even though it was penned by a multitude of people."

Andrew, Tuscon, AZ

Giving the thumbs-up on four songs, thumbs-down on five, and leaving one kind of open-ended is being a church curmudgeon? Man, I wish I had that ratio of success with the curmudgeons I was dealing with when I first started leading worship!

First of all, I think it's clear the blog was not an endorsement of exclusively hymns. There are bad hymns, too, and feel-good hymns with no theological substance. Secondly, no songs were dismissed based on the number of writers. Such comments on my part were tongue-in-cheek. Cornerstone by Hillsong is Edward Mote's The Solid Rock with a different melody and added chorus made up of less than 20 words that took three more writers. Three writers are cashing royalty checks on the work done mostly by a dead guy. I think they can handle being made fun of a little bit.

I'm sorry you're not comfortable dismissing Bethel and those associated with them. Do you need a shoulder rub? A plush seat, Jen Hatmaker's blog, and a grande quad nonfat one-pump no-whip mocha? Do your ears itch? Do you need someone to scratch them for you? Because Bethel and their New Apostolic Reformation network of churches have a plethora of teachers willing to suit your passions (2 Timothy 4:3). Examine yourself to see if you're really in the faith -- unless you fail to meet the test (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Jesus loved sinners. Thank God, because I'm one of them. He hates false teaching (Revelation 2:6, 15). His most stern rebukes were reserved for the false teachers. He called them sons of hell who produced more sons of hell. "Beware the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves," he said in the Sermon On the Mount.

Bethel Church and Jesus Culture are con-artists. Don't sing their songs. You are repeating the words of liars whose hearts are far from God, no matter how great you think their music sounds. I referenced only one example of their false teaching -- the whole manipulative gag with the glory clouds (emphasis on "gag"). Would a person indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God conjure up such lies? That one example is enough, but here's another in this next comment...

"My son was being exposed to Jesus Culture and although there are some okay lyrics (he played the guitar in the youth band), some/most are questionable. That being said, after a few CDs and some research, I was confronted with some biblical questions like, 'Dad, what is soaking or grave sucking?' Upon some Google searches we found out what it is and who does it. Bethel and Jesus Culture come from there. We spent the next few hours in Scripture and getting rid of some CDs. How many teens are led down this road because there is no discernment? Thank you for your article."

Robert, Houston, TX

Thank you, Robert. For those who don't know, "grave sucking" (also known as grave soaking or mantle grabbing) is the hyper-charismatic practice of pulling Holy Spirit powers from the bones of someone's grave. Supposedly when the body of a Spirit-empowered person dies, they leave behind their "mantle," the calling that God had for them in life and the anointing of the Holy Spirit they were given. By laying on that person's grave or placing your hands on their tombstone and praying, you are able to absorb that leftover spiritual power.

Said Bethel Church pastor Bill Johnson, "I believe it's possible for us to recover realms of anointing, realms of insight, realms of God that have been untended for decades simply by choosing to reclaim them and perpetuate them for future generations." Ah, yes. The triumph of the sovereign human will. The power of the Spirit apparently just lies around going to waste until some faithful Christian comes along and chooses to revive it. Behold, the power of God.

This is pagan necromancy hiding behind a Christian veneer. The Bible calls these things an abomination to the Lord (Deuteronomy 11:12). It's not a fun game or cute little spiritual fad. It will keep a person from the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21). Bill Johnson has preached on it in his sermons, Bethel encourages the practice on their website and shares testimonials about it, and church members post pictures of themselves soaking up graves.

Bill Johnson's wife, Beni, soaking the spirit-powers of Charles Finney.

Bethel's ministry Jesus Culture specifically targets youth, and it's mostly teenagers and twenty-somethings who get into this sucking graves thing. You don't think that singing their songs -- which theologically are either lite fare or downright abusive -- will open a person up to some of their demonic teachings? It sounds like Robert and his son have a good relationship that they could talk about these things. I've heard stories that begin like Robert's but end much worse.

"I so appreciate the intention of this article. Though I believe our worship needs to line up with the Scripture, I find that this is a bit cynical. I know there are lots of preachers/teachers/worship leaders who have some less than doctrinally sound ideas, but I think God still can and still does use people in spite of their spiritually incorrect ideas. Just because a person's doctrine may be off-base does not mean that we should avoid a song they wrote -- if the song lines up with the Word of God. This article is good food for thought."

Melanie, Alberta, Canada

When a person misuses the name of God or they use it to benefit themselves, what is that called? That's called blasphemy, and it's a very serious sin (Exodus 20:7). God has placed his name above all things (Psalm 138:2), and the name of Jesus above every other name (Philippians 2:9). His name is to be revered as holy (Psalm 103:1). If we know that a person's doctrine is clearly wrong and they misuse the name of God, do you think that we should be making their words ours in the context of worship?

I'm not talking about speculating or questioning their motives, nor am I talking about secondary doctrinal issues like their views on the end-times or covenant or baptism. We're talking about music-producing churches and songwriters that have very public platforms. We know what they openly teach and believe, we can test them according to the Scriptures, and we know what they believe is contrary to the word of God. Should their words be repeated as genuine worship if their beliefs are demonic?

If a doctrinally sound minister -- John Piper, let's say -- were to favorably quote Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Joseph Prince, or T.D. Jakes in his sermon just because one of those false teachers can manage a theologically salvageable thought every once in a while, Piper would not go unchallenged. But for whatever reason we don't hold worship leaders to the same standard. If Bill Johnson is a grave-sucking false teacher, why is Jeremy Riddle not?

Let me ask another question: Is holiness important? I hope your answer is yes. Then pursue holiness. Desire what is pure. David said that the one who ascends the hill of the Lord is "He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully" (Psalm 24:4). Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

The Apostle Paul said, "Flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" (2 Timothy 2:22). Let me repeat that again: "along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." Doesn't that include our worship leaders?

When I became the worship leader at my church, I had to be ordained as a pastor. I went through the ordination process and the testing for that ordination just like any pastor would. I'm grateful to the senior pastor at that time who cared enough about solid teaching that he wanted even his worship leader to be as sound and as tested as the teachers. I'm not arguing that all worship leaders should be ordained. But they should certainly be tested with greater scrutiny than just, "Ooh, they're talented and they sing songs I like!"

You call me cynical. As God is my witness, this is the desire of my heart: "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1 Timothy 1:5). If the Spirit of God uses a false teacher to lead a person to Christ, it is in spite of that teacher, not because of them.

"The problem with analysis like this is that these songs were not written as sermons; they express a songwriter's spiritual connection to God, and the resulting emotions. If you take them for what they are intended to be, there is nothing wrong with them. If you're using them as a resource for a theology class, then no... it's not going to work. That said, there are contemporary Christian songs with lyrics that are flat-out stupid, and I avoid those when selecting songs for our band to play. Even stuff that's borderline I will avoid. I'm glad the author of this article isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water because there are some very good biblically-sound contemporary worship songs."

Michael, Winchester, VA

That comment was like making a sandwich with sourdough bread on top and coffee cake on the bottom. "Well that doesn't make sense." Yeah, exactly. If you're opening your mouth and talking about God, you are being theological. If what you are saying is not rooted in historical biblical orthodoxy, then you're probably being a heretic. The sermon is theology. The music is theology. Both are required to be good theology. Required.

Paul emphatically instructed Timothy not to let anyone teach any different doctrine, or to teach myths or speculations, but only that which flows from the gospel and produces godliness (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6:3). He told Titus to hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught so that he may give instruction in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9). Not just correct false teaching -- rebuke those whose doctrine contradicts the true word of the Lord Christ.

The Apostle expressly said to the Ephesians and Colossians that we are to teach each other even in the songs we sing. Colossians 3:16 says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." It is from a heart indwelt with the word of Christ that we sing acceptable praises to our God.

The Apostle Peter said it's the ignorant and unstable who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). That can be done in a song just as easily as it can be done in a sermon. The purpose of the music is not to stir the emotions. It can do that, but it's not the point. We sing to glorify God. Let the Spirit do His work. He doesn't need help. You be faithful to the Scriptures.

"Thank you so much for these reviews. I've often wondered about singing good songs which come out of bad or questionable churches or writers (eg: Bethel) and you cleared this up for me quite nicely. I'll be a bit more selective from now on. Any chance you could add a list of a few more good or sound modern songs? Any comments on Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)?"

Graham, Capetown, South Africa

Hey, Graham! You got it. Next week I'm planning on covering the next ten songs on CCLI's list. At number eleven is Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone). So not to keep you in suspense, I think it's a great song. Other praise choruses in that next set include Revelation Song, Forever Reign, and Blessed Be Your Name. I should have it up on Monday.

According to Mark Dever's ministry 9 Marks, there is a distinct difference between a song that is written for the purpose of congregational worship, and a song that is written as a performance piece. "Performance music can focus our attention on the performers, or even the music, rather than God" and it can "wrongly encourage a culture of passivity and entertainment."

I've watched countless "worship" videos starring a young, stylish band illuminated by incredible lighting and set-design while the audience is shrouded in black with silhouetted hands in the air. If you were to mute the video, you would not be able to tell the difference between that and any secular band singing love ballads. Strictly by appearances, the attention is directed entirely on the performer. A certain atmosphere is being manufactured. And it's not perceived as an atmosphere for worshiping God as the people of God.

If those artists want to put on concerts that people pay money to go and attend, and they want to use their God-given talents to sing praises to our King, great! Buy their CDs and sing along if that's the music you like. Let it flow from a heart with a desire to praise God and you've got a great worship soundtrack. But that doesn't mean those songs belong in corporate worship. They were crafted with performance in mind or to fit the mold of what radio singles are supposed to sound like.

Some bands like Bethel Church and Jesus Culture should be avoided altogether -- whether we're talking about private or corporate worship or just being entertained. But there are sound musicians (no pun intended) who are going to write some genuinely meaningful worship songs. We must be as discerning with the music we sing in church and who's writing it as we should be with who's preaching the sermon, a point I've desired to direct hearts in understanding over the course of the last two blogs.

As 9 Marks goes on to say, "While it seems that some performed music is within the bounds of addressing one another in song (Ephesians 5:19), churches in the West today may do well to minimize performance and maximize congregational singing."

In the first blog, I reviewed CCLI's Top 10 most popular praise and worship songs sung in churches, then I responded to some comments received from that blog. This week, we're looking at the next ten songs on that list. The title of the song is a link to a video of the song if you'd like to hear it. As with that first article, we start this list with a song that has "Amazing Grace" in the title...

11) "Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)" by Chris Tomlin, John Newton, and Louie Giglio.
From his 2006 album See the Morning, Tomlin took John Newton's 1779 classic and added a chorus and closing verse. The song was used to promote the film Amazing Grace, the story of William Wilberforce, a student of Newton's, who successfully led the charge to abolish slavery in England.

Good Lyrics
"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see." Tomlin and Giglio's chorus is just an added compliment: "My chains are gone, I've been set free. My God, my Savior, has ransomed me. And like a flood, His mercy reigns. Amazing love, amazing grace."

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Why should it not? So long as a church is not replacing the Newton classic. As great as Tomlin and Giglio's version is, there are two verses of the classic hymn that are not in My Chains Are Gone. Let them not be forgotten. There's a reason why Amazing Grace is considered by many to be the greatest hymn of all time. It was the doctrines of grace that overwhelmed a former slave ship captain, in view of God's mercy, to write his famous song. By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, you should watch the film Amazing Grace.

12) "One Thing Remains (Your Love Never Fails)" by Brian Johnson, Christa Black Gifford, and Jeremy Riddle.
Another from the Bethel Church catalog, the song was recorded in 2010 by Jesus Culture. It was also recorded by Passion, Louie Giglio's group, on a 2012 album entitled White Flag. It's a simple and very repetitive tune. And on and on and on and on it goes...

Good Lyrics
As with the tune Holy Spirit that I reviewed two weeks ago, there are lines that sound good, but given their context and realizing that the song is devoid of any sound theological substance, it's difficult to appreciate anything about the song.

Questionable Lyrics
Maybe not questionable, but that chorus is really obnoxious. It's 13 words repeated over and over and over again. The irony is that the song actually incorporates the line, "And on and on and on and on it goes" (hence my joke in the description of the song). There's no good reason for this song to go on for longer than 3 minutes. But there's a version that lasts for twelve.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Heavens, no. I've already said why Bethel Church and Jesus Culture songs should never be done in your church. It doesn't matter if you hear something godly in their songs -- what they're singing about isn't God. The Holy Spirit is to Jesus Culture what Jesus Christ is to Mormonism. Mormons worship a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible, and Bethel Church sings about a different Holy Spirit. Shin-slapping worship pastor Jenn Johnson thinks he's like the Genie from Aladdin. Maybe he's voiced by Robin Williams, too.

13) "Revelation Song" by Jennie Lee Riddle.
The song made its debut in 2008 on a Gateway Worship recording, Wake Up the World, sung by Kari Jobe (I became familiar with both Jobe and Revelation Song at the same time). It received widespread acclaim when it was recorded by Phillips, Craig, and Dean in 2009, and became a hit radio single.

Good Lyrics
The first couple lines of the chorus are taken right from Revelation 4:8, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God almighty, who was and is and is to come." I also like the verse, "Filled with wonder, awestruck wonder, at the mention of Your name. Jesus Your name is power, breath, and living water, such a marvelous mystery." It's the same four-chord sequence repeated throughout and the lyrics never rhyme, but the song still manages to be powerful and catchy.

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
It's a good song. I've met Mrs. Riddle. She was a nice lady. I don't know much about her theology or what church she attends. It seems she writes songs for whoever will sing them. A song's worth can't always be measured by who's sung it. Though it was made famous by Phillips, Craig, and Dean, a trio of heretical pastors who deny the Trinity, they didn't write it. No Christian radio station should be playing PC&D. There are plenty of other versions of Revelation Song out there.

14) "Forever Reign" by Jason Ingram and Reuben Morgan.
The song made its debut in 2010 on three different albums by two different bands. Though it's most well-known as a Hillsong tune (Morgan is one of their worship pastors), it was first recorded and performed by Ingram's band, One Sonic Society.

Good Lyrics
The song opens, "You are good, You are good, and there's nothing good in me." Yeah, I love it. That's me. (Interesting to note that One Sonic Society's version is"and there's nothing good in me,"while Hillsong's is, "when there's nothing good in me.") There are other good lines in the verses like, "You are truth, even in my wandering" and "You are life, in You death has lost its sting." The end of the second verse drives it home: "You are God, of all else I'm letting go." The bridge is one of the catchiest parts: "My heart will sing, no other name, Jesus, Jesus."

Questionable Lyrics
That chorus gets into romantic-Jesus-song territory: "I'm running to your arms, I'm running to your arms, the riches of your love will always be enough. Nothing compares to your embrace." But I suppose it's resolved with the last part: "Light of the world, forever reign." Apart from the very opening line, the song doesn't have a lot of theological richness to it.

Should the song be sung in your church?
My honest opinion: No. I think the song falls more in the realm of performance piece rather than congregational worship. It's fine and it's worshipful. I've sung it in church before, though it's been a few years. I like the song. But it's a radio single. Stick to singing it in your car. Your church service will not be missing anything because you're not singing "I'm running to your arms, I'm running to your arms" on Sunday morning.

15) "Blessed Be Your Name" by Matt and Beth Redman.
The song was first recorded in 2002 on Redman's album Where Angels Fear to Tread, but it was made famous by South African band Tree63 released on their 2003 album The Answer to the Question. It was from that album Blessed Be Your Name was made a radio single.

Good Lyrics
The first verse begins "Blessed be your name, in the land that is plentiful, where your streams of abundance flow, blessed be your name." That's contrasted with the next part: "Blessed be your name, when I'm found in the desert place, though I walk through the wilderness, blessed be your name." The song does a masterful job of presenting times of blessing and times of struggle, and yet still being able to praise the name of the Lord. This is fully summarized in the bridge: "You give and take away, you give and take away. My heart will choose to say, Lord blessed be your name."

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
We do. It's an easy go-to for me when I need an opening song to get everyone in the sanctuary and into their seats. When I consider our modern worship era, if more songs were like Blessed Be Your Name, it would be a lot more difficult to argue that such songs aren't meaningful enough to fit in a church service. In a time when modern praise songs are thrown together more often than you're aware (consider the number of writers on the next song), this is a well-thought-out song. Whether you are in the greatest of moods or the deepest of dumps, Blessed Be Your Name is a heartfelt expression of worshiping God in all circumstances.

16) "Forever (We Sing Hallelujah)" by Brian Johnson, Christa Black Gifford, Gabriel Wilson, Jenn Johnson, Joel Taylor, Kari Jobe.
A fairly recent tune, the song made its first appearance in 2014 on Jobe's live album Majestic. Because it's a Kari Jobe song, you can find versions of it that exceed twelve minutes. There are also versions of it recorded by Bethel Church and Hillsong.

Good Lyrics
In the first verse, I like the line, "His body on the cross, his blood poured out for us. The weight of every curse upon him." I think of Galatians 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is writen, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" The song builds through the pre-chorus and breaks out in the chorus: "Forever He is glorified. Forever He is lifted high. Forever He is risen. He is alive, He is alive!" It's a triumphant song.

Questionable Lyrics
Edit: I previously said, "none," but someone brought this interview to my attention. Jobe says that for her, the focus of the song was Jesus's time in hell. So when the song goes, "A battle in the grave, the war on death was waged, the power of hell forever broken," it's not being merely poetic. The song is about Jesus going to hell. That never happened. When he said, "It is finished," he meant it (John 19:30). When he told the thief next to him, "Today you will be with me in paradise," that's what happened (Luke 23:43). He did not go to hell. It's a false teaching.

Should the song be sung in your church?
As I wrote about in the last blog, whom we worship with matters. Because I know something about the writers and their theology, I would not be able in good conscience to lead my congregation in this song. Kari Jobe is more a performance artist than a worship leader, though that's her title at Gateway Church. She has a beautiful voice and a great stage presence, but she's a performer. Jobe keeps associations with Bethel Church and Jesus Culture, and has also led worship at Joyce Meyer and Beth Moore conferences. She's not theologically sound. Following Jobe and whom she fellowships with would lead a person away from the word of Christ and into speculations and false teaching.

17) "Everlasting God" by Brenton Brown and Ken Riley.
The song is the title cut of the debut album by Brenton Brown, released in 2006. The song is more widely known as Lincoln Brewster's from his album Let the Praises Ring released that same year. It's also a well-known song in the libraries of Chris Tomlin and Jeremy Camp.

Good Lyrics
"You are the everlasting God," which is repeated multiple times. I also like, "Our God, you reign forever. Our hope, our strong deliverer." Not a deep song, but its words are true.

Questionable Lyrics
The end of the chorus seems somewhat self-serving: "You're the defender of the weak, you comfort those in need, you lift us up on wings like eagles."

Should the song be sung in your church?
Sure, if you can tolerate it being such a repetitive song. There's only one verse sung twice, and it contains 18 words repeated over and over again. Our God is a great God who is everlasting, doesn't faint or grow weary, and gives comfort and strength to those who wait on him. There's the whole song in one sentence. I think there are better songs you can pick from, but it's alright.

18) "Great Are You Lord" by Jason Ingram, David Leonard, and Leslie Jordan.
Wait, not Deb and Michael W. Smith? Oh, that would be Great Is the Lord. My bad. This song was written and recorded in 2013 by All Sons and Daughters (Lenoard, Jordan). There's also a version recorded by One Sonic Society (Ingram) which I prefer to the All Sons and Daughters version.

Good Lyrics
The very breath of God has been given to us who are created in his image. So I like the chorus, "It's your breath in our lungs so we pour out our praise." All Sons and Daughters like to sing those two-phrase repetitive choruses, so you get to sing "It's your breath in our lungs so we pour out our praise" a lot. I'm not sure why the title of the song isn't, "It's your breath in our lungs so we pour out our praise."

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Sure. I don't have anything else to add, so let me throw in a random story. There's a band on this list I got to sit in on a writing session with in 2012 at a church in Franklin, TN. They didn't know me; I was just at a certain place at the right time. We started out by reading Psalm 13, and I even threw out a suggestion for a line, but I don't remember what song they were writing to know if they used it and if I need to demand residuals (joke).

19) "This I Believe (The Creed)" by Ben Fielding and Matt Crocker.
This is one of the newer songs in CCLI's Top 20, debuting in July 2014 on Hillsong's album No Other Name. The song was never released as a radio single, so it was only last year that it began to take off. It's since received airplay and therefore has been a hit with many churches.

Good Lyrics
Solid chorus: "I believe in God our Father, I believe in Christ the Son, I believe in the Holy Spirit, our God is three in one. I believe in the resurrection, that we will rise again, for I believe in the name of Jesus." The song continues with affirmations of basic doctrinal truths.

Questionable Lyrics
None.

Should this song be sung in your church?
Nope. As I said the first time around, nothing from Hillsong or Bethel should be sung in your church. We might share some basic doctrinal beliefs, but everything else that Hillsong teaches is far from a biblical foundation. Furthermore, when their events include a sleazy version of Silent Night, an appearance by Austin Powers, and a youth pastor imitating the Naked Cowboy, they are very poor witnesses of whatever biblical beliefs they might hold.

20) "Here I Am to Worship" by Tim Hughes.
You know this song. This is one of the pioneer songs of the praise and worship movement that exploded at the turn of the millennium. It debuted in 2001 on Hughes's album of the same name. When he wrote the song, he was inspired by the hymn of Christ in Philippians 2:5-11.

Good Lyrics
It's a solid song exalting of our Lord God, and humbly submits in the chorus, "Here I am to worship, here I am to bow down, here I am to say that you're my God. You're altogether lovely, altogether worthy, altogether wonderful to me."

Questionable Lyrics
In the second verse, we sing, "Humbly you came to the earth you created, all for love's sake became poor." Knowing that Hughes was inspired by Philippians 2, "all for love's sake" is rather vague. Philippians 2:11 specifically says Christ did all he did to the glory of God the Father. I'm being nit-picky because I know where the inspiration for the song came from.

Should the song be sung in your church?
Sure. Hughes's theology is probably not great, as is the case of many of the modern praise and worship artists. But the song is alright. The lyrics direct the singer to the Lord, backed by a very simple melody that's easy to sing along with. Like How Great Is Our God, this is a song we'll probably be singing for a while.

Thank you for joining me for these reviews, and I hope they were beneficial to you. Later this week, I'll be reviewing Ben-Hur, the epic film from 1959 starring Charlton Heston and directed by William Wyler. I'll then follow that up with a review of the new Ben-Hur remake, produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett of The Bible mini-series fame, hitting theaters this weekend.

One title. Two movies. Okay, actually it's three movies. Hang on, let me double-check that... There were four Ben-Hur movies? I guess one of them is listed as a short-film. The three-and-a-half movies called Ben-Hur are based on an 1880 novel entitled Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Lew Wallace. I haven't read the book. But I've now seen at least two of the several movies it spawned.

The Ben-Hur most people are familiar with is the 1959 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film starring Charlton Heston and directed by William Wyler. For almost 40 years, it was the only movie to win 11 Oscars at the Academy Awards (until Titanic matched it and later Return of the King). It's a theatrical epic in two acts separated by an intermission given its almost four-hour run-time.

The new adaptation of Ben-Hur is produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett (I've written on their Bible-bending before), starring Jack Huston in the title role, and is directed by Timur Bekmambetov whose most notable credit is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The movie cuts a lot of material from its predecessor and writes in some of its own (I'm talking about Ben-Hur now, not Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter).

I watched both movies this week. It'd been quite a while since I'd seen the 1959 original... er, first remake... second remake? Anyway, despite borrowing from the same source material, they're two very different films and deserve their own reviews. They both have their own strengths and their own weaknesses. Yes, despite being an Oscar decorated epic, the Ben-Hur of 59 has its flaws.

For the sake of avoiding confusion, I'll be referring to the two films as Ben-Hur59 and Ben-Hur16 from here on out. First, a review of the most classic film...

Ben-Hur (1959)

The movie begins with the birth of Christ. Three wise men follow a star to a stable in Bethlehem where they find the baby Jesus and present him with their gifts. Balthasar, one of the magi, is also the narrator of the story. He comes back up later on looking for the child who has since become a man, and encourages Judah to search with him.

Fast-forward to about 26 A.D. when Judah Ben-Hur's childhood friend, Messala, returns to Jerusalem as a Roman Tribune. Messala is played by Stephen Boyd, and boy does he have the googly eyes for Charlton Heston's Judah. The bromance on Messala's part seems a little more than friendly. He even throws in a line about their "unrequited love."

Rumors have swirled about a homosexual subtext. In 1995, one of the film's contributing writers, Gore Vidal, revealed that they had envisioned a homosexual backstory in the relationship of Judah and Messala to explain why it was so easy for Messala to turn on Judah. Heston, a staunch conservative, was never in on it, but Boyd was.

Great googly moogly!

Many have dismissed Vidal's story as being made-up, just stirring up controversy in the 90s. Perhaps he was playing off Boyd's overacting (Boyd died in 1977, so we didn't get to hear his side). But even if Vidal was telling the truth, I don't really have a problem with seeing Messala as having some kind of desire for Judah beyond friendship. He was a Roman. Depravity was kind of their thing. Maybe Messala wanted more out of his relationship with Judah. At one point, he talks to Judah about coming back to Rome with him.

Judah is not as taken by Messala's offers. He's downright insulted by the suggestion that the Roman occupation is a good thing. Refusing to help Messala tame the Jews, Judah's frustration is sold well by Charlton Heston. A clear rift occurs in Messala and Judah's friendship and neither one can trust the other (this split isn't as obvious in Ben-Hur16).

Later, Judah is wrongly accused of an assassination attempt on a Roman official and he and his mother and sister are arrested. Judah is banished to the Roman galleys for life, where he'll row the oars for Roman battle ships. During his slave trek across the desert, they come to a town where the prisoners are allowed to get a drink. The water passes Judah who falls to the ground and prays to God for relief. A man walks up and gives Judah a drink. That man is Jesus. But his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in any of his appearances throughout the film (I like that touch).

Judah spends years rowing Roman ships, earning a spot on the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius. During a battle on the sea, the ship is rammed and destroyed. Judah saves Quintus from drowning, who then also tries to kill himself, but Judah prevents his suicide, too. Quintus would not only set Judah free, he would adopt Judah as his heir and give him the name Arrius.

Now a Roman citizen, Judah has a successful career racing chariots. But despite his fame and fortune, he longs to go back to Jerusalem and find out what happened to his mother and sister. Upon his return, Esther (his romantic interest) tells Judah that his mother and sister are dead. This enrages Judah all the more to seek revenge on Messala. He comes into the company of an Arab Sheik named Ilderim who breeds race horses and bets on them. Judah decides to race the Sheik's horses in the Roman Circus, and it's there he'll get vengeance against Messala.

The chariot racing scene is gorgeous, the part of the film the movie is most famous for. To cut to the quick, Judah beats Messala who's trampled by horses at the end of the race. With his dying breath, Messala tells Judah that his mother and sister aren't dead but are lepers living in a leper colony. As he dies, Messala says, "The race goes on," still trying to agonize the heart of Judah.

Judah sees people flocking to hear Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. He refuses to go with them, but Esther does and desires to hear the words of this great teacher. Tensions arise in Judah and Esther's romance because Judah still can't let go of his hate.

When he finally retrieves his mother and his sister, he decides this Jesus of Nazareth can help them. But by the time he brings them to him, he's being led down the road with a cross to Golgotha. Jesus stumbles and Judah goes to take him water just as Jesus did for him years before, but the guards prevent Jesus from drinking any. Judah follows all the way to Golgotha where he watches Jesus being crucified.

Meanwhile, Judah's mother and sister are with Esther. Upon the death of Jesus, the sky darkens and during a storm the rain cures them of their leprosy. Judah returns home to tell Esther what he'd witnessed. He sees his mother and sister are cured, and they all lived happily ever after.

Maybe this is where Michael W. Smith got the idea for "Healing Rain."

Ben-Hur is an epic and every shot is beautifully filmed, but very slow-moving contributing to its nearly four-hour run-time (there's a musical prelude and a built-in intermission). This was at a time though when you couldn't rent a movie and take it home. Going to the movies was like going to a play. Its slow pace is part of what gives the movie its grandeur. But as much praise as the movie receives even among Christians, it's not without its problems.

All the Jews in this movie are quite white and very westernized. Then there's the Arab character Sheik Ilderim played by English actor Hugh Griffith in brown-face (he won an Academy Award for the role). Speaking of faces, though the face of Jesus is never seen in the movie, he's still clearly a light-haired white dude. Everyone who looks at him is also quite taken with him when the Bible says he was nothing to look at (Isaiah 53:2).

That huge, iconic chariot race? It takes place in Jerusalem. Come on, that's just lazy storytelling. There was no massive colosseum nor chariot racing in Jerusalem. How hard would it have been to write that Judah went back to Rome for the chance to race Messala and get revenge? That's way less far-fetched than Roman chariot racing in Jerusalem.

The film ends with the crucifixion of Christ, not his resurrection. I hadn't seen the movie since I was in college, and I could have sworn the film ended on resurrection Sunday morning. Nope. Judah sees Jesus die, his mother and sister are cured of their leprosy, and then the closing shot is of shepherds herding sheep past an empty cross. There's a reference in the dialogue to Jesus dying for the whole world, but no mention of his conquering death.

At one point, Balthasar tells Judah, "There are many paths to God. I hope that yours will not be too difficult." It's hard to tell if Balthasar meant that in the theological sense or in a more personal sense. If it was theological, then it's the same nonsense as Oprah's theology: "There are millions of ways to God." There's only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

But Balthasar could also have meant that some people come to know the Lord soon and others go through more difficult trials before God delivers them up and shows them the error of their ways. Considering how much movie was left and that Judah would still go through an act of revenge and find himself unsatisfied, that's a plausible interpretation. I don't want to give the film too much credit though because the writers were biblically ignorant on a number of fronts.

When Judah finally returns to Esther after seeing Jesus crucified, he tells her he heard him say, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Judah says of the experience, "I could feel the sword being taken from my hand," suggesting that he no longer feels the rage and the hate for what happened to him and his family. But next, Judah sees his cured mother and sister, and that's the end of the thought.

That was a great opportunity to conclude the film with repentance! The filmmakers really could have fleshed that out more. Christ had delivered Judah from his sins. But the "sword being taken from my hand" line was really as far as the movie took it. To find any gospel in Ben-Hur, you'd have to fill in the blanks yourself. It's not a gospel story.

Brace yourselves!

Ben-Hur (2016)

Let me first say that I will be really happy when this shakey-cam generation of making movies comes to an end. While Ben-Hur59 is bold and beautiful, Ben-Hur16 tries to cover up its short-comings by jostling the camera like a drunk with Parkinson's riding on a galloping horse.

Unlike Ben-Hur59 which began with the birth of Christ, Ben-Hur16 begins with a portion of the chariot race. The action then shifts to Judah and Messala racing one another as friends. Judah topples from his horse and is injured and Messala saves his life. The Judah and Messala of this story are brothers as Messala was adopted and grew up in the house of Hur.

Messala is trying to escape a dark mark on his past, one that involves his grandfather who was a traitor to the Romans. In order to make something of himself, he feels like he needs to leave and head for Rome, where through military accomplishment he becomes a Tribune. Judah, meanwhile, marries a servant girl named Esther.

When the Romans occupy Jerusalem, Messala comes back into Judah's company and the two brothers rekindle an old friendship. But Messala, now a Roman Tribune, wants Judah to assist him in outing the zealots that seek to stir up trouble, and Judah refuses to name names. This is the only meaningful and witty conversation between two characters in the entire film.

Toby Kebbell's Messala is significantly more compelling than Jack Huston's Judah, who's kind of a blank-slate of a man. But neither actor gives anywhere near the performance that Boyd and Heston did before them. Boyd gave Messala's character that truly sinister touch, and you can feel Heston's rage -- even when he's not talking, it's there in his eyes. But Kebbell and Huston give wooden performances that surely aren't helped by a shallow script.

According to Gore Vidal, Ben-Hur59 needed a reason for Messala to betray Judah so easily, so they presumably wrote in the whole homosexual undertone thing. Well, in this movie, it's a combination of Messala's dead grandfather and a nagging officer named Marcus that's always trying to get Judah to do the Roman thing lest he become a traitor like his grandfather. But there are enough elements happening in the movie that the story doesn't need Messala's dead grandfather and the annoying officer.

After Judah is wrongly accused of an assassination attempt, he confesses to the crime so the guards would let his sister and mother go. At that point, the case is closed. There's no need for Messala to have a backstory for his anger. Judah's given him a reason. It would actually be merciful for Messala to not kill him on the spot and instead banish him to the galleys. That would be totally fitting for the character as he was created for this film. But whatever. Lazy writing.

As Judah is being taken away to the galleys, he stumbles on the road and that's when Jesus shows up to give him a drink. Jesus made an appearance earlier when Judah and Esther were in the market. While the Jesus in Ben-Hur59 is faceless, that's not the case in Ben-Hur16. Handsome Rodrigo Santoro's Jesus is the low point of the film. Everything he says is forced and senseless, and the other characters' reaction to him doesn't make any sense either.

There's a scene where a man is being stoned, and Jesus runs in and covers up the man to protect him. He tells the people to stop throwing stones because this man is "your neighbor" and you're supposed to love your neighbor. He says, "Hate and fear are lies that turn us against each other." Then he says, "Love is our true nature."

Uh, no. Jesus never said such a thing. He straight-up called men evil (Matthew 7:11, 12:34, 15:19, 16:4). That is our true nature. Jesus came to die for our sins, satisfying the wrath of God burning against our unrighteousness. For those who are in Christ, we who are evil are received by God as righteous because of what Christ has done. He covers our evil nature with his own good nature. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift (Romans 3:23-24).

The most beautiful part of the movie is when Judah is in the boat rowing and there's the war at sea. We see almost everything from Judah's perspective. It's so well done, I was going, "Man, this movie's turning out to be pretty good!" But that's the high-point. It's all down-hill from there. Judah never saves Quintus like he did in Ben-Hur59 which was odd because Quintus is played by James Cosmo of Braveheart fame. Cosmo is in the movie for like a blink, and then he's gone. What a waste of a good actor.

Judah washes up on a shore and is found by Morgan Freeman who mails in his part as Sheik Ilderim. Really, he's not even trying. He's just there to be Morgan Freeman. He had a better character voice for Azeem in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and that was a movie full of terrible accents.

And what's with the dreadlocks in Downey and Burnett's Bible stories?

Incredibly, Judah knows how to race chariot horses. In Ben-Hur59, it was established that he was an experienced and winning chariot racer. In Ben-Hur16, he's never raced a chariot one time, and suddenly he's going to take on the best in the world including the undefeated Messala. Like in Ben-Hur59, that race takes place in Jerusalem. Ugh. But in Ben-Hur16, the chariot race takes place during the week between Palm Sunday and Jesus's crucifixion!

The race is pretty action-packed and climactic, but it's not as beautiful or as awesome as the chariot race in Ben-Hur59. The two don't even compare. Captain Shakey-Cam tries to cover up all the bad CGI and lack of grand scale. I won't say it's all bad. There were some good shots. The conclusion to the race was pretty awesome, too, with some foreshadowing leading up to it. Of course Judah wins, and what he thinks is Messala's corpse is paraded around as the loser.

The rest of the movie is rather rushed. Judah encounters Jesus on the road to Golgotha and tries to give him water. He weeps at the cross after hearing Jesus say, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Esther weeps with him and they have an I'm-sorry-let's-be-romantic-again moment (the chemistry is never there -- they're just two good-looking actors). In muffled dialogue, Judah says, "My brother is dead," and Esther replies, "Just have faith."

Sure enough, Messala is still alive. He's laying on a bed with an amputated leg he lost in the chariot crash. Judah approaches him and Messala curses him, promising revenge and is ready to run him through with a knife he's holding. But instead the two embrace and hug and cry and forgive each other. Like, in about 5 seconds. Judah doesn't even break stride when approaching him. Just like that, Messala went from ready to kill Judah to hugging and crying.

The movie doesn't end there. There's an even cheesier moment where Judah and his mother and sister (who were cured of their leprosy in a random cut-scene, just to get that part in there) are riding on horses. Messala is there and Esther and Morgan Freeman. At one point Judah looks back, I guess to see if Morgan Freeman is still part of his company. Freeman says, "Don't look back, Judah. Look forward. You have your whole life ahead of you." Oh, boy. Like the other Ben-Hur movie, if you want to find any gospel in this movie, you need to fill in the blanks yourself.

In Conclusion

It would seem likely for me to end this review by saying that you need to watch the 1959 Ben-Hur instead of the 2016 Ben-Hur. But as I said, save for certain plot points, the movies are so vastly different they're almost incomparable. Just don't watch either movie expecting to see a Bible story. Jesus exists in both films as a gimmick. Don't be naive; this is to make money, not preach some kind of message and definitely not to preach anything biblically sound.

The Ben-Hur of 1959 is an iconic piece of movie history. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it an 8. The Ben-Hur of 2016 is even more of a cash-grab and a mediocre serving of the shakey-cam action films of our generation. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a 5. The action saves the movie from being any less than that. The acting and the story keep it from being any more than that. The parts of the Bible that are butchered and wedged in there make it worth nothing.

The election is about two months away. It is an election of the Liberals: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Pick your poison. "But wait! Don't forget about Darrell Castle of the Constitution party!" Right, the conspiracy theorist who backs the birther movement and believes 9/11 was an inside job.

I haven't said much about Donald Trump in a while. The conservatives have chosen, and they've chosen a non-conservative. How a casino mogul, strip-club owner, porn mag pusher, thrice married, adulterous, racist, arrogant, obscene, godless bully qualifies as conservative just goes to show that liberals aren't the only ones running gleefully toward the abyss.

Since I last wrote anything about Trump, there was a 5,300 word article by Systematic Theology author Wayne Grudem about how voting for Trump is a morally good choice. Grudem acknowledged that Trump was not a man of good character, but that shouldn't matter. We need to defend the unborn and protect religious freedom. (A pastor by the name of Justin Bullington provided my favorite response to the article.)

Several other theologians and pastors have stumped for Trump. This morning, Eric Metaxas, author of perhaps the most extensive biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer (which I have and enjoyed), offered a string of arguments on Twitter about why a Christian should vote for Trump. The following is Metaxas' plea. Each bullet-point is its own tweet:

• I'm not voting for Trump because he's a paragon of virtue, but because electing HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] will forever end true Religious Liberty in America.
• Let's put it another way: A Vote for Trump is not a Thumbs up for "Trump". It's a vote against what HRC will do that is forever UNDOABLE.
• We've had so much Religious Liberty in America for so long most of us hardly even know what it is or when it's being gravely threatened.
• You cannot undo Supreme Court Justices who think biblical values are divisive, bigoted, and un-American. They're lifetime appointments.
• Defending the unborn doesn't mean electing someone perfect on that issue, but electing the better candidate on that issue. And that's easy.
• If you care less about the unborn than about your "witness" or "conscience" in voting for someone you think boorish, I beg you to reconsider.
• Wilberforce often worked w/people on the other side of the aisle -- sometimes despicable people -- if it could help the suffering Africans.
• Bonhoeffer did not like getting involved in the plot to kill Hitler, but for the sake of the suffering Jews, he did what he thought he must.
• Bonhoeffer even thought what he was doing might be sinful, but he knew doing nothing was the greater sin. And he cast himself on God's mercy.
• Many friends sat out voting for McCain and Romney, giving us eight years of unconstitutional over-reach, secularist legislation, and more.
• This is not a time for being so "heavenly-minded" we are no "earthly good." Not to act is to act. Not to vote is to vote. Please reconsider.

As with Grudem's appeal, there are three main issues being argued for here: a vote for life, a vote for religious liberty, and a vote for conservative Supreme Court justices. Metaxas was able to say it in much fewer words.

Also like Grudem, Metaxas took some shots at those who are not voting for Trump. The very title of Grudem's article implies that not voting for Trump is morally wrong. So in Grudem's eyes, I am doing something immoral because I am not going to vote for Donald Trump. Likewise, Metaxas believes I selfishly care less about the unborn that I do my own "witness" or my "conscience."

What's worse though -- I shuddered at reading it -- is he's actually asking people to sin and vote for Trump; though it "might be sinful." The ethics of Bonhoeffer aside, the Bible says not to "do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating does not come from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:21-23). His whole appeal disregards the principles given in Romans 14.

This idea that voting for Trump will save the unborn, preserve religious liberty, and result in conservative Supreme Court justices is nothing more than wishful-thinking. There is zero evidence to believe any of these things will ever happen. Really, how long have politics been around? Have we forgotten how all of this works? Ronald Reagan once joked, "It's been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." (In case you don't get the joke, the first oldest profession is said to be prostitution.)

You judge a candidate more by their record than by the words they're spewing to appease constituents at a rally. Though Trump has never held public office, he still has a history. And when you look into that history, there's more reason to believe he's a Trojan Horse than a preservative in the life of America.

The Big Gamble

In the March 5, 2016 edition of World, there was an article written by Jamie Dean entitled The Big Gamble that took a look at Trump's history with Atlantic City. He made lots of fantastic promises. He promised he would "make Atlantic City great." On April 2, 1990, he walked out on the iconic Boardwalk to Survivor's Eye of the Tiger, like he's done at rallies now. People flocked to see him, all hyped up on the big promises he brought to the Vegas of the East.

By 2009, he had declared bankruptcy on his casino enterprise for a fourth time. He once owned several casinos, and one building still bears his namesake with TRUMP written in big, red letters. But all he owns now is a small portion of the Taj Mahal. The Taj and all its debt was bought out by a billionaire friend after the company went into bankruptcy in 2014.

Once the largest casino complex in the world -- with "gold doorknobs, marble countertops, $14 million worth of chandeliers, and bell hops wearing $1,500 turbans" -- all the money spent on the Taj Mahal has been unsustainable, and efforts to revive the business have failed. At one of last year's presidential debates, Trump thumped, "I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City. I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered. And I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I'm very proud of it."

According to Dean, "Those left behind weren't as proud. Indeed, Trump's company left local contractors, vendors, and low-level investors with pennies on the dollar when his enterprises declared bankruptcy. 'He had stiffed hundreds of local businesses and left them with financial claims that they would never recover,' Steven Perskie, a former state lawmaker, told NJ Advance Media last fall."

About 30 percent of Atlantic City residents now live below the poverty line, more than double the national average. "The town is $400 million in debt," Dean reported. "New Jersey legislators are considering a state takeover of the famed city. The casinos aren't immune. Along Pacific Avenue, four of the former gambling giants sit shuttered and empty, like monuments to a bet lost on high stakes."

Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump's America.

Well that went well...

In addition to his Atlantic City record, Trump is a long-time friend of the Clinton's. He and his son, Donald Trump Jr., gave money to then-Senator Hillary Clinton in 2002, 05, 06, and 07. It's been shown many times how Trump has given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary attended Trump's wedding to Melania in 2005. Overall, he's given many more dollars to baby-killing democrats than he ever gave to republicans.

For most of his life, Trump has been pro-abortion and a supporter of partial-birth abortion. In April, the Washington Post did a break-down of Trump's record on abortion, and noted that he took five different positions over the course of three days. That's very, very significant. It shows us that Trump does not know what it means to be pro-life.

When Trump is pressed on his presumably pro-life ethic, he has no idea how to answer because his ethics aren't what he says they are. Have those on the side of life ever asked him hard questions on his moral position? In that confab with evangelical leaders back in July, did they ever actually press him to clearly state his values asking tough questions, or did they merely hear him say "I'm pro-life," and accept it as though lip-service is the tell-tale sign of the heart?

"But Pastor, the Bible says out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks!" Sure, with evil. In Matthew 12:34, Jesus said, "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Elsewhere the Bible says, "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips" (Romans 3:13). Trump's character is evident and testable. He is not an honest man.

If the value of life is so important to Grudem and Metaxas the way they say it isn't as important to me, then why are they merely taking Trump at his word and insisting that other Christians do the same, rather than demanding hard evidence that he values life the way he claims he does? Why is the burden of proof on me, the voter, and not on Donald Trump, the candidate? "But Pastor, he gave a list of nominees he would appoint to the Supreme Court, and it's a pro-lifer's dream panel!" Yes, that's called appeasing his constituency. That's not hard evidence.

Trump has done nothing to show he's pro-life except say that he is. When you listen to all the words around that claim, he has no idea what it means to be pro-life; therefore, he can make no significant strides to protect life. Think about it: Ronald Regan, George Bush Sr., and George W. Bush all had a history of being pro-life, and yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Bush Jr.'s Chief Justice appointment, John Roberts, is the reason why Obamacare is the law of the land. What makes you think Trump is going to do more and make better decisions than they did?

Trump is so bad at understanding anything about being pro-life, he still thinks Planned Parenthood does good work -- and said this in the summer that Planned Parenthood was being exposed by David Daleiden as harvesting human organs for profit.

Absent from the Republican National Convention in July was any mention of fighting for the unborn. Donald Trump said more about fighting for LGBTQ issues than he did about the sanctity of human life, which was nothing. We have no reason to believe Trump's appointment as president will make any kind of dent in the slaughter of the unborn. We have every reason to believe he would be just another liberal president. Or worse.

How About Not Gambling At All?

Since based on Trump's record and his character there's no good reason to vote for him, that then leaves the debate up to this: "Well, at least Trump is not Hillary Clinton, and Hillary's America would be worse!" Really? I'm not convinced. Like I said, pick your poison: will it be strychnine or cyanide? Both of them are deadly choices for America in their own ways.

"So we should just vote for no one then?" Why not? To borrow from Bullington: What if the best thing for this nation is for Christians to stand with integrity and show the world that they won't vote for any 'ol lawless demagogue simply because they have an "R" by their name? Contrary to Metaxas' appeal, there is no such thing as being "so 'heavenly minded' we are no 'earthly good.'" That is a lie from the pit of hell.

Paul said to the Colossians, "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the thing that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ" (Colossians 3:1-3, 23-24).

He said to the Philippians, "Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself" (Philippians 3:17-21).

There are more ways to change this country than voting for President of the United States. Continue to stand forth with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel that has the power to transform and save lives. Be hated by the world not because you're a Trumpkin but because you're a Christian. "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:12-13).

If you're shilling for Donald Trump, you are being deceived. You've got to understand he is using you, just like he used Atlantic City. When it's no longer profitable for him, he'll drop you in a gutter. His record confirms it. You don't have to do a lot of digging to realize he already thinks very little of you.

Remember though, there will be other matters on the November 8 ballot than who will be President. Know what's on your state's ballot, who the candidates are, and where they stand on the issues. I don't vote for anyone who's not pro-life. I believe all persons are made in the image of God and that I am to judge righteously, speaking up for the mute and defending the rights of the destitute (Proverbs 31:8-9). Life is the first unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. If a candidate won't defend life, they won't be principled on any other issue.

I'll be making check-marks on November 8 (or filling in circles or pressing a touch-screen or whatever my district will be doing). But I won't make any mark for President of the United States. Maybe I'll write-in a name. That's a fair protest, too.

On Friday, my kids and I visited a local museum. It was the last weekend for their dinosaur exhibit. One section of the display had a timeline showing the different periods in which different dinosaurs lived -- like the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, etc. And of course, the timelines were labeled in tens of millions of years.

My eight-year-old, as she read it, unashamedly said aloud, "149 million years? Why are scientists so ridiculous? Don't they know that God can create everything just like that?" I noticed a couple of men standing nearby who began to snicker and whisper to one another. I couldn't hear what they said. Nevertheless, I was a proud dad.

I took out my phone, down to its last 1% of power, pulled up my ESV Bible app (shameless plug), and showed Annie 2 Peter 3:1-7. There Peter says, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

I told her, "See, Peter says that they deliberately overlook the facts, that the earth was created by the word of God. In Peter's first letter, he said that Jesus is, 'A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,' and that people stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do" (1 Peter 2:8). I also made a point to tell her that there are good scientists who see God in all that He has created, and they look at science through the Bible rather than looking at the Bible through a bias of naturalism, though most are blinded by their desires. Then my phone died.

God created all things, that much my daughter knew (and as I've written about and spoken about before, it didn't happen over billions of years). I wanted to show her that the Bible also tells us why there are people who don't believe God created all things. They deliberately overlook the facts, and they stumble on the rock of Christ Jesus, as they were destined to do.

This is how I teach my children, infusing the word of God in all that we do. Where'd I get that idea from? The Bible: "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates" (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

Wherever you go, the word of God goes with you. In all that you do, teach your children the word of God: How does God's word apply to this? How does it apply to that? Well, let me show you. What we as a family read about in the devotions we do every morning, we then apply to what we encounter throughout the day, being thankful for all things and giving God the glory.

Sermons With No Bible

So according to this passage in Deuteronomy, if we are to --

• write God's word on our hearts
• teach it to our children
• talk about it in and out of our homes
• consider it in our work or leisure
• apply it when we walk out the door
• through it filter every thing we do and look at 

then how on earth could we ever find any reason not to use the word of God?

Yet in the recent controversy surrounding Andy Stanley's apologetic preaching method for reaching unbelievers, that's exactly what's being done. Arguments and excuses are being made for times when it is okay to exclude the word of God -- deliberately, intentionally, and strategically leaving it out.

Stanley thinks we need a more grown-up faith, and that grown-up faith is not based on a biblical foundation. When we were kids, songs like Jesus Loves Me were great songs: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." But as adults, that's silliness.

For Stanley, this is not about style or a pastor's personal conviction in how he reaches a certain audience. This is being presented like: "Here's why people leave the church: because of the Bible. Here's why you walked away from the faith: because of the Bible. Here's why you need to come to Jesus: and it's NOT because of the Bible. The Bible is not the foundation of the Christian faith."

"This is where our trouble began." Andy Stanley, referencing the song Jesus Loves Me.

Andy Stanley is the pastor of North Point Community Church based out of Atlanta, GA. North Point has their main campus, plus five other campuses, plus several satellite churches, all reaching nearly 40,000 people each Sunday. That's not including the number of people watching online and receiving Andy's teaching through other means: books, seminars, video conferences, Bible study apps, etc.

In other words, a lot of people hear this message emphatically reducing the importance of the Bible. I see it affect people and churches in my area. Though I'm pastoring a small church in Kansas, I hear Andy Stanley's name come up all the time. Stanley is more passionate about making sure people know the Bible is not needed for you to be a Christian than he is about telling people what it says.

Two weeks ago, at the ERLC national conference in Nashville, TN, Dr. Russell Moore had a sit-down interview with Stanley in which Stanley said that sometimes he preaches sermons without ever quoting the Bible. He was rather proud of the fact. This came as a shock to some. I wasn't surprised. I've listened to enough of Stanley's sermons to hear an entire message go by without any Scripture.

In some sense, I'm grateful he said it. I've tried to warn others about Stanley's preaching and they don't believe me when I say he actively wants to reduce Bible use and uses it very little himself. Stanley has been saying for some time that he wishes pastors would stop saying, "The Bible says." At the ERLC conference, he said that if he were an evangelical pope, he would make pastors take the spotlight off the Bible and put it on the resurrection. The following Sunday, in a sermon entitled The Bible Told Me So, he doubled-down on his hermeneutic by saying Christianity is about an event, not a book.

The absurdity and the confusion of that statement is that you don't even know about the event without the book. The Old Testament predicted it, the New Testament recalls it and expounds on its significance. The eyewitnesses to the resurrection did not believe the resurrection without the Scriptures. They were there, they saw it, and they didn't believe their own eyes. 

I talked about this on the podcast Friday and mentioned the story of the two disciples who were walking to Emmaus. Jesus, having just stepped out of the grave that morning, started walking with them, but they didn't recognize him. When Jesus asked them what they were talking about, Cleopas said, "Are you the only visitor in Jerusalem who doesn't know what's been going on?" And they told him about Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and buried and some women went to the tomb and found it empty and saw angels who said he was alive.

Jesus response to them was this: "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:13-27). Before he showed them he was Jesus who was alive, he showed them the Scriptures!

When the Apostle Paul made his apologetic case for the resurrection, he did so "in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). The Scriptures said it would happen, then it happened, the disciples were shown how the Scriptures said it was going to happen, then they were shown that it did happen, then the Scriptures written by those who saw what the Scriptures said would happen continued to say that it happened, according to the Scriptures! You cannot separate the event from the book. Even the disciples neither knew about nor understood the event without the book.

Yet Stanley is purposefully trying to reach unbelievers without the book that speaks of the glory, power, and majesty of God (and presenting a very misleading version of church history in the process). There's a saying that goes, "What you reach them with is what you reach them to." If you reach unbelievers with a form of Christianity that contains no Bible, they will accept a form of Christianity that contains no Bible, which is no Christianity at all.



Impotent Apologetics

Dr. David Prince of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote about Stanley's sermon and pointed out that his arguments are just repackaged liberalism. Driving the point home, Dr. Prince mentioned Luke 16:31 where Jesus said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

A minister from Indiana contended with Dr. Prince saying, "The Scripture he uses to proof-text his point has been ripped out of its context and misapplied. It is taken from Jesus' parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The audience Jesus was addressing in that parable is Jews, for whom the Hebrew Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) were already considered authoritative."

That doesn't matter. Guess what? Unbelievers have Moses and the Prophets too, regardless of whether or not they've heard them and accept them as authoritative. This isn't the local phone book we're talking about here. This is the word of God. It applies to absolutely everyone. The law of the land still has authority over you whether or not you know what it is. Likewise, the law of God has authority over you whether or not you know what it is.

The Bible says it's the responsibility of the church to be a pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15); presenting the word of God to the world (pillar) and defending against those who try to malign it (buttress). Paul said, "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" (Romans 10:14-15)

Yet Stanley wants to reduce the importance of the Bible in the calling to go preach the Bible. His defenders say that isn't so. As that Indiana minister said, "I'm convinced that [Stanley's] critics are either not listening to him very closely, or they are intentionally misrepresenting him." He concluded his article by stating, "The point of all of this is that Stanley is making an apologetic case." Oh, I'm aware that's what Stanley is trying to do. It's just that his apologetics are really, really bad.

One of the main illustrations that came out of Stanley's sermon was this: "Christianity does not exist because of the Bible anymore than you exist because of your birth certificate. Your birth certificate documents something that happened. And if you lost your birth certificate, the good news is: you do not go out of existence."

Dr. Prince points out, "This logic minimizes the uniqueness of the Word of God and is right out of the classic theological liberal playbook. Liberals have historically asserted, 'The Bible is not the Word of God, it is merely a witness to the Word of God.'" (Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Stanley referred to the Bible as the Word of God a single time in the same sermon in which he was diminishing its importance.)

The Bible is not mere history. This is the powerful word of God. How did all things come into existence? By the word of God, right? God said "Let there be" and there was. Get this: the same word that brought all things into existence is the same word that brings about saving faith. Someone shared the word of God with you, and you believed it, and you have faith.

James 1:18 says, "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth." Romans 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ." No one is brought to faith but by the word of God. The Bible says so.

Stanley doesn't get that, which is why he's trying to bring people to the faith without the Bible. His defenders are always quick to fill in the blanks that Stanley leaves blank: "What Stanley really means is this! What Stanley is really trying to do is this!" I'm convinced his praisers are either not listening to him very closely, or they are intentionally misrepresenting him. (Zoinks!)

The defense of the Christian faith without the Bible is powerless apologetics. Stanley openly and proudly admits he is out to "take the spotlight off of the Bible." If Stanley's church sees anyone won to the faith, it is a very, very weak faith, if it's the Christian faith at all.

Faith Like a Child

The disciples asked Jesus, "Who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus called a child to him and put the boy before the disciples. He said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:2-4).

In his sermon The Bible Told Me So, Stanley says that Jesus Loves Me is a precious song, and we should teach children, "Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so." But that kind of theology is not for adults. You need a grown-up faith in which, according to Stanley, the Bible is not foundational. It's great for kids, but bad for adults. That's a great big load of manure.

"I hate manure."

People, I must tell you, because I love you and I care for you: Have nothing to do with Stanley's garbage. It is dangerous. It will keep a person from the Kingdom of heaven. No one is above the word of God. We must humble ourselves and be like children. Or as Peter put it, "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation -- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good" (1 Peter 2:2-3).

Woe to the person who wants less of the word of God. Without it, they cannot be sanctified, and therefore they have never been justified. They will "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Timothy 4:3); teachers like Andy Stanley, who is all about less Bible. Woe more-so to the teacher who will withhold the word of God that rescues from death and gives life.

Andy Stanley, if by some weird chance you happen to read my blog, repent of your nonsense. Apologize to your congregation. Tell them you were wrong. If there is any kind of humility about yourself, resign from your position as pastor until you can understand that the Bible is the word of God, and it is only through that word that anyone is saved -- washed clean from their iniquity and clothed in the righteousness of Christ, in whom we have the forgiveness of sins.

In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, it says, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth."

Just as I teach my children the word of God, I also teach it to my congregation. They are children, too. They are the children of God (1 John 3:1-3). How can I expect children to have the word of God written on their hearts if I won't tell it to them? When the devil comes whispering, "Did God really say," as he did to Eve, I want my children -- in my home and in my congregation -- to know what God really said. Likewise, I also listen to men who preach the word of God because I am a child who needs to be fed this pure spiritual milk, too.

The Bible is our response to everything. In it are the words to eternal life. The word of God should be withheld from no one -- no believer, and especially no unbeliever. Don't dumb it down, don't leave it out. It is only by the word of God that men are saved, brought from death to life in Christ. Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe."

The Bible tells us why people leave the church, and it isn't because of a Sunday school song. It's because it might become plain to all of us that they were never of us to begin with (1 John 2:19). Examine yourselves to see that you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

You know, there's something Andy Stanley said I happen to agree with. There are people who have left the church because they were told, "The Bible says so." The Bible says they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

"How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you." Psalm 119:9-11

"First, the elephant in the room," says Andy Stanley, beginning a 7,500 word apologetic argument published by Outreach Magazine on Friday. "I believe the Bible is without error in everything it affirms. I believe what the Bible says is true, is true."

So there you have it. Stanley believes the Bible is inerrant. Only, not really.

The article follows recent scrutiny incurred by Stanley when he said at a conference last month that if he were the evangelical pope, he would tell pastors to take the spotlight off the Bible and put it on the resurrection. The silly thing is: you don't know about the resurrection without the Bible. In that same conversation with Dr. Russell Moore, Stanley openly and proudly admitted that sometimes he preaches entire sermons without ever quoting Scripture.

Stanley doubled-down on his statements when, in a sermon the following Sunday, he said that the old Sunday school song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" is fraught with problems. This is a fine approach to teaching the Bible to children, he said, but we need a different approach to reaching grown-ups -- one that doesn't begin with the Bible, or, judging by his preaching, includes much of the Bible at all.

This is despite the fact that the Bible says faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). Of God's own will, He brought us forth by the word of truth (James 1:18). Jesus said that the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live (John 5:25). His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him (John 10:27). Where else do we hear these words but the Bible? One cannot know God without it. But Stanley wants pastors to introduce people to God without it.

Sound criticisms have abounded, not the least of which were two stellar articles written by Drs. David Prince and Albert Mohler. Stanley thinks his approach is cutting-edge. He thinks it's the way millennials today need to be reached. Prince and Mohler pointed out Stanley's ideas aren't new at all. They're just repackaged liberalism. But Stanley has ignored all these warnings. He thinks the problem is we're all stick-in-the-muds who want old and busted instead of the new hotness.

Now he's tripled-down on his messed-up apologetics with a written article entitled Why 'The Bible Tells Me So' Is No Longer Enough. He began by assuring everyone that he believes the Bible is inerrant. He even attempted to add weight to his statement by name-dropping his dad, Charles Stanley, and his seminary professor, Dr. Norman Geisler, who participated in drafting the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It felt a bit like saying, "My last name is Ford, therefore I know a lot about cars."

In practice, Stanley doesn't really believe the Bible is inerrant. He says it, but doesn't follow it. If the Bible is without error, it is ultimate. No other word can be higher. No other word is more authoritative. Just like the law that applies to every citizen, the Bible has authority over every person whether they believe it does or not. But Stanley doesn't follow that. He believes his word must come before the Bible. It's as if he's saying, "Yeah, I believe that. Now put that Bible away, pastor, and listen to me."

"To recap, yes, I believe the Bible is without error in everything it affirms. Yes, my approach to preaching is not traditional. Yes, my approach at times leaves those outside our local congregations wondering if I’m still an evangelical. So in light of all that, along with the fact that here I am once again having to explain myself, shouldn’t I consider changing my approach? No. Actually, I would like you to consider changing yours."

If Stanley was presenting these things as merely his opinion, perhaps it wouldn't bother me so much. It would still be problematic and needing to be addressed given how influential he is, but it wouldn't be nearly as concerning if he was just talking about his own approach to preaching. Unfortunately, he's telling other pastors to do things his way. And there are going to be men who will follow him because they like the idea that their words are more impacting upon millennials than that silly old book I have to lean over every Sunday.

"Eight years ago I shifted my approach," Stanley says. "I didn’t announce it. I just did it. The results have been remarkable." And that's what's going to draw these unstable ministers his way -- Stanley's numbers. The reason why they need to change, Stanley says, is because the world has changed. We're not merely a non-Christian society. We are a post-Christian culture.

"In a non-Christian society, people may have never heard anything about Christianity and, therefore, have few to no preconceived notions. A post-Christian society is the opposite. In a post-Christian society, people have been exposed to Christianity (in our case, for generations) but are opting out for a different worldview, a different narrative through which to make sense of the world. In a post-Christian society, people know the stories; they just don’t believe ‘em. Or in many cases, they don’t believe ‘em anymore."

Here's the thing -- No, they don't. More than likely, they never knew the stories in the first place. This is a common American evangelical myth: the false idea that everyone has heard the Bible and therefore we don't need to preach it. Everyone knows the Easter and the Christmas stories. They're dates on the calendar, so that makes everyone an expert. Everyone has heard all about global floods and burning bushes and talking donkeys and boys slaying giants and Psalm 23. They've heard all that, and they don't believe it.

Except they don't know the stories. They don't just disbelieve the stories, they don't even know them. For crying out loud, there are people who say they believe the stories who don't know them! We are not a Post-Christian culture -- we are a biblically illiterate culture. Saying things like "'The Bible tells me so' is not enough" will do far more to advance that illiteracy than solve it.

Stanley says he wants to teach "educated, dechurched millennials" that even if a global flood or a Hebrew migration from Egypt never happened, "it does nothing to undermine the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus and thus the claims he made about himself." Actually, yeah, it would. (Rob Bell made this same claim over a decade ago. It's not new.)

In this way, dechurched millennials know more than Stanley: they know that if Noah and the Ark or Moses and manna from heaven or Jonah in the belly of a big fish are myths, the rest of the Bible is myth, too. After all, Jesus used all three of those Old Testament examples as references to himself. So if they're myths, what reason do we have to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead? In their skepticism, they at least know that much. That doesn't mean they know what the Bible really says.

I do street evangelism on an occasional basis and through another ministry witness to over 100 high school students weekly, only half of whom will say they attend church or any kind of youth group. Most people I encounter -- I'm talking 8 or 9 out of 10 -- claim to have grown up in church, and they can't even say John 3:16 with me or list half of the Ten Commandments (watch this 2-minute video where people can't name the 10 commandments but can rattle off 10 beers with ease).

I use the Bible when I do evangelism. I might end up saying "The Bible says" a good 20 times per encounter. I've got no leg to stand on without it. The Bible has the authority, not me. Occasionally someone might get testy and say, "Oh, so I just have to do what you say because you're the preacher, is that it?" I'll calmly reply, "These aren't my words. It's what the Bible says."

I encounter people who think they know the Bible until I start quoting it, then they're completely lost. It is by hearing the word of God that every mouth is stopped (Romans 3:19) and they become knowledgeable of their sin (Romans 3:20) so they might repent of it and worship Christ as Savior. People don't know the Bible. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

Contrary to what Stanley wants you to believe, the problem in American evangelicalism is not that preachers are saying "The Bible tells me so" too much. What's more the problem is that preachers are not saying that.

Several years ago, I was participating in a community-wide prayer event with several other pastors. We had decided which pastor was going to lead prayer at different points in the service. What had not yet been decided was who was going to lead the congregation in the Lord's Prayer at the end.

One of the more seasoned pastors, a Baptist minister, arrived late, so he was volunteered. He immediately declined. "I won't do anything without a script," he said rather sharply. Another pastor was asked to do it. "No, I can't do it from memory," he said unashamed. The pastor who was doing the opening and closing was asked to go ahead and do it. "I don't know which words to use. Trespasses? Debts and debtors?" All the other pastors laughed.

It's no wonder the American Christian layperson can't dispense Bible-basics when our pastors can't even do it!

There's some element of truth to the understanding that we live in a post-Christian America. At the presidential debate last week between Trump and Hillary, neither one of them mentioned anything remotely religious. It was the first presidential debate in my lifetime where neither candidate made at least some kind of reference to their faith. I can still remember the debate between Bush and Kerry where Kerry, the Democrat, went after Bush's faith by quoting the Bible, saying, "Faith without works is a dead faith" (James 1:17).

Civic religion is all but gone from the public discourse. So, yeah, in that sense, we are a post-Christian nation. But guess what? Our approach to the gospel is exactly the same as it was when we were calling ourselves a "Christian nation." Faith still comes by hearing the word of Christ. And how are they to hear without someone preaching (Roman 10:14)?

Stanley has always tried to distance himself from having to preach the word. Despite his "post-Christian" arguments, this recent controversy is nothing new. Way back in 2009, Stanley told Ed Stetzer that expository preaching was "cheating."

"As part of my shift, I stopped leveraging the authority of Scripture and began leveraging the authority and stories of the people behind the Scripture. To be clear, I don’t believe 'the Bible says,''Scripture teaches,' and 'the Word of God commands' are incorrect approaches. But they are ineffective approaches for post-Christian people. I don’t regret teaching my children that the Bible is God’s Word. But my grown-up kids understand their confidence in the Bible is rooted in their confidence in who Jesus is based on the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and the apostle Paul."

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's just a really ignorant statement. His grown-up children understand that their confidence in the Bible is rooted in their confidence in who Jesus is based on the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and the Apostle Paul? The writers of the New Testament? In other words, their confidence in the Bible is because the Bible says so!

In keeping with his paradoxical apologetics, Stanley spends the last half of the article giving biblical reasons why we don't have to use the Bible when we preach to unbelievers. We can preach without the Bible because Jesus did it and the apostles did it. There's a very simple rebuttal to that approach to preaching, and it is this: The words of Jesus and the apostles were Scripture; your sermon, pastor, is not. Argument over. But that would be too easy.

Because Stanley's novella of an article is 7,500 words, and I'm at 2,000 words, I will address that in a part 2 entry to come later this week. Let me close with this. Stanley says the following.

"If someone is first convinced the Bible is God’s Word, you can leverage 'The Bible says' language. But let’s be honest. What do you call people who first accept the Bible as God’s Word before they’ve read the Bible? What do you call someone who takes someone’s word for something as significant as 'This book is the infallible Word of God?' What kind of person would go for that? 

A child."

That's the most sensible thing he says in the whole article. Unfortunately, when Stanley says it, he's being disparaging. Jesus says "a child" is exactly what we're supposed to be like.

In Matthew 18:3-4, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In Mark 10:15, he says, "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

Praise God for a child-like faith. As the Apostle John said, if we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater (1 John 5:9). "The Bible says so" is enough.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." John 8:47

In 1 Timothy 4:13, the Apostle Paul instructed, "Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching." Later he wrote, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word. Be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."

Yet there are liberal theologians who argue that we don't need to use the Bible when we preach. We can talk about Jesus without the Bible, they say, what He said and what He did, even though we don't know about any of that without the Bible. Ironically, they have biblical arguments to explain why they don't need to preach from the Scriptures. (If all of this sounds confusing, that's because it is.) The following is a response to the five most commonly (mis)used passages.

This is part 2 of my critique of Andy Stanley's 7,500 word article in Outreach Magazine last week, "Why 'The Bible Says So' Is Not Enough Anymore." But this didn't start out being a part 2. I began writing this blog two weeks before Stanley's article and was delayed in finishing it. When Stanley presented 4 of these 5 exact arguments, it just made sense to turn this into a response to Stanley.

Stanley labels his arguments Exhibits A, B, C, and D, all taken from Luke who wrote Luke and Acts. I'm going to add an Exhibit E which comes from John's gospel.

Exhibit A: Peter and the Jews

After Christ's ascension into heaven and the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the apostles went into Jerusalem and delivered the first "Repent and believe!" sermon in the history of the church. Acts 2:5 tells us that the crowd consisted of "devout Jews from every nation under heaven," and by the power of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, they heard the gospel in their own languages. Peter showed them how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the Scriptures, quoting also from Joel and the Psalms.

"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definition plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands lawless men. God raised Him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says concerning Him, 'I saw the Lord always before me, for He is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'" (Acts 2:23-28)

Stanley says, "Throughout the message, Peter leverages his version of 'The Bible says,''The Scripture teaches.' This makes perfect sense given Peter’s audience. This was a group that held their Scriptures in high regard. If their Bible said it, that settled it. It didn’t hurt that most of Peter’s audience believed those particular Scriptures pointed to a future Messiah. Peter simply connected the dots. He connected their existing belief, which was informed by the Jewish Scriptures, to a current event."

The reason Peter referenced the "Jewish Scriptures," Stanley argues, is because the Jews already accepted the Scriptures as authoritative. We can't use that same method for preaching the gospel in a Post-Christian culture that Stanley says knows the Bible (they don't) because not all millennials accept the Bible as authoritative. Here are three points in response.

First of all, that's wrong. There's nothing in the New Testament that indicates the Old Testament Scriptures were reserved for the Jews who accepted them as true. In fact, in Acts 17 at Berea, the Scriptures were given to both the Jews and the Gentiles who came to hear Paul speak in the synagogue. "Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:12). Paul quoted and explained the Old Testament to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 3:10-18, 1 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 3:6, and Ephesians 4:8). He said the Scriptures were written for our instruction (Romans 15:4), and said this even to those who didn't yet accept it as true (1 Corinthians 9:10).

Secondly, consider this: At what point does the word of God become authoritative? When God says it, or when people accept it as authoritative? In Exodus 20, the entire nation of Israel heard the voice of God deliver the Ten Commandments, yet clearly the people didn't revere His word. After they heard Him say, "You will have no other gods before me," they turned around and worshiped a golden calf. Should God have withheld His words until the people were ready to receive it as authoritative? According to Stanley's reasoning, He should have.

Third, just because an apostle wasn't referencing an Old Testament writer by name doesn't mean they weren't referencing the Scriptures. I'll elaborate on this point in the next exhibit.

Exhibit B: Peter and the Gentiles

In Acts 10, Peter preached to the Gentiles at Caesarea. But unlike his sermon at Pentecost, Peter didn't reference Old Testament names like Joel and David. But again, that doesn't mean what Peter said wasn't from Scripture. After all, when he talks about the resurrection of Christ in verse 40, it was in accordance with the Scriptures (Luke 24:27, 45-46, 1 Corinthians 15:4).

What does it mean to reference the Scriptures? Obviously it doesn't mean quoting chapter and verse because the chapter and verse markers didn't come about until the 15th century, so Peter didn't have them. Does it mean that Peter has to name the Old Testament prophet he's referencing? Can he still use their words without mentioning their name, and that's still a Scriptural reference?

Instead of going back through Peter's message at the house of Cornelius, let me select a shorter example. Consider this sermonette preached by Paul and Barnabas to the pagans at Lystra:

"Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14:15-17)

Now where did Paul and Barnabas get these phrases like "vain things" and "living God" who "made the heaven and the earth" and that He "allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways" yet gave them "rains from heaven and fruitful seasons" and "food and gladness"? These are all references to the prophets.

• Vain things:"And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty." 1 Samuel 12:21
• Living God: "My heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God." Psalm 84:2
• Maker of heaven and earth:"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
• Allowed all nations to walk in their own ways:"For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever." Micah 4:5
• Rains from heaven and fruitful seasons: "I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit." Leviticus 26:4
• Food and gladness: "These all look to you, to give them their food in due season... and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man's heart." Psalm 104:27, 15

Paul and Barnabas didn't name the prophets Samuel, David, Micah, and Moses because the pagans from Lystra didn't know who they were. That's not the same thing as saying Paul and Barnabas didn't use the Scriptures because the pagans from Lystra didn't receive them as authoritative. The word of God was still their authority, and Paul and Barnabas did not withhold it.

Here's something to keep in mind: Andy Stanley is a pastor of a church making excuses for why he doesn't need to preach the Bible to his church. Yet notice the examples he's using are non-church settings. Preaching to the Jews at Pentecost or the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius was not the church, for they were not yet sealed by the Spirit of God. The church is instructed to be devoted to the reading of the Scriptures, encouraging and admonishing one another by them (Colossians 3:16). This is a point I'll come back to as we go on.



Exhibit C: Paul and the Jews

Here is perhaps the most abused Scripture in Stanley's exhibition hall; his use of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. He uses this to compare Paul's sermon at Antioch (Acts 13) with his sermon at the Areopagus (in Exhibit D), but for the sake of brevity, let's just stick with his Corinthian argument. Paul said the following:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Paul expounds upon this in the next chapter: "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1).

That's the explanation. This is very simply Paul being a humble servant, counting others more significant than himself (Philippians 2:3), being considerate and not causing anyone to stumble by anything he does, showing empathetic love for others so to leave the door open for the gospel and building them up in the faith.

This wasn't just Paul's conviction, as he says that all of us are to be imitators of him. He explains it this way to the Romans: "We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up" (Romans 15:1-2).

Now, Stanley's explanation for 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is very exclusivist, meaning that he attempts to interpret these five verses on their own and disregard every other verse outside of them. Here's what he says (and pardon me for the odd paragraphing, but this was how he put it):

Let this phrase rattle around in your mind for a few minutes:

"… so that by all possible means I might save some." 

Which means, Paul? 

"All possible means." 

So, you may take one approach one day and a different approach a different day? Am I reading you right? 

"All possible means." 

Is that really necessary? Doesn’t the Spirit do the work? 

"All possible means." 

But isn’t it enough to preach the Word and let the seed fall where it may? 

"All possible means." 

And why do you go to such lengths? 

"… for the sake of the gospel." 

What if we just did that for a year? What if we opted for the "all possible means" approach? What if we decide to do whatever it takes?

The work of the Spirit (Titus 3:5), sowing seeds (Matthew 13), and being all things to all people are intertwined. The way Stanley words this -- whether or not it's his intention -- it's like he's singling out "all possible means" and mocking the concepts of the work of the Spirit and sowing seeds. Yet they're entirely biblical concepts. We're not meant to reach people simply by "all possible means" alone without the gospel or the Spirit of God.

You can be all things to all people until you're blue in the face. Unless the gospel is declared and the Holy Spirit works in the heart of the hearer, no change will ever take place. Paul said previously to the Corinthians that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). He came to them not with lofty words of wisdom but with the testimony of the gospel to be received by spiritual people.

"For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things frely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)

You can't do 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and ignore 1 Corinthians 2:11-14. Do you know what happens when you think you can save people by "all possible means" without understanding the power of the gospel or the Spirit of God? You open the door to sinister slicks like Todd White who does his street-magic healings making people think he's growing a person's leg out to even it with the other one and solve their back problems. It's a total con and he knows he's lying. But if it means a person comes to know Jesus, who cares? It was by "all possible means," right?

Another thing that happens is an evangelist can become an outright jerk. He'll beat people over the head with signs or berate them with a "turn or burn" gospel that they've heard twenty-two times today alone. He skewers people with his spiritual sword and shouts in triumph only for his hearers to harden their hearts even further. After all, it's by "all possible means," right?

"All possible means" does not mean "absent the gospel of Jesus Christ." It doesn't mean lie to people or yell at people. We should be able to lovingly relate to others and empathize with them, so that we may by "all possible means" share the gospel. The gospel and good doctrine still need to be ever-present, with gentleness and respect. It is the Spirit of God who saves, not us. Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63).

Exhibit D: Paul and the Gentiles

The Apostle Paul and his missionary brethren came to the Greek city of Athens, a city full of idols. He preached in the synagogue and in the marketplace the words of Jesus and about His resurrection. Now, the Greeks were a people that valued new knowledge, so even though they thought this resurrection-speak was complete craziness, they wanted to hear more. So Paul went to the Areopagus, or Aries Rock (later named Mars Hill by the Romans), a place used for public discourse in the presence of the gods. It is there that Paul preached:

"Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  

"And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us, for, 'In Him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed His offspring.'  

"Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:22-31)

It's interesting to me that as much as Stanley loves Exhibit D, he doesn't reference the actual words of Acts 17 all that much. Instead, he summarizes it this way: "[Paul] tells the Athenians they need to repent of their idolatry. But that’s it. He doesn’t reference all the other things they needed to repent of. And the list was long. But the most unusual facet of his message to this elite group in Athens is that he never mentions Jesus."

There's a couple of problems with that loose summary. First, Paul didn't just tell the Athenians to repent of their idolatry. He told them to repent because the judgment of God was coming. Why repent from worshiping false gods? Because if you don't, the true God will destroy you. By the way, that's something you won't hear Andy Stanley talk about in his sermons: the judgment of God upon all evil-doers. For all his chest-beating, saying he's doing things Paul's way, Stanley doesn't actually preach the way Paul preached even at the Areopagus.

Secondly, Paul did mention Christ! He was known in Athens for preaching about a God named Jesus rising from the dead (Acts 17:18), and that's why the Athenians wanted to hear what he had to say at the Areopagus. Paul was, to use Andy's term, connecting the dots. He was saying, "The one who will come in judgment is the one I've been preaching about all this time."

Here's another very important distinction: the Areopagus wasn't church. It was open-air evangelism in the public square. Stanley proudly admits he sometimes preaches entire sermons without ever referencing the Bible, and Paul's message at the Areopagus is one of the examples he uses for why he doesn't need to. But Paul wasn't in church. He was speaking in the presence of pagan idols, making a particular point about an "altar to an unknown God" whom he points out is actually known and will judge all the earth through this Jesus he had been preaching about. Context, Andy!

Acts 17:22-31 is not permission to preach sermons without the Bible. Because again, we are to be devoted to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, and to teaching. Where does 1 Timothy 4:13 fit into Stanley's method? How about 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Why does Stanley put more energy into explaining why he doesn't need to use the Bible instead of teaching the Bible? What the Apostle Paul said was Scripture. What Andy Stanley says is not.

Charles Spurgeon once said, "A sermon without Christ in it is like a loaf of bread without any flour in it. No Christ in your sermon, sir? Then go home and never preach again." A sermon without the word of God in it is a sermon without Christ in it. For it is Christ who is defined as the very Word of God (John 1:1).


Exhibit E: Jesus and the Woman at the Well

This is an Exhibit that Stanley didn't use, but I hear it referenced fairly often when it comes to seeker-friendly preaching: Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. It's a longer example, 45 verses in length, but I'll try to keep it brief.

Jesus and His disciples were passing through Samaria, which Jews just did not do because Samaria was full of Samaritans. He sat down by Jacob's Well while the disciples went to find something to eat. While He was there, a woman came by to draw water and Jesus asked her for a drink. She said, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?"

Jesus replied, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." Not knowing what He was talking about, the woman proceeded to argue with Him, but He said, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

The woman said, "Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water." Jesus said, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered, "I have no husband." Jesus said, "You right to say you have no husband. For you have had five husbands and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is quite true."

The woman said, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." The mountain she referred to was Mount Gerizim where the Samaritans believed true worship ought to take place (according to Deuteronomy 11:29). The Jews claimed that true worship was to happen on Mount Moriah, which was where the temple was built. Indeed, it was built there by the command of God (Genesis 22:2, 2 Samuel 24:18-19, 2 Chronicles 3:1).

The Samaritans actually had an incomplete Bible. They only accepted the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Law written by Moses. This is why Jesus went on to tell her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

When He says, "You worship what you do not know," He was saying the Samaritans worship in ignorance because they've rejected the words of the other prophets of God. If she knew the Scriptures, she'd have known that the promised Messiah, whom the Samaritans also believed in, was coming through the Jewish people, specifically the tribe of Judah whom the Jews are named for. Saying that He would give her "living water" was a reference to the prophets who foretold about this living water (Jeremiah 2:13, Zechariah 14:8, Isaiah 12:3). Get that: Jesus was making references to Old Testament prophets she, as a Samaritan, didn't accept as authoritative!

Jesus went on to say, "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming. When He comes, He will tell us all things." In other words, she's appealing to moral relativism. She's saying, "You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe, and when that Messiah shows up, He'll be the one to tell us who's right and who's wrong."

That's when Jesus lovingly drops the hammer: "I who speak to you am He."

Argument over.

The woman ran back into town and brought scores of people with her to hear the testimony of this man claiming to be the promised Messiah. Up until that point, He'd not yet made a claim to be the Messiah to anyone in Judea. But He revealed His identity to this woman in Samaria, and "Many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman's testimony, 'He told me everything I ever did'" (John 4:39).

Many liberal theologians will reference this story and say that Jesus didn't use Scripture in His witness to the Samaritan woman, therefore we don't have to use Scripture in our witnessing. But as I've demonstrated, there were plenty of Scripture references. I gave some of the citations so that you would understand the meaning behind Jesus' words and the woman's responses.

Liberal teachers are also fond of saying that Jesus didn't tell her to repent of her sins, but that's a misunderstanding of the context of the exchange. He did in fact point her sin out to her, and she knew that He did. Jesus is the one who searches mind and heart and judges the thoughts of man (Jeremiah 17:10, Revelation 2:23). Remember, it was by that testimony of the woman, "He told me everything I ever did," that people believed in Him as the Messiah.

But again -- and this goes back to the point I made earlier -- this is not a church setting, and Jesus is God. Whatever He says is the word of God. You can't say Jesus didn't reference the Scriptures with this woman when everything He said became Scripture. The words of Jesus and the words of His prophets and apostles are the words of God. The words of a pastor are not. This is why a pastor's sermon needs to be under the full authority of the Scriptures, preaching the word, not twisting Bible verses for his own personal use.

Wrapping Up

Stanley makes several appeals in his 7,500 word article for pastors to leave the old way of doing things, and instead do things his way. I'd like to offer a counter-challenge. Put the Scripture back into your sermons. If you really want to meet the unchurched or the dechurched or the post-churched where they are by "all possible means," then go to where they are, which is not in church. Go out on the street and do Acts 17 evangelism there. To those who say, like the Athenians did, "We will hear you again about this," invite them to church to hear more Scripture, which the Spirit of God has conditioned their heart to receive.

Stanley is also sure to mention that he doesn't use notes when he preaches, and Paul didn't use notes when he preached either. Well, I also don't use notes when I preach -- it's just me and a Bible (unless the sermon I'm doing features a number of quotes, in which case I'll have a print-out of those quotes in front of me). But even if I have the passage I'm reading memorized (my fellow elders will testify to this), I will still open the Bible and read it so that the congregation will see that these words are not mine. It is not by my authority that I speak. I submit to the authority of God's word. Sometimes I do quote entire sections from memory. But otherwise, I want people to see I got this from the Bible.

I take no teaching instruction from anyone who says, "Try it my way," if that way includes excuses or "exhibits" for why we need to stop saying "the Bible says so." As Dr. Mohler pointed out, a mature Christian faith will say more than that, but no less than that. It is the gift of God to His ministers that we might be able to stand before His people and declare, "Thus says the Lord!" God willing, I will preach the word until my dying day.

The following is a letter I sent to Bob Cesca in August, 2015, responding to an article he wrote for Salon.com. I never got a reply from Mr. Cesca. There are some points in this letter that I believe are relevant to current headlines involving Planned Parenthood. The following is for your edification. Some edits have been made for grammar and spelling.

Greetings, Mr. Cesca

My name is Gabe Hughes, a pastor in Kansas. I read your Salon article, Wing-Nut Conspiracy Theorists Have Done It Again: The Truth About Planned Parenthood Hoax Revealed. You had a few "facts" that weren't accurate. I wanted to shed a little light on them for you. You used the word "objective" to describe your facts, so considering that you believe in objective truth, I hope you will receive this objectively. I offer this to bring peace.

"Planned Parenthood is not selling fetus parts for profit or otherwise."

Actually, they are. These are quotes from Planned Parenthood staff, and none of these comments are doctored or taken out-of-context. They imply what they imply:

• "They want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that." That was Dr. Nucatola in the first video. Mr. Cesca, "do a little better than break even" is profit, is it not? "Happy to do that" means they want profit, right? She went on to say that Planned Parenthood tries to do this in a way that "doesn't look like they're making money." If that's what PP is trying to do, then is it not possible they've fooled you into thinking they're legit?
• "You know, in negotiations, the person who throws out the first figure is at a loss, right?" That's from Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over the prices of fetal body parts. If Planned Parenthood is not trying to make money, why is there not a flat fee? When CMP asked about a flat fee, we got this next quote...
• "I think the per item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it." That's Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

"Only three percent of Planned Parenthood's activities involve abortions."

In 2013, Planned Parenthood performed 327,653 abortions at their clinics. They did 1,880 adoption referrals, and prenatal services for 18,684 clients. So abortion is 94 percent of the pregnancy services offered by Planned Parenthood. (Rev. Kevin DeYoung debunked the 3% myth a few years ago. You can find his article here.)

Even by the most liberal estimates (no pun intended), it'd be hard to present a case that abortion is any less than 12 percent of Planned Parenthood's total services. PP saw 2.7 million total customers at its health centers in 2013, and performed 327,653 abortions. So 12 percent of their total clientele got an abortion.

Reasonably the 94 percent number is more accurate, though it's probably more fair to state that number this way: Of every pregnant woman that walked into a Planned Parenthood center in 2013, we know that 94 percent of them walked out no longer pregnant.

"Per the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds can be used for abortions. And there's no evidence Planned Parenthood has done so."

That's not true. And you say it yourself in your next bullet point...

"Consequently, de-funding Planned Parenthood would put into jeopardy its ability to save lives and, germane to this issue, prevent abortions. The Washington Post editorial board concluded: 'No federal money is used by Planned Parenthood to provide abortions except in some rare exceptions.'"

So The Washington Post actually concluded that federal funding has been used to pay for abortions. That, Mr. Cesca, is illegal. [Edit: It could be argued that the Hyde Amendment allowed for federal funds to be used in the case of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother, but the Post doesn't specify that. The evidence clearly shows Planned Parenthood is using taxdollars to pay for abortions. No doubt about it.]

"Along those lines, in 2013 and 2014, 3,577,348 patients were provided with birth control services by Planned Parenthood. That's upwards of 3.5 million potential abortions prevented. What happens when these services disappear? Maybe the press should quiz anti-choice Republicans about this one."

My personal feelings about certain methods of birth control aside (and what actually constitutes as "birth control"), I want you to reasonably consider your statement. According to you, 3.5 million people received birth control from Planned Parenthood, and if federal funding to Planned Parenthood were to be cut off, 3.5 million people would now have no other way to get birth control, and we'd see a potential rise in 3.5 million abortions. Does that really seem like a reasonable claim?

What if I were to make this claim: "If Planned Parenthood were to lose federal funding, the 3.5 million people who previously received birth control from Planned Parenthood would stop having sex out of fear of having an unwanted pregnancy." Does that seem like a reasonable claim to you? No, it doesn't seem like a reasonable claim to me either. But it's just as reasonable a deduction as the one you made.

"Additionally, Planned Parenthood would lose the ability to conduct breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings — hundreds of thousands per year. It’d also lose the ability to perform thousands of vasectomies every year. How many unwanted pregnancies will result from the loss of this particular option?"

Again, you're concluding that women have no other way of receiving these services. You're also concluding that without government funding, Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to provide them. Why is it so unreasonable to demand that Planned Parenthood be able to stand on its own like every other non-profit that survives without government funding?

You're attempting to justify that it's okay for Planned Parenthood to receive federal tax dollars while dismembering and distributing the organs of dissected fetuses -- for profit or not is beside the point -- so long as they provide these other services. Who cares what those videos show or what's going on in a Planned Parenthood freezer or back room, right?

"Journalist Nicholas Kristof reported that Planned Parenthood and other family planning facilities 'prevent about one million unintended pregnancies a year, of which 345,000 would have ended in abortion.' This according to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute."

Again, there's a radical conclusion being drawn. But let me only state here that the Guttmacher Institute is as non-partisan as Planned Parenthood. GI started in 1968 as a division of Planned Parenthood. Partisan they are indeed. GI exists to advance birth control and abortion.

"If women who visit Planned Parenthood are forbidden from donating fetal tissue to biomedical labs, that tissue will be tossed in the waste bin. Republicans appear to prefer this option for some reason. Meanwhile, eliminating the legal tissue donation program would put a damper on research into preventing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease."

There are no other ways to acquire tissue for research than through an abortion? We can end a viable, growing human life as long as it saves other lives? That's the only way Alzheimer's and Parkinson's cures work?

And I'm not calling a fetus in the womb a human life just to support my argument. I'm taking that from another Salon writer who fully acknowledged that a child in a womb is indeed a living human person, yet would choose to kill that human person anyway. Are you arguing for the same thing, Mr. Cesca? Killing human lives to save lives and making the tax-payer pay for it, their scruples be damned? Is that really the pro-choice ethic?

Thank you for reading, and I hope you will carefully consider my comments. If indeed this is something that has convicted you -- if it has cut you to your core to realize a fetus is not some discardable tissue but is in fact a human life, needing to be protected and cherished -- then I hope you will repent of this murderous sin. There is forgiveness in Christ Jesus.

As you have recognized, there is such a thing as objective truth -- a truth that exists outside of ourselves. That truth is established in Christ alone; the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father God except through him. All of us have broken his law and deserve death, but it is through Christ that we receive eternal life. If you would like to know more, I'd love to share it with you. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Pastor Gabe

Dear Pastor Gabe

Thank you for When We Understand the Text and all your videos. I noticed in your video on Jehovah's Witnesses that you mention Seventh Day Adventism, and you mention that an Adventist can be a Christian, but in the fine-print you say that you wouldn't advise attending a Seventh Day Adventist church. I wasn't able to find a WWUTT video on SDA though. Do you have one? 

I grew up SDA, then when I got to college I started attending a reformed Baptist church. It was there I met my wife and she happens to have an SDA background as well. Recently we've been talking about it and wondering if the SDA church might be a mission field for us. Here's the question that I have: Do you think that the Seventh Day Adventist Church can be reformed, or do you think that a person should leave the SDA church altogether? Thank you again for all that you do.

Josh, Tampa, FL

Thank you for your e-mail, Josh! No, we don't have a WWUTT video on Seventh Day Adventism, although that's one I've been meaning to do. The short answer to your question is this: No, I do not think the SDA church can be reformed. I have known and worked with a few Adventists whom I believe to be born-again Christians. But if you were to come in to an SDA church with gospel-centered and doctrinally-sound teaching, the church would change so drastically that it would not look at all like the Seventh-Day Adventist church looks now.

Consider the doctrine behind the church's namesake: Seventh Day Adventist. One of their fundamental teachings is Sabbath worship. Now that sounds harmless enough. What's the big deal if a church wants to worship on Saturday? Romans 14:5-6 says, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor to the Lord." So isn't the Adventist just choosing to worship on Saturday because he's fully convinced that's the day he should worship?

It actually goes quite a bit deeper than that. Infused in the Seventh-Day Adventist movement is this entire hermeneutic related to the Sabbath Day. When you go to the SDA church's website, there's a section of by-laws over 6,000 words long committed to proper Sabbath observance. A person's keeping of the Sabbath Day serves as kind of a "test" as to whether or not that person is genuine in their faith and worship of God:

"Meaningful Sabbath observance indicates that acceptance of God as Creator and Owner and acknowledges His authority over all creation, including oneself. Sabbath observance is based on the authority of God's Word. There is no other logical reason for it."

Sabbath observance also has eschatological implications. In other words, it even plays into their beliefs and teachings about the end-times:

"Meaningful Sabbath observance testifies to the fact that we have chosen to obey God's commandment. We thus recognize that our life is now lived in obedience to God's Word. The Sabbath will be a special test in the end time. The believer will have to make a choice either to give allegiance to God's Word or to human authority."

Even though these by-laws don't teach that if you break the Sabbath you'll go to hell, they do seem to imply that if you are not a regular observer of the Sabbath you are not truly a worshiper of God, and in the end you'll be excluded from His kingdom.

Contrast this with Colossians 1:16-17 which says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

Huh. Yeah. That verse kind of sounds important.

To bring in Christ-centered teaching such as this reference in Colossians -- with an understanding of certain Old Testament laws being types and shadows that point to Christ Jesus -- would un-do a fundamental Seventh-Day Adventist teaching on the Sabbath. They would essentially be losing the very thing their name is predicated upon. So again, gospel teaching would change Adventism so much, it wouldn't even resemble an SDA church anymore. The SDA church is not a reflection of the early church as Christ meant it to be. It can't be reformed.

I understand why someone would think it could be. Adventists uphold the infallibility of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, resurrection of the dead, justification by faith alone, and overall their doctrine resembles trinitarian Protestant theology (but with an Arminian hermeneutic). This is why I believe a person can become a Christian in the SDA church (unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, who teach heresy). But if that person is growing in their understanding of the Scriptures, and if they really know what their movement is teaching, they shouldn't remain an Adventist.

Another common doctrine in the SDA is annihilationism: the wicked will not suffer eternal torment in hell, the Adventists teach, but instead will be permanently destroyed. This is simply unbiblical. Matthew 25:46 says the wicked will go away into eternal punishment. Revelation 14:11 says that the worshipers of the beast will be tormented day and night, and they will have no rest.

Now, not every SDA church is the same. Like most Baptist churches, each congregation is autonomous. Some don't teach the more controversial secondary matters. But the church overall is still founded on false teaching.

Ellen G. White, one of the principle founders of the movement, made a bunch of wonky predictions influenced by notorious false teacher William Miller. White backed Miller's prophecy that the end of the world would come in 1844. When of course that didn't happen, she used Miller's same method to predict that the end of the world would come in 1851.

Ellen G. with her husband, James White. (Not Dr. James White.)

She blamed the fact that the world didn't end on the Seventh Day Adventist congregants because they didn't have enough faith. If they had been "united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history," she said. Despite her flops, the Adventist church still holds her writings as an authoritative source of truth. From their 28 Fundamental Beliefs:

"The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." 

(Yes, because apparently the Bible's declaration of it being authoritative wasn't enough, and we needed Ellen G. White to tell us.)

There are a number of tertiary and secondary issues that Adventists elevate to the level of "fundamental," and this divides Christians, not unifies them. As Dr. Al Mohler explains, "The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided."

My recommendation to a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist is that they leave the church and attend a sound, gospel-teaching church. Note that I say attend another, not start another. I think if someone leaves the SDA and goes right to starting a new church, there are some potential dangers there. I won't go into my whole opinion on it, but let me just point to 1 Timothy 3:6. An elder or an overseer "must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil."

It's simply too soon to come out of false-teaching and start your own church. Look for a good, gospel-centered, doctrinally sound gathering and get fed. Grow under the teaching of someone who is submissive to and passionate about the word of God. Perhaps your ministry, Josh, will be pointing others toward churches that offer Christ-centered teaching, and away from the bad teaching of Seventh-Day Adventism.

This Q&A was featured on the WWUTT podcast episode #120. You can subscribe to the podcast by clicking here!

Donald Trump is not David or Solomon. He is not the Apostle Paul. He's not Samson. He isn't Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus either. He's Donald Trump. To try and mirror him with any of these biblical characters is nothing but eisegesis -- imposing something on the text the reader wants it to say but it doesn't actually say.

The bias should be obvious. If Trump can be Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus, why can't Hillary? And why is Trump only comparable to someone like Kings David or Solomon, Samson or Paul, and not someone like Kings Saul or Ahaz, Balaam or Simon the Magician?

I've made a comparison before between Trump and Ahaz. King Ahaz refused to ask the Lord for help just as Donald Trump has refused to ask God for forgiveness. At last year's Family Leadership Summit, Trump was asked if he has ever asked forgiveness for his sins. "I don't bring God into that picture," he said.

Consider the story of Simon the Magician, who had everyone in Samaria believing "he himself was somebody great" (Acts 8:9). Then Philip came preaching the gospel and the people believed, including Simon. This was a guy skilled in illusion and he became amazed when he saw the apostles performing miracles. So he offered them money that they would give him the same power that they had: "Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

Peter rebuked Simon, saying, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity."

Simon responded, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me." Notice that it doesn't say Simon repented, nor does it say he was "cut to the heart" as the men of Jerusalem were when Peter was specific about their sins (Acts 2:37). It just says Simon asked them to pray for him, rather than praying himself.

The apostles were given authority to determine whether or not a person was walking in forgiveness or still lost in their sin, as the church has also been given this responsibility (Matthew 18:18, John 20:23). Simon had believed and was even baptized. Yet notice that Peter said his heart wasn't right before God: "For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity."

Good grief, why doesn't that describe Donald Trump? Instead, we've got men holding up Trump as a Christian because he was presumably introduced to Christ (by a heretic, the attractive blonde one, of course), rather than calling him to repentance realizing that by his own words, he isn't a Christian at all. (Did everyone just totally miss the comment he made two months ago that becoming president is the only way he'll get to heaven?)

They compromise their own witness by not actually checking their facts and not even checking behind them before guilting believers into voting for him. They say "Trump, or else" in the name of fantasy Supreme Court justices and the protection of religious freedom, either not hearing or deliberately ignoring that Trump says he's evolving on same-sex marriage (the same words Obama and Hillary have used) and is in favor transgender bathroom laws.

Trump has said that Republicans need to compromise on abortion, and that Planned Parenthood does good work. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards even thanked him for it. Not a single word was said by him in either debate or the Republican National Convention about defending the unborn. At the March for Life in January, every republican candidate vowed to protect unborn children except Donald Trump. How do you not even use pro-life speech at a pro-life event?

The portion of the evangelical right holding up Donald Trump is holding up their version of Donald Trump. Hey, you can even find their version of Trump in the Bible. To overlook Trump's sin in favor of a voting bias, comparing him to biblical men who finished well like David, Paul, Nebuchadnezzar, and Samson, is selfish, uncaring, and -- okay, I'll just say it -- it's stupid.

Proverbs 12:1 says, "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." That verse doesn't just apply to those who receive or won't receive reproof. It also applies to those who issue or won't issue reproof. Why do they not rebuke? Because they hate it. They're stupid; foolish, senseless, and dull of mind.

It's much easier to just accept or wave off whatever Donald Trump says and does in the name of voting for #NeverHillary than to take a principled stand and say the man is wrong even if saying so might mean Hillary will win. Evangelical men have a real opportunity here to defend women, as we should. Here's a chance to preach that being a Christian is not about voting republican or having a conservative ideology; it's about following Christ and obeying His commands. Instead, they're standing for Donald Trump.

It is wrong of him to talk about women the way he does -- and continues to do. He still says disparaging things about women. It wasn't "locker room talk" that happened ten years ago. Trump's most recent interviews with Howard Stern were two years ago, boasting about his conquests in bed and judging the bodies of famous women like he's walking through a meat market. In addition to these instances of his unabashed lewdness, you hear his disparaging comments about women in his everyday speech. Last week he denied hitting on a reporter from People Magazine, and his alibi was she was ugly.

And he still has the gall to say, "No one has more respect for women than I do." He said it in the debate last week, and he said it on Twitter over the weekend. This is not a repentant man. An apology that includes the words, "This is nothing more than a distraction," while attacking your opponent's actions as being worse is not an apology. I am personally offended that anyone would actually defend Trump's self-proclaimed "respect" for women.

I am a husband with a wonderful, beautiful wife and the father of three adorable children (one more on the way). Two of my kids are girls. I do not take lightly the comments of any man who boasts about sleeping with another man's wife, or would devalue my daughters because they're female and would think even less of them if they couldn't win a beauty pageant. That is not pro-life. That is appalling.

The man is a strip-club owner, a serial adulterer, a racist, a gambler, and a bully, arrogant and godless. He has personally invested in things and ideologies and practices that open the door for abortions, not close the door on them. To be pro-life means more than just hating the idea of abortion (and I don't think Trump even goes that far). It means valuing life. All life. Every sex, race, and age, able-bodied or disabled, from conception to natural death.

Picking and choosing parts of Donald Trump to compare with parts of biblical characters is dangerous. Peter said the ignorant and unstable twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). It also leads others astray. It teaches those who don't know much about the Scriptures that we can bend the Bible to mean anything we want it to mean and excuse virtually any kind of behavior.

If we can find a biblical reason to shrug at adultery, misogyny, compulsive gambling, bullying, coarse speech, and a litany of other sins Trump gets away with, then we don't need the Bible. Not only is its truth suspect, the Bible can't even be considered a moral book if it allows for immoral behavior.

This is also unloving toward Donald. Rather than confronting a man and holding him accountable, preaching the gospel that saves, false teachers are waving him off and saying, "Meh, David did the same thing. Samson did that, too. Hey, Paul and Nebuchadnezzar used to kill believers!" All of those men were repentant. Donald Trump is not. Would you rather Donald Trump perish in his sins just so Hillary Clinton won't become president?

The Bible says that God hates sin (Psalm 5:4-6, Proverbs 6:16-19, Revelation 3:16). Among those sins that God hates is perverted speech (Proverbs 8:13), of which Trump has no lack. The Bible says, "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them" (Ephesians 4:6-7).

Those who are sexually immoral, impure, sensual, idolatrous, divisive, bitter, jealous, driven to fits of anger, revel in rivalry, dissensions, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21). The cowardly, faithless, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars will be thrown into the lake of fire forever (Revelation 21:8).

But Jesus Christ died for all sin. There is not a sin He won't forgive. Whoever believes in Him will be forgiven their sins, for Christ has died in our place and satisfied the wrath of God. But understand me here: the grace of our Lord is never, ever an excuse to sin. As Paul said, how can we who have died to sin and are alive in Christ continue to live in sin (Romans 6:2)? We would still be enslaved to our sin if that were the case. John said if we say we have fellowship with God while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth (1 John 1:6).

Those who hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, who turn from worldliness and sinful passions to follow Jesus, will confirm their calling and election with virtue, growing in the knowledge of God and His word, will be self-controlled, steadfast in the faith, living godly lives, showing brotherly affection and love for one another. "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:3-11).

So again, Donald Trump is not David or Solomon, Paul or Samson, Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus. He's Donald Trump. He needs to be held accountable for Donald Trump's sins, told to repent and believe in Christ Jesus the Lord. By the way, the same goes for Hillary Clinton, also a foul-mouthed, baby-killing, racist woman-hater. She needs to repent for her own sins, too; to be wretched and mourn and weep (James 4:9), and believe in Christ as Savior and King.

This has been a deplorable election. But I believe God in His Sovereignty is not done. I pray that in the midst of such immorality He is raising up moral and godly men and women, who stand upon principled and biblical truth, who are not afraid to speak up, call evil evil, and promote what is good and righteous in the eyes of God. It is when the night is darkest that such stars tend to shine out the brightest (Matthew 5:14-16, Philippians 2:14-16).

I'm a small government guy, so I'm going to start with some small government advice. Pastors, might I recommend that you go grab your local paper and find out who won your local elections? Then write to those candidates congratulating them on their win. No matter who they are, they have received their appointment by God (Romans 13:1). Tell them you're praying for them, share a little gospel, and invite them to contact you if they need anything.

It just has to be one page. Put it on church letter-head. I'm planning on doing this and including signatures from all of the elders. It shows this came not just from the pastor, but from the leadership of a whole church of fellow citizens. If you need any help with how to address your elected officials honorably, see how Paul does it in Acts 20-28.

I've shared some election thoughts on the podcast every day this week so far. Today in our Old Testament study of 1 Samuel, it is of no coincidence that we arrived at chapters 10-12, featuring Saul's anointing as king and Samuel's farewell address to Israel. If you have half-an-hour, click here to listen. It's relevant to our current situation in our country.

The following are some other post-election thoughts...

There is now no excuse not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
For the first time since the 1920s, the republicans have control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We are going to find out within the first two years of Trump's presidency whether or not Trump and the republican party are truly serious about stopping abortion. We're also going to find out within the first two years whether or not evangelicals are truly serious about it, and will hold them to their word.

I understand that these things need to be done strategically. The republicans might want to wait until Trump has picked a pro-life judge to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court. That way, if the bill ends up in front of the Supreme Court, there's a 5-vote conservative majority that will uphold the measure. It was a tyrannical Supreme Court that enacted Roe v. Wade. It will take a constitutional Supreme Court to overturn it. Again, that is if the republicans and their constituency are true to their word. We'll find out in the days ahead.

It's absolutely crazy that after the Planned Parenthood videos that surfaced last year, showing what happens in PP back rooms, dissecting children and selling their body parts, nothing was done to cut funding from Planned Parenthood (at least on the federal level). When Donald Trump has said things like Planned Parenthood does good work, a comment that PP president Cecile Richards praised, it doesn't leave me terribly hopeful. I'd like to be proven wrong.

The election of Donald Trump is not God's blessing on our nation.
Yesterday, a fellow on Twitter named Dean asked Dr. James White this question: "Just curious. Are we still under the judgment of God? So much winning is happening. Just curious." It was a snide jab at Dr. White's recent comments that our two morally bankrupt candidates, Trump and Hillary, were evidence of the wrath of God on an increasingly godless culture.

Dr. White responded with the following:

I confess, I am utterly shocked that a Christian could, even snidely, ask the question. What has changed? Are there any less abortions being done today? How many people voted the way they did because of repentance from the culture of death? How many voted as they did simply because they want more money in their pockets?  

Do forgive me if I just have missed it, but where is the outpouring of repentance? Where is the evidence of a ground-swell of bowing to the Lordship of Christ? I am hearing a lot of talking on TV about what this election means, but these are the same folks who were clueless about what was going to happen in the first place. Almost no one is admitting the basic fact that this election, as far as the Presidency was concerned, was a nose-holding contest as to who was the least repulsive to the populace. The idea that this shows some major "paradigm shift" or all the rest seems to me to be pie-in-the-sky thinking.  

In any case, just what is this "winning" that is going on? Hearts changed? God’s law honored? World-view reformation taking place? Where? One of two very, very poor candidates was going to win and, shockingly, one did! And this somehow means God is now smiling upon the United States and all the evidence of the Millennials collapse into a secular worldview and the love of immorality and abortion and homosexuality and the profaning of marriage and the greed and all that just disappeared over night due to a single election? Seriously?  

I am very, very concerned for anyone who can be so disconnected from a biblical worldview as to think this election signals some kind of removal of the judgment of God upon a sinful and rebellious people. We were not given a corrupt, anti-Christian socialist for a President—we instead were given a corrupt pseudo-Christian demagogue for a President. You tell me if that signals the removal of God’s wrath upon this nation.  

I do pray God will bless this nation—with repentance and the clarion preaching of the gospel that calls for men and women to repent and believe. I pray God will change Donald Trump’s heart, free him from the pseudo-religion he has professed, and bring him to repentance for all of his infidelity and proud immorality. I would love to see a road-block placed in the speeding train of socialism and secularism, and the freedom to continue to preach boldly protected. It could happen. I pray it does.  

However, it might not as well. We could find out that the man who shows no fidelity in his personal relationships will turn out to be the same in his public activities. And if it all comes tumbling down over the next four years, I wonder what you will be saying then? So a serious answer to a clearly snide inquiry: yes, we are, and if you can’t see it, you are not looking with eyes enlightened by biblical truth.

Dr. White said elsewhere, "I really, really, really wish [the rejection of Hillary Clinton] was due to a ground-swell of righteousness in the land and a rejection of the culture of death, but alas, I don't think that had anything to do with it at all."

It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Donald Trump won the electoral college, but Hillary Clinton won the popular election by about 300,000 votes. Perhaps you've seen the CNN video of the irate young man-on-the-street angrily calling upon Hillary to march into the Supreme Court and sue the United States because she won the popular vote and deserves to be president. (Shame on CNN for even giving that guy a microphone.)

There are conservatives in largely blue states that don't even bother voting. Because their state is so liberal, their vote can't change anything. Likewise, the opposite is true. There are states that are so conservative (my red state of Kansas, for example) that many liberals don't bother showing up to vote. This is why, at the end of a national election in the United States, the "popular vote" is not a true showing of the will of the people.

California has what's called the Two Candidates Open Primary Act, which has been in effect since 2011. Basically, the two candidates that appear on a ballot for any state office or U.S. congressional office are the two most popular candidates no matter their party affiliation. So when you go to the ballot box in California, your choices are most likely between a democrat and a democrat rather than a democrat and a republican. That influences the vote even more left than it ordinarily would be.

The electoral college does more to hinder a candidate with regional rather than wide-spread appeal from becoming president. In other words, the south can't elect the president, or New York and California can't elect the president. Through the electoral college, it's more likely like the elected candidate is a true representative of the population than a candidate chosen simply by popular vote. You want that system in place, even if you disagree with the outcome.

The #NeverTrump protesters are, in part, Donald Trump's fault.
Trump, Obama, and Hillary have all shown grace the past couple of days in victory and defeat. Both Obama and Hillary have called for unity and a peaceful transference of power. But that's not how their constituency has responded. Protesters have taken to the streets saying that Trump is not their president. The protests are not all peaceful either. There's been rioting, looting, and violence. On social media, some people have lost their Darwin-loving minds. (I can't post any of the videos I've seen because they're laden with expletives.)

I've seen it said, "This is what happens in a culture where everyone gets a trophy." Perhaps Obama is somewhat to blame the way he's encouraged rioters in the past. Maybe even Hillary Clinton when it was uncovered a few weeks ago how her campaign recruited volunteers to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies. But the reaction of the Never-Trump protesters is also partly influenced by The Donald.

Remember in the last presidential debate, Trump was hesitant to say that he'd accept the outcome of the election when it was all over, suggesting that Hillary's victory might be the result of voter-fraud. This is also a man who is obsessed with getting revenge. We've seen during the campaign the way he reacted to Megyn Kelly and Alicia Machado. Trump threatened House speaker Paul Ryan that he'd "pay a big price" if Ryan didn't support him.

In his 2007 book Think Big, Trump said, "When people wrong you, go after those people, because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it. I always get even." In 2011, to the National Achievers Congress in Sydney Australia, he said, "Get even with people. If they get you, get them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it." The next year, he said it again: "One of the things you should do in terms of success: If somebody hits you, you've got to hit 'em back five times harder than they ever thought possible. You've got to get even. Get even."

Trump is not a man who has a reputation for bringing peace and unity. He is a poor sport who actively and openly encourages retaliation. We can expect more of this kind of a behavior, following the example of our Commander in Chief.

Melania Trump is a poor example for boys and girls.
If you thought Barack and Michelle Obama's fawning over Beyoncé was bad, this is the first time in American history you can find nude photos of the first lady of the United States (for heaven's sake, don't look that up). Neither Donald nor Melania are sorry or apologetic for any of this. Trump has openly boasted about the bodies of his wife and his daughters. This has the potential to increase indulgence in pornography, even among young boys and girls.

You know how boys can be. At school and in class, they'll be shown a video of the First Lady encouraging our youth in some way. Then the boys will be giggling about how they can look up nude photos of the First Lady on the internet. Girls will be fascinated by the First Lady and this interest among their male classmates, and they'll be tempted to practice some nude modeling themselves. They'll try it with their friends at slumber parties, and those photos will leak. I do mean to scare you. This is a very real and potential danger.

Regarding both of these points -- Trump inciting vengeful behavior and Melania's immodest behavior -- we must remember Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:8-10. "I desire that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works."

Parents, we must teach this to our children -- that our boys will know that lashing out in anger is not okay, and that our girls will know that true beauty is on the inside. We're raising our children in a culture where true godliness is going to look way different than that attitudes of the people around us.

Donald Trump is our next president, and we must pray for him.
There are a lot of things to not like about our incoming president. But we must respect him and we must pray for him because he's our president. Romans 13:1 says, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Peter said, "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17). Paul said to Timothy, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

The Prophet Samuel said, "Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you" (1 Samuel 12:23). So we must respect and pray for our nation's elected leaders. We must pray that they would turn from sin to Jesus Christ and be saved. To not do so would be a sin against our Sovereign Lord.

Let us not lose hope or fall into despair. We as Christians were always supposed to be strangers in this world anyway. This was never supposed to be easy. Lift your heads. Look toward the King of heaven. Our God is still on his throne. I am still as in love with God today as I was yesterday. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Praise His holy name!

It's late as I'm writing this. I just finished an article from someone -- a sound teacher, plenty of credentials, reputable website -- offering five points in a tidy little acronym for how to fight a porn addiction. Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing. I browsed it. I read the main points in bold. I'm sure it was insightful and doctrinally sound. But it was over-thought and cute.

A porn addiction isn't cute. It's serious. Dead serious. With a capital D. As in, if you don't stop this, it will kill you. When it comes to looking at porn, there's a simple solution for ending this lurid obsession with the flesh. You won't even have to take notes or remember a cutesy acronym. Here it is:

Stop looking at porn.

It's that simple, and you know it. You know what you're doing is evil. You know God hates it. You know He is going to judge all the sexually immoral and throw them in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. Because of what you're doing, you're qualified to be among that lot. You will go to hell for this if you don't repent. You know it.

Unless, of course -- God forbid -- you've become so enslaved by your lust that you don't know it's wrong anymore. You've reasoned it as being okay. Just a thing. Not hurting anyone. It's not actually sex. It's not actually adultery. There are worse things you could be doing. No big deal. In which case God has already turned you over to a debased mind to be devoured and destroyed by your passions. You've suppressed the truth with unrighteousness. God save you.

But if that part of you, by the Holy Spirit of God, is still convicted by this sin and you know you need to stop, then you need to hear me. Stop. You know it's evil, demonic, satanic, and you know that you need to end it. So end it. Right now. Cold turkey. Just stop. Stop looking at porn.

Easier said that done, right? You've tried before. It didn't work. You went right back to looking at porn again. Do you know why? Because you don't really want to stop. Because you'd rather look at naked women on a screen than worship God. Point blank, that's your problem.

You like the feeling of watching sex and masturbating more than you enjoy worshiping God. Ultimately, that's what's going to destroy you -- idol worship. You worship something else, something you don't want to stop doing, more than God. You are bowing to an idol, sacrificing on an altar to a false god.

There's really no difference between what you're doing and the what the pagans did. They had fertility gods and sex gods and goddesses. They built temples for them. Employed at those temples were priestess prostitutes with whom they would have sex on altars to made-up gods. Well, in your porn habit, you've raised up such an altar and are sacrificing on it with prostitutes. You're doing the same thing. You yourself are acting as a whore, cheating on the God who gave His Son to die for your sin.

Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery with her in your heart (Matthew 5:28). You know that verse. Sermon on the Mount stuff, right? You've heard it before. But you still think it's just not that big a deal. Do you know what will happen if you don't repent? You'll be among those at the final judgment who are crying out to Him, "Lord! Lord!" but He says to you, "I never knew you. Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:21-23).

I think you know what you should be doing, but I'm going to tell you anyway. It is the power of the gospel that saves, and faith comes by hearing. So here's what you should do: When you are tempted to look at porn, you worship God instead. The more the temptation seizes you, the more you pray, call on His name, sing His praises, worship God. Be in the Bible and let His word govern your heart. Beg for His mercy. Cry out for deliverance. And He will give it to you.

Fall on the ground. Bawl your eyes out if you have to. Be wretched, mourn, and weep. Worship God. You stop the awful, filthy, disgusting habit you've been doing and you behold the beautiful love, grace, and mercy of God, given to us through His Son Jesus Christ, who paid for sins such as these with His own blood, who resurrected us from death and darkness into His life and marvelous light. Repent. Worship Him.

Is your computer too tempting? Get rid of it. "But I need it to pay bills!" Write checks. Images popping up on your smart phone? Throw it away. "But I need it to make phone calls!" They still make landlines and cordless phones. Get one of those. Are there television programs that tempt you? Get rid of your TV. "But football!" Well, that might be an idol too, then.

Can't keep your eyes off those risque Netflix shows? Cancel your subscription. "But my wife loves Netflix!" Then you explain it to her. You apologize for your adultery. You beg for her forgiveness. You tell her this is your fault. You make sure she knows it's not hers. She's going to feel betrayed, lied to, cheated on. And she's right: you've betrayed, lied, and cheated. You've had affairs with other women. Countless women. And you don't even know who they are.

You've still got to tell her. You must be honest with her. For your body doesn't belong to just you. It belongs to her also. And this is what you've done with it. No matter how long it takes, you aspire to win back this woman's trust. Tell her you're willing to do anything possible to never be overtaken by this sin again. Lay your life down for her. Sacrifice yourself for her.

If you're a single man, you are no less off the hook. Your porn addiction is still sin before a holy and righteous God. It will destroy you if you don't repent. You do everything you have to do to remove it from your eyes. If your eye causes you to sin, then you cut it out and throw it away. It's better to lose a member of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell (Matthew 5:29).

Are your friends bad influences? Get new friends. Is your church cool with this kind of sin? Then you get a new church. Go where the gospel is preached, and go often. Confess to brothers in Christ who know how to pray for you and admonish you and hold you accountable. These are brothers who love you. "Let a righteous man strike me -- it is a kindness. Let him rebuke me -- it is oil for my head. Let my head not refuse it" (Psalm 141:5).

Pray for a heart that is convicted by sin. Do not ever let this overtake you again. Be a new man in Christ. You are a new creation -- the old is gone, the new has come. Worship, worship, worship Christ the King! For He has dealt bountifully with you. He did not destroy you when you were an enemy of God, worshiping things other than God. He was patient toward you, not wanting you to perish, but to come to repentance.

Take it from someone who knows. I'm guilty of this sin. By the grace of God, He didn't destroy me in it. I've been washed, I've been sanctified, I've been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. I'm still being sanctified. I'm still being shaped into the image of His Son, growing in righteousness and holiness. I will not complete this process until the day I enter into glory with Him.

I want to submit myself fully to God -- mind and body -- as we are instructed to do in the Scriptures: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

Ask God for a new mind and He will give it to you. Ask Him for a new heart and it will be yours. Ask Him for forgiveness and He is faithful and just to cleanse you from all unrighteousness, according to the sacrifice of Christ and the shedding of His blood on our behalf.

Then go. And sin no more.