Legalize Gay Marriage? Sure. Embrace It? No.

Currently the Supreme Court is debating a case which has been called “the Roe vs. Wade of marriage” and which concerns Ohio’s ban on gay marriage. If Ohio’s ban is lifted, this may lead to federal legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states.

Fine. Do it.

If our society is at this point, making it legal or illegal won’t make a difference in the level of immorality. The root of the problem is in society, not in the laws. As Christians, we really need to wake up and realize that we can’t legislate godly lifestyles. So if that’s what our society wants, then that’s their vote; legalize it.

Would I support that decision, as a Christian? No, for a variety of reasons. The homosexual lifestyle is incredibly damaging to health. Children raised by gay or lesbian couples miss out on having a mom or a dad. Worst of all, rebelling against God’s design invites God’s judgment. Romans 1 talks about this:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them…For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another… Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice.”

Seems harsh? Well, yes. Truth isn’t always easy to swallow. What this passage (which I recommend you read in full) is describing is what it looks like when humans reject God; God says, “Okay!” and they get what they think they want, which is life devoid of God, his design, and his goodness. Sometimes the worst consequence God can give us is letting us go our own sinful way.

Does this mean it’s time to get our signs and join Westboro in hateful demonstrations? Good heavens, NO! God doesn’t like giving out judgment, but his just nature demands that punishment be dealt out for sins. He is sad when people choose selfishness instead of him, but because he loves us and respects our free will, he’s not going to force his goodness on people who don’t want it.

So how can we, as Christ’s ambassadors, respond to homosexuality?

We’ve got a few options:

- Join Westboro picketers (see above)

- Completely avoid the topic, and rightfully earn the label “homophobe”

- Embrace homosexuality in the church

- Address the issue with grace and truth

Avoiding the issue is immature and cowardly, while embracing homosexuality as acceptable disregards the truth and, when you consider the consequences, not very loving. But finding the balance of grace and truth can be difficult for many.

A story may help here.

---

At dawn Jesus appeared again in front of the church, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The seminary professors and fundamentalists brought in a woman caught in homosexual behavior. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of sodomy. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the concrete with some chalk. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

Well, what do you think?

“Hey, she just took that one passage of debatable reliability out of John and changed a few words to make it more modern.”

Or perhaps you’re thinking I’m a heretic for making the issue Jesus dealt with homosexuality instead of adultery. I shall counter that with the fact that both call for the death penalty in the Mosaic Law, and both are sexual sins. The point is that while Jesus let her go, he told her at the end to leave her life of sin. He didn’t tell her that what she did was okay, he just made it clear that she wouldn’t be condemned for it. Jesus showed the adulteress mercy and called her to make different choices. He gave her a chance for repentance and redemption.

We don’t need to condemn sinners, fortunately, or we’d be too busy pointing fingers at each other; condemnation is God’s job. However, as Christians, we are to be the salt of the earth, and part of that duty is to exhort sinners to repent. We certainly should vote no on legalizing gay marriage, if that is our conviction, but we must recognize that if the votes are cast and the majority says yes, there’s a bigger problem that runs deeper than our state legislatures. Let us therefore go out and make disciples, and be a city on a hill shining with the hope that comes from the Lord.

Thoughts on Godly Romance, Part 4: Back to the Source

High school sweethearts, ready for prom!

Part 1: Courtship? More Like Legalism!
Part 2: Dealing With the Reality of Sin
Part 3: Putting Romance In Its Place

Amazed at how extreme Umstattd’s post was, I dusted off my copy of Harris’ infamous book and reread it. I am now under the impression that Umstattd and his circle of courters read mainly the title and skimmed a few pages in the book, then promptly left most of it unread, because nowhere in the entire 230-page book does Joshua Harris advocate no dating, or dating only in groups or with chaperones. In fact, at the very beginning (on page 13), he makes two things abundantly clear:

“1. I do not believe that dating is sinful. Some people have sinned as a result of dating, but I don’t think anyone can accurately say that dating in and of itself is a sinful activity.”

“2. Rejecting typical dating does not mean you’ll never spend time alone with a guy or a girl. There’s a difference between the act of going on a date and dating as a way of thinking about and approaching romantic relationships…I won’t say that it’s never appropriate to spend time alone with someone. At the right time in a relationship, if the motive is clear and the setting avoids temptation, going on a date can be healthy.”

Joshua Harris does not advocate an impractical theory of how to go from zero to married happily ever after; rather, he approaches romance with God’s design of marriage in mind. God didn’t make men and women for recreational relationships. (Tweet this.) The world may not know that, but Christians do (at least, they should). As a result, the way we handle romantic pursuits should reflect sobriety and respect for the other person as well as for God and his commands. This is not to say that Christian romance is full of dour-faced theologians who regard one another coolly; rather, it lacks the flippancy and selfishness that is all too common in the world’s cheap knockoff of romance. The latter is full of broken hearts and confusion, but the former should be filled with joy. I shall go so far as to say that kind of joy can only thrive in a relationship that begins with soberly placing it under the submission of Christ. (Tweet this.)

I say this simply because it’s what I’ve experienced. I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye in middle school. Being a middle schooler, I took an imbalanced interpretation of it similar to Umstattd’s, though by high school I was concerned with other things and mostly forgot about it. When a good guy friend asked me out at the end of our junior year, I said no initially, and then proceeded to grill him. For weeks. I asked him what he believed about God, about the Bible, about marriage, about courtship, about family, about career, about his character. I had figured that by that point, our friendship was strong enough to withstand such a thing, though looking back I’m surprised I didn’t scare him off. I tend to be pretty blunt, especially with questions like those. Anyway, we’ve been dating for a couple of years now with the intent of marriage and all is, for the most part, well.

In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Joshua Harris identifies what he calls “the seven habits of highly defective dating.” I agree with what he says, and I shall share my own experience in dealing with each of them:

“1. Dating leads to intimacy but not necessarily commitment.”

Shortly before my dear friend ever asked me out, I’d decided I was done giving my heart away to guys who didn’t reciprocate my feelings. What does giving your heart away look like? You might think it’s only when you’re spending all your conversations gushing about your feelings, but it’s much simpler and subtler than that. I spent a great deal of time in my early teens obsessing over my crushes. I thought about them all the time, hyperanalyzed anything and everything they said to me, and wrote stupid letters explaining how I felt. Unfortunately, a few of those actually got delivered (I think).

So by the time my junior year was starting to wrap up, I realized how much emotional energy I was wasting and decided that whoever I might end up dating had to make the first move AND had to be of godly character. He also had to have the intent of finding out whether or not we were fit to be married to each other in dating; I didn’t think dating for fun would be conducive to guarding my heart. So when my dear friend broached the area of romance, I made sure he had the goal of marriage in mind before I agreed to date him.

“2. Dating tends to skip the ‘friendship’ stage of a relationship.”

I had no problem there; we became good friends over the course of a year, having many things in common and having most of our classes together every day. Personally, I’m not sure how you can find anyone dateable until after you know a few things about their personality and character.

“3. Dating often mistakes a physical relationship for love.”

Which is why at the very beginning we agreed on a hands-off approach until we were married. Now that we’re further on and progressing in our relationship, we’ve determined that kisses are ok when we’re engaged.

This is important because of brain chemistry. When you start a new relationship, your brain goes into infatuation mode for about 12-18 months. During this time, you see the person through rose-colored glasses. If you ramp up physical involvement early on, your judgment becomes even more clouded and those rose-colored glasses start filtering out red flags.

“4. Dating often isolates a couple from other vital relationships.”

This had the opposite effect for me; I became good friends with some of the people my sweetheart knew and my current friendships got stronger, partly because dating this particular fellow helped me realize that I’d learned some unhealthy relationship dynamics while I was growing up. I also found his mother a delightful Christian lady who has been a positive influence in my life. Regarding my own parents, they chose not to get too involved; when asking my dad if I was allowed to date or not, he said, “I don’t care; do whatever you want.” (That made me realize that I was an adult who was directly accountable to God. Then I realized what it meant to fear the Lord.)

Anyway, all this had to do with intentionality. If I had only dated him so that I might have a shot at fulfilling my hopes for a fairytale, I would have focused entirely on him and everything else would have been irrelevant to me. However, I wanted to know more about his character, so I got to know his family and friends, to see what sort of people he hung out with. I asked his mom how he treated her, and whether or not he was the same person at home that he was at school.

“5. Dating, in many cases, distracts young adults from their primary responsibility of preparing for their future.”

I would say that, marriage being part of most people’s adulthood, finding a suitable spouse is an important part of preparing for that future.

That being said, it was the prospect of marriage that made me, a college dropout, wake up and realize, “Agh! I need to get a job!” Weddings are expensive, and so is the cost of living apart from your parents.

“6. Dating can cause discontentment with God’s gift of singleness.”

Hm. We are created to have a lifelong companion in marriage; as I’ve gotten older and college and the working life has brought distance to many of my friendships, I find myself grateful that God offers us such a gift. At the same time, there is much freedom to be had in singleness. I can serve others more freely because I don’t have a husband to be home for or a family to take care of. Knowing that there may be only two or three years left before I marry has got me in service mode: I’ve only got a limited amount of time that I can freely give without the priority of a spouse, so I’ve launched myself into serving my church’s youth group. I can stay late nights cleaning up after a bunch of teenagers because I don’t have a husband who would like to see me after a hard day of work; likewise, I can go on mission trips easily because I don’t have a family who will sorely miss my presence for practical and social reasons.

“7. Dating creates an artificial environment for evaluating another person’s character.”

Again, we were friends before we considered each other romantically, so we never had the issue of putting on our best face when around the other person. I have also observed that homeschooled kids are more vulnerable and wear their heart on their sleeve, while public schoolers, due to the harsher social environment they live in, are much harder to get to know because they are so used to putting up a protective barrier between themselves and others. As former homeschoolers, my sweetheart and I are pretty open about how we think and feel about things.

I have a wonderful relationship with my high school sweetheart and couldn’t ask God for anything more. However, the reason for our strong relationship is not because we read books like I Kissed Dating Goodbye and applied its message religiously to our lives, but because we looked to the Creator of romance for guidance. When you submit yourself to Christ’s lordship and seek to please him in the way you live your life, you reap the blessings of obedience. (Tweet this.)

Thoughts on Godly Romance Part 3: Putting Romance In Its Place

Part 1: Courtship? More Like Legalism!

Part 2: Dealing With the Reality of Sin

The third and final issue I shall address is that of making marriage more important than it actually is. This problem isn’t isolated in Umstattd’s post, but he certainly takes this problem to an even higher degree than I have ever seen. I wonder if his personality is the sort to exaggerate things.

He puts this things he calls ‘Traditional Dating’ on a pedestal, making it out to be the panacea of our apparently courtship-ridden society. Here is what he says:

“We need a system to help young people make good decisions. Fortunately, we have one: Traditional Dating.”

“There is nothing new under the sun and no new temptation that is not already common to man. This is not the first time Christians have lived in a sexualized culture. If you study history, you will find that this actually happens often. In each of those generations God provided a way out. I believe that for our generation that way is Traditional Dating.”

“Find a church with lots of single people. There are still churches out there with a healthy culture of traditional dating. If no one in your church got married last year, don’t expect to break that trend. You can always move back to your parent’s church after you find your sweetheart.”

Dating does not help people make good decisions. The vast majority of the highly-divorced Generation X dated before they married. They still decided to divorce, over things like ‘irreconcilable differences.’ Regarding moral decisions, many of the dating couples I know have not made God-honoring choices, which led to a breakdown in their relationship.

Good choices are rooted in conviction and the will, not in dating, and are guided by prayer and Scriptural truth. (Tweet this.) “Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus,” Paul wrote to the Romans. “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death of life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.” Saying that ‘Traditional Dating’ is a system that helps people make good choices is just…immature.

I agree, this is not the first time Christians have lived in a sexualized culture. In fact, the church in Corinth had to deal with much the same environment we have now. You know what Paul told them? GET MARRIED. Not ‘date around to find out what sort of person you want to marry.’ Not ‘stay non-exclusive to avoid temptation’ (that would have been scandalous). Not ‘embrace courtship and have a ton of chaperones and group dates.’ Get. Married. How’s that for ramping up the intensity? And then he warns married couples not to deprive each other except when they both agree to ‘fast’ from sex for prayer, lest they be tempted.

Our way out of temptation is Christ. (Tweet this.) God himself sacrificed his own life so that we would be free from sin. To say that ‘Traditional Dating’ is the way out of sin elevates it to the level of salvation and reflects a view that holds the work of Christ on the cross in contempt. Did Christ come for nothing? Was he crucified for nothing? Are we redeemed for nothing? Apparently, since ‘Traditional Dating’ is all we need to escape our sin nature.

It’s nice to know that serving the body of Christ doesn’t have to be our priority when we go to church. Instead, we can shop around churches a bit if we don’t like the singles pool at the church we grew up in. At least, that’s what Umstattd implies. I shall reiterate, since that was quite a few paragraphs ago:

“Find a church with lots of single people. There are still churches out there with a healthy culture of traditional dating. If no one in your church got married last year, don’t expect to break that trend. You can always move back to your parent’s church after you find your sweetheart.”

For the love of all that is sacred, NO! There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. Firstly, church is not a singles mixer. Not ever. It is a priesthood of believers. (Tweet this.) Secondly, how has it been established that ‘Traditional Dating’ is a healthy thing? One may argue that it is what paved the way for our hookup culture to take over.

Thirdly, trends change all the time and to say that you shouldn’t expect to get married just because other people didn’t is really discouraging as well as illogical. Should I not expect to remain a virgin until my wedding just because other people didn’t? Should I not expect to remain married to only one person for the rest of my life just because other people didn’t? People have a will to exercise and choices to make. Marriage is something you pursue, not something you expect God to dish out to you while you sit around doing nothing except extolling the virtues of dating/courtship. (Tweet this.) I am beginning to wonder if Umstattd was taught that waiting on God means a passive approach to life, because passivity is what I’m sensing here. Earlier in his blog post he says that “Bible-reading, small-grouping, mission-tripping Christian young people [are] common in evangelical churches,” which I take to mean that they are common in the church he grew up in. So out of that pool, why hasn’t he just chosen a girl of good Christian character to pursue?

Fourthly, church-hopping to find a spouse to take back to your home church is just selfish. You’re leaving an opportunity to serve your congregation in order to (maybe) serve temporarily at another church until you’ve attracted and married a spouse, which leaves a gap wherever you had found a role in either church and takes a servant (your spouse) away from their ministry in their home church. And if neither of you were ministering in either of your congregations, then that is a different problem to be addressed in an entirely different post.

I understand that twentysomething singles struggle with loneliness. That is normal. Many thirtysomething singles struggle with that too. That is to be expected. But just because we are designed for companionship with a spouse does not mean we should put marriage on a pedestal. God created us first and foremost to seek and worship him. (Tweet this.)

A single person may fall into the trap of thinking that their needs will be fulfilled by a spouse. If that is how you think, here are some hard truths for you to consider: your needs don’t go away in a relationship, they just change; if you really have that expectation on your spouse, you are putting an impossible burden on them; and if you are relying on your spouse and not God to satisfy your heart, you will never find satisfaction.

Am I being too blunt? Fine. Such is the nature of difficult truths.

Think of loneliness as an opportunity to draw yourself closer to God. Singleness also has the advantage of more freedom. If you think you want to see the world, go on mission trips. If you want to serve others in your church, you can afford to be generous with your time. Part of dying to self is that we don’t wallow in ‘woe is me,’ but rather choose to act above how we feel in order to obey and serve the Lord. Marriage has its purpose, but we need to put it in its place as a gift from God that we might sacrifice in order to advance God’s kingdom.

Thoughts on Godly Romance Part 2: Dealing With the Reality of Sin

Read Part 1 here.

I have already addressed in my introductory post the problem of Umstattd’s legalistic approach to romance and now must move on to the problem of his naivete, which is so strong that he has completely failed at creating a practical approach applicable to today’s immoral culture. His ‘arguments’ are just assumptions based on anecdotes. Let us examine them here.

“My grandmother grew up in a marginally Christian community. People went to church on Sunday but that was the extent of their religious activity. They were not the Bible-reading, small-grouping, mission-tripping Christian young people common in evangelical churches today.”

Common? Do you seriously think that today’s generation of church kids are any more pious than previous generations? Your grandmother grew up in a culture where Judeo-Christian mores were still comfortably embraced in everyday life, good sir. Sexual immorality was scandalous, a thing unheard of in everyday life. Today I see it every time I look through my Facebook feed, and it’s normal. I can’t speak to specifically Umstattd’s sheltered homeschool community, but I can speak about what I have observed in life and in the media about where our American society is, and it is not even marginally Christian. Moral relativism is found in abundance, and for many people, being a Christian is a Sunday morning thing.

In a section subtitled “Advantages of Traditional Dating,” Umstattd lists several points that I suppose are supposed to be arguments, but in which practical logic is absent. I’ll address the points on temptation, heartbreak, and the institution of marriage.

“Less Temptation – It is hard to fall in love with Bob on Tuesday when you know you are going out for coffee with Bill on Thursday. This lack of emotional commitment leads to less physical temptation. Less temptation leads to less compromise. I have no idea how women are supposed to guard their hearts while in an exclusive relationship with the purpose of marriage.”

“Less Heartbreak – One of the promises of courtship is that it can lead to less heartbreak than dating. I laugh at this to keep myself from crying. This could not be further from the truth. Calling off a courtship can be as emotionally wrenching as calling off an engagement. It can take years to recover from a ‘failed courtship.’ Also let’s not also [sic] forget the emotional cost for girls of not being asked out year after year and the emotional cost for guys of being rejected by father after father.”

“More Fun – The institution of marriage is crumbling. Of the last two generations, one won’t get married and the other won’t stay married. A smaller percentage of people are married in America than at any other time. Part of what helps perpetuate the institution of marriage is making the process of getting married fun. My grandmother made dating in her day sound really fun. Courtship on the other hand can be awkward and emotionally heartwrenching. Dating also trains people to continue dating their spouse after they get married. It is important for married couples to be able to have fun with each other. The kind of parents who are the strongest advocates of courtship are often the ones who go on the fewest dates with each other.”

He claims that dating will reduce temptation, because apparently temptation to sin flourishes under the conditions of high relational intensity, exclusivity, and commitment. I suppose that criteria includes marriage as well. “It’s easier to justify promiscuity when you are exclusively committed to just one person, even if that commitment is only one week old.” Actually, it’s easier to justify promiscuity when you reject any notion of God, embrace the moral relativism that has infected our culture, and you believe you are an animal and it’s only natural to give in to sexual impulse. My generation doesn’t know much about commitment, having grown up with our divorced Gen X-er parents. The natural result of a lack of commitment and exclusivity is promiscuity; I’m not sure why Umstattd thinks that more of the former causes the latter, since promiscuity is by definition casual and indiscriminate – it is the antithesis of monogamy.

The devil doesn’t discriminate between daters and courters, and neither does our sin nature.(Tweet this.) Temptation exists regardless of how you live out the romance, and it will likely look a little different for everyone. I don’t expect Umstattd to understand this because he hasn’t actually gotten through a successful courting/dating/whatever phase; from what I’ve gathered, he’s only gone on a few awkward dates at most. Whether it’s temptation to sin sexually or temptation to stop trusting God with the relationship and take matters into your own hands, temptation is always present.

His assumption that dating causes less heartbreak than courtship is laughable at best and completely ridiculous at the worst. Based on my observations, people do not thrive emotionally and spiritually when they reject boundaries. Since dating, by Umstattd’s as well as everyone else’s definition, has far less formality than courting and therefore fewer ‘rules,’ it stands to reason that close relationships which develop out of that (inevitably they will, as male and female attract like magnets in early adulthood) will have less definition and fewer boundaries than the more formal courtship route.

Consider also what Lewis wrote: “To love at all is to be vulnerable.” If you choose to show love to anyone at all, that opens you up to potential hurt. If you show a deeper love to someone and you form a strong bond with them, as what will eventually happen with dating, how much more will that hurt if the two of you break up? Quite often what happens is that as the couple enters the infatuation phase, if they do not have their guard up they will quickly attach themselves to each other, and when a breakup comes it feels like an emotional divorce.

Speaking of divorce, Umstattd thinks that dating will help the institution of marriage. I’ll reiterate: “Part of what helps perpetuate the institution of marriage is making the process of getting married fun.” I will ask what should’ve been the obvious question when people came to that paragraph: The institution of marriage is crumbling in a dating culture and he thinks dating is the solution? (Tweet this.) He must be a rhetorical gymnast to make such a leap of logic. Furthermore, if you’re getting married for the fun of it, I will feel very sorry for you and your spouse when the first trial of life comes: one or both of you fall ill, morning sickness, financial woes, the challenge of raising children, distance that creeps in when you get to that phase where you’re both so busy it’s hard to connect…if you’re looking for fun, I suggest you visit an amusement park, not enter into a sacred covenant for better or for worse. I’m not saying that there’s no joy to be found in marriage, but the expectation that marriage is primarily for fun is pretty frivolous.

I don’t know what sort of practice Umstattd is presenting, but I find it extremely impractical. He does not address the realities of carrying out a God-honoring relationship in the midst of battling our sin nature, presumably because he’s never had a relationship in which to deal with those realities. He has failed to recognize that God has wired the brains of men and women in marvelous ways which ought not to be taken lightly in our interactions with the opposite sex (hint: a casual ‘traditional dating’ relationship will likely not stay casual for long if the couple has anything in common with each other). Above all, he does nothing to address what makes a successful lifelong relationship that progresses from dating/courtship through marriage and instead attributes divorce to courtship, which he speaks about as if it were mainstream.

I shall end this post with some Biblical directives for how to live: Love as Jesus loves you. Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it become more and more ungodly. Treat young men as brothers and young women as sisters, with absolute purity. Be imitators of God and live as children of light.

Thoughts on Godly Romance, Part 1: Courtship? More Like Legalism!

I recently had the singular experience of reading Thomas Umstattd’s long blog post on why dating is so superior to that fundamentally flawed institution known as courtship. Like me, he’s a former homeschooler, so I really, really wanted to like what he wrote, but there were a couple of things that disturbed me in his article. Here are a few:

-His legalistic approach to relationships

-His extreme naiveté about our hypersexualized culture

-His idolization of dating, even to the level of salvation

Those are the major things. There were also a few minor things that scared me, like the announcement at the end that said, “This post is turning into a book!”

There have been a couple of responses already written to Umstattd’s post, such as one by Scott Ross and another on Boundless, but none of the ones I read have addressed it from the perspective I am writing from. Let’s just dive right in to part one.

The first major problem I noticed was Umstattd’s strong legalism. In a response post, he later claimed that he does not advocate a legalistic approach to relationships. However, I must point out that he mentions nothing of consulting God through prayer in the process of finding a spouse, and he does not consult what the Scriptures say about marriage and how we ought to treat one another. Any approach lacking such an important relational element while attempting to maintain purity will eventually dissolve into legalism. (Tweet this.) Guess what? Legalism is one of the reasons he calls courtship ‘fundamentally flawed’:

“The deal was that if we put up with the rules and awkwardness of courtship now we could avoid the pain of divorce later. The whole point of courtship was to have a happy marriage, not a high divorce rate.”

Really? The whole point of courtship is to have a happy marriage? Not to serve God and submit your budding romance to his Lordship? There is no guarantee that a marriage may be happy. Personal baggage aside, difficulties regarding health, finances, and child-rearing may put inordinate amounts of strain on a marriage. A couple who is consciously choosing to submit to Christ and obey his command to love one another will have the grace to make it through the trials of life. A couple who enters such trials thinking that they earned their fairytale because they courted will be in for a sore awakening, and might not pass through unscathed.

And what is this about ‘putting up with rules’? Does his circle of courters have strict rules about things like kisses, holding hands, and how closely a chaperone has to follow them? And this is considered a godly relationship model? When you try to live out a godly relationship with rules set by anything other than Scripture and your own personal convictions, you are trying to make a relationship godly by your own power – NOT by relying on the power of Christ.

I submit to you that Umstattd’s approach to romance is fundamentally flawed. Rules do not a deep relationship make. (Tweet this.) This applies not just to romance but also to our relationship with God. Hosea 6:6 says “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.” God doesn’t want your church attendance, your good behavior, and 10% of your income; he wants you. The former can be given without the latter, but the latter cannot be given without also the former.

What, then is the correct approach? Find a mate who shares the same values with you; being equally yoked is certainly important to the longevity of any relationship. Pray about it. Most importantly, entrust it to God. He is the creator of romance, after all; he will breathe fire and life in the fairytale he’ll bring you, if you allow him to do so. This applies even if you are called to be celibate; profound relational intimacy with the Lord our God is something that many people desire but not many have.

“But are we allowed to kiss? Are we allowed to do _____ before we’re married?” you may ask.

You are asking the wrong questions. How about this:

“How can we serve God and each other? Can we kiss innocently or is that something that would hinder our sanctification and exercise of self-control?” Those are marginally better, though I can’t say they’re the ultimate.

How about this: “What is the unselfish choice?” Get yourself in the habit of asking that, and you will daily realize how much you must fight against the natural inclinations of your sin nature. I asked myself that after a dear friend and companion asked me out on a date. I realized that the only reasons I had for saying no were selfish ones regarding fear of possible heartbreak, and I had plenty of good reasons to say yes. Someone else may have selfish reasons to say yes and plenty of good reasons to say no. You can’t put a formula on following God, and that includes relationship choices. (Tweet this.)

Enough of rambling on this; I’ve got two more posts to write before I forget what points I was going to make in them.

A Call to Arms

Raphael's Vision of a Knight, depicting the ideal qualities of a knight.

Some time ago someone sent me a link to the video Virtue Makes You Beautiful. I remember thinking, “Wow, that’s really encouraging. I really am amazed at these young men.” Then I thought, “I bet they’re Mormon,” the underlying expectation being that teenage guys in the Christian church wouldn’t speak up in such a big way to their sisters.

So I find out a little later that they ARE Mormon, and I was a little shocked to realize that I had such low expectations for my brothers in Christ.

I’m tired of low expectations. I’m sure you are too. I don’t want to write yet another post verbally flogging young men for their shortcomings – real or perceived – and I don’t want to write yet another long, whiny rant about how there’s no more real men anywhere. The former is useless for edifying others (well, both are) and the latter is untrue.

Instead, this is a call to arms.

The Christian faith and practice may be rather soft and fluffy in this day and age, or at least in North America, but there’s plenty of blunt, martial imagery in the Bible about what it is to follow Christ. Now is the time to wake from slumber. “The night is far gone, the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light,” as Paul says in Romans.

Ephesians 6 describes in more detail our struggle:

“Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the Devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.”

As Christians, we are part of a great spiritual war. Did you notice there are no retreats? Look again: “stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” The war doesn’t go on only during the times someone makes fun of you for being a Christian; it’s not only when you go on a mission trip to a third-world country nor when you disagree with someone in your church. Every day is a battle, not only against our enemy’s schemes, but also against our own sin. Peter urges us believers to “abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.” Indeed! “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.”

“But mark this,” Paul writes to Timothy. “There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.”

Have nothing to do with them. Don’t be a part of their group. “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.”

It doesn’t take a fighter to give in to sin and selfishness. What does require a fighter is rising above ourselves to serve God in faith. The Lord’s army of saints needs you to join in battle against the devil and his schemes. Show yourself a workman of God, who correctly handles the word of truth; pray in the Spirit on all occasions, with all kinds of prayers and requests; walk as children of light and find out what pleases the Lord.

The night is far gone; the day is at hand. Prepare for battle!

Misunderstanding Mysticism

Buddha statue in Japan

What comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘mystic’?

For me: Eastern religions, occult, Buddhist monk in an ‘ommm’ pose

What about the word ‘mysticism’?

For me: abstract, too open to misinterpretation, lacking truth

Sadly, these associations reveal that I’ve grown up with a misunderstanding of the concept of mysticism, especially as it applies to Christianity.

“Mystic Christianity? Aren’t you getting into some weird stuff now?” you may be saying.

As far as I have gathered, a full Christian experience has three parts: theological, mystical, and practical. These three things involve the intellect, the personality, and the actions, respectively. If any of them are isolated and taken by themselves as the Christian experience, the follower is seriously missing out. A purely theological, or intellectual, experience of Christianity consists of learning the history and doctrines of Christian teaching. This is the sort of experience a non-Christian professor of world religions would have. The mystical experience consists of personal interactions with God, especially through prayer, and such an experience isolated from the other two doesn’t last long, as a personal encounter with God requires knowledge of doctrine (because as fallen creatures, we need to have some objective measure of truth to discern by, as our sin natures prevent us from accurate perceptions using our own understanding) and practice (because if one does not act on what the Holy Spirit convicts him of, he is ignoring God and therefore won’t be coming to a deeper understanding of who God is). Finally, a merely practical experience of Christianity becomes blind legalism on its own without personal conviction to guide it nor knowledge of Scriptures to measure what is truly right.

As this post is about mysticism, I will reiterate what I mentioned above as the definition of mysticism: a personal interaction with God. Paul Tillich, in A History of Christian Thought, cautions us: “Do not make the mistake of identifying this type of mysticism with the absolute or abstract mysticism in which the individual disappears in the abyss of the divine.”

What kind of mystical experiences are legitimate in Christianity? Let’s look to examples in Scripture. The simplest and most concrete of these is prayer. There are many examples as well as instructions for prayer in the Holy Bible, the most famous being the Lord’s Prayer. I could ramble on about what prayer is and isn’t, but I think most of you have some notion that it concerns direct communication with God, so I will save those ramblings for a different post.

Another mystical experience, common to pretty much every Christian (and every non-Christian who obeys their conscience – see Romans 2:14-15), is that of conviction. It’s that feeling of when you know you’ve done something wrong and need to make it right – and when you ought to do something right to serve God. Such convictions can be misdirected by our accusing Enemy, though, which is why we must check it against the light of Scripture. Philippians 4:8 is a good measuring rod.

Another type of mystical phenomenon is called speaking in tongues. There seem to be two different types shown in Scripture. The first is speaking in known earthly languages, as we see at Pentecost in Acts 2. The purpose of this sort is to expedite the spread of the Gospel to people groups who speak a different language. The other is discussed in 1 Corinthians 14 and seems to be a sort of prayer language that pours out of the human spirit, not understood by the human mind but by God. I highly encourage you to read the chapter and study it for yourself; it’s fascinating stuff.

There is an interesting phenomenon that Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 12. Speaking in the third person, he describes “a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.” There is much vagueness as to the nature of this vision; we find that this is intentional. “Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know – God knows. And I know that this man – whether in the body or part from the body I do not know, but God knows – was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.” From what I understand, a person who has such experiences is not to tell anyone else; such a revelation is not for the edification of the church, but for the edification of the individual believer and thus we are not to receive such knowledge secondhand.

Now then, what is one to do with all of these modern ideas found in different denominations? “I go to a Baptist church; we’d never do some of that crazy stuff.” “What are you talking about? That’s like, normal, at my Pentecostal church.” To address the validity of such viewpoints would take a whole ‘nother blog post, and frankly I’m not interested in that topic right now. My goal was to help clarify what a mystical experience in Christianity is, and if you come away thinking, “Huh, I never thought of prayer as a mystical experience,” then I have achieved my goal. If you proceed to experience a more vibrant prayer life and thus walk more closely with Christ because of your new perspective, then to God be the glory!

Fanboys and Fangirls

I used to be obsessed with Middle-Earth. As a fantasy writer, I wanted to create an entire world, and when I learned that Tolkien already did that – not just the world you see in The Lord of the Rings, but a whole mythos as well – I was fascinated. I still am fascinated today, but I’m no longer set on learning Sindarin. Don’t know what Sindarin is? I’ll tell you: it’s the mark of someone who knows a LOT about Tolkien. Elen sila lumenn omentielvo. I was a fan.

Did you know that “fan” is short for “fanatic”?

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

The dictionary on my tablet even has an entry for the word “fanboyism”: “blind, aggressive devotion.” Ouch. Not a label I would want. Why is this even a word? In this ‘enlightened age’ (*snark*) does “blind, aggressive devotion” have a place? The very fact that such a word exists is proof: obsession reigns in American society today. This is evident not only in the fandoms but in the “hatedoms” as well. You gotta love it or you gotta hate it; there’s no such thing as mere indifference. There are some diversions that have a polarized group of people who know about it, like Justin Bieber: there are people who are obsessed with him and people whose existence seems to revolve around bashing him (at least, it seems so if the topic comes up). Same for Twilight and the books that follow.

Why is obsession such a thing?

We’re looking to fill our empty lives.

When you set up Christ as the lord of your life, dying to your sinful desires and pursuing his will, he fulfills the deepest desires of your heart. Everything else in life is put in its proper place as secondary. Education, career, gaming, comics, Tolkien – what relevance do they hold to a follower of Christ? Only as much as they help further the kingdom of God and bring him glory.

After I started following Christ, fantasy stories went into their proper context. I no longer write as mere escapism, but as participation in what Tolkien termed ‘sub-creation’. I am made in the image of God, who is the Creator; activities that reflect his image bring him glory, so I write with that in mind.

You may recall the Lewis quote from my post on balanced faith. “All extremes, except extreme devotion to the Enemy, are to be encouraged,” writes Screwtape in his letter to a junior tempter. We are created to worship God with our whole being, and to dwell on whatever is pure, lovely, and admirable. When we reject his sovereignty in our lives, it leaves a big hole in our hearts that we strive to fill.

Let’s turn away fanboyism with an indifferent hand and devote our whole selves to God.

Balanced Ideas in Our Faith

“I had not forgotten my promise to consider whether we should make the patient an extreme patriot or an extreme pacifist. All extremes, except extreme devotion to the Enemy, are encouraged.” – The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

It seems that many bad ideas and heresies in the Christian faith come from a biblical concept that has been twisted too far in one direction or another. I’ve come to the conclusion that several seemingly dichotomous statements are really ends of a spectrum, and the truth is in the middle.

For example, free will and predestination. Are the two concepts a dichotomy, or ends of a spectrum? What is the correct belief about them?

Let’s go extreme in the direction of free will. Such a doctrine states that man chooses God, that we can lose our salvation. Pretty self-explanatory. But go too far, and you end up with Deism: God isn’t involved at all, and us humans determine what will happen to us. There are no such thing as miracles, and Jesus was not God in the flesh. What’s the point of prayer if God’s not involved?

On the other hand, predestination says that God chooses us, and that we can’t lose our salvation. But go too far and you dissolve man’s responsibility for sin; if we’re all predestined, then doesn’t that mean we’re cosmic puppets and that God scripts out sin for us so that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t pointless? And how is that a loving God if he doesn’t give us the choice to love Him? What’s the point of prayer if the answers are already laid out?

So the truth must be balanced, because clearly God is sovereign, and clearly man has personal responsibility for sin.

The main problem here is a question of predestination and how it relates to God’s sovereignty. After all, if God knows the future, then that means that the future is set, right?

I think this comes from a misunderstanding of how God perceives time. Remember, he is outside of time, which means that it’s not linear to him. I require another Lewis quote to explain this more clearly; here, in The Screwtape Letters, a demon is explaining to his nephew (a junior tempter), how humans perceive time compared to the spirits:

“…the Enemy does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded Now. And obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it.”

The concept of God experiencing all of Creation all at once while we experience it one event at a time – in other words, everything is in the present to God – kind of leaves the known-future-is-predestined argument wanting, as this argument puts God within the constraints of time and we know He is unbounded by it.

So how does God’s sovereignty relate to our free will? What’s the balance? I can’t say I know for certain, and I’m not much of one for philosophical debates (I’m all about what’s practical – if an idea isn’t true, it isn’t useful to me), but I do know that I have choices and choosing to obey God is a good choice. I also know that God is my Maker and is my sovereign Lord who loves me, so I should choose to obey God.

We see the Bible balancing itself in the matter of faith and works. Paul makes it clear that we are justified by faith in Christ and not by works. Later we see James support that, while we are not saved by our actions, faith is evidenced in what we do. “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” What terrible things happen when the church only focuses on one and forgets the other! On one end you get legalism – the idea that we need to earn our way into heaven – which leads into spiritual depression. At the other end you have what I shall call antinomianism, the idea that because we are saved by faith, we can reject all laws, including moral standards of our culture, and live however we want. “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”

We must be careful to examine the teachings we receive, always checking it against the Scriptures as the Bereans did in Acts 17. If a teaching logically leads to behavior that is not Christlike, we must check if it is a Scriptural concept, and if it is, see what other concepts are meant to go along with it to balance it out. Our enemy would love nothing more than to break the church up into factions over some unhealthy extremism.

Please Stop Hating on Muslims

Before I begin:

1. I am grieved by what the ISIS is doing to Christians. This post is not talking about them.

2. I believe ‘Chrislam’ is utter heresy. I’m sure there are many Muslims who would agree.

Speaking nothing but hatred for Muslims seems to be a fashionable thing to do in conservative circles. But my siblings in Christ, please don’t participate. It does nothing to advance the gospel, nothing to help the victims, and nothing to change the hearts of Muslims. If anything, it is the sort of response the devil is trying to provoke, as it builds a wall between followers of Christ and the unsaved, and it distracts us from living out what Jesus commanded us: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

“But are the Muslims really my neighbors?” you may wonder. Maybe not phrased as bluntly as that.

Let me tell you a story.

A homeless man was trying to find food and shelter when winter came. The rains made his clothes damp, the evening chill seeped into his bones, and the bitter north wind beat his face, leaving him thoroughly cold and half dead along the road. A priest happened to be driving down the same road, and when he saw the man, he avoided eye contact and accelerated past. So too, a church elder, when he came to the place and saw him, crossed the street and passed by on the other side. But a Muslim, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He got out of his car, went to him, and gave him balm for his chapped face. Then he brought the man into his warm car, took him to get some hot food, and after that went looking for a shelter where the homeless man could find the assistance he needed.

Which of these three was neighbor to the homeless man?

“Hey, all she did was tell the parable of the good Samaritan, except she changed everything to be modern.”

Yes, that’s exactly what I did.

“But there are no good Muslims,” say the intended audience. Maybe they don’t say it so bluntly, but the sentiment is still there. Funny, the Jewish society that Jesus lived in would’ve felt the same way about Samaritans, who were the descendants of Jews who intermarried with Gentiles. In Jesus’ parable, the priest and the Levite avoided the potentially dead victim because contact with a corpse would defile them, to great inconvenience and personal cost. However, the Samaritan investigates (he’s under the same defilement taboos as the Jews, BTW) at his inconvenience and personal risk (traveling with an injured person would’ve been slow-going, leaving them at risk of bandit attacks) in order to show some mercy to this battered body next to the road.

Not all Samaritans would be like that example, obviously. Some were quite violent against the Jews. However, Christians aren’t always loving and even-tempered, or even true followers of Christ; in any large group of people you will find a wide spectrum of character. There’s been great good done in Christ’s name, such as the casting out of demons, the caring for of orphans, and many, many meals cooked up for a sick friend. But there’s also been some extremely evil acts done in the name of our good Lord. The Catholic Church of the Renaissance era was extremely corrupt, and the Spanish Inquisition was a part of that. For a modern-day example, just look at Westboro Baptist Church. Not only do they not resemble Christendom in general, they aren’t even similar to other Baptists!

When someone devotes themselves to a cause that is apart from Christ, they will inevitably go down a destructive path, whether it’s Islam, atheism, environmentalism, activism, food, movies, or gaming. Just like everyone else, Muslims desperately need the love of Christ, and hateful talk will not help them see it.

Oops, I Broke It...

Well, four posts in and I already broke the blog.

"Crazy girl, what is she talking about?" you mutter.

I had been thinking about writing a blog for months. Perhaps even over a year. Writing comes naturally to me, and I have copious amounts of ideas to share. Spreading biblical truth is especially important to me, since there seems to be such a lack of it in our confused society.

Eventually, I did start this blog, with the intent of ironing out wrinkles in the fabric of mainstream Christian thinking. The spark that started this engine was a worldview class I started teaching in January for my church's youth group. We meet only twice a month, so I decided my first series of posts would be geared towards supplementing the teachings presented in our discussion group.

While I think this is an excellent idea, it also proved to be the blog-breaker. I tried too hard to write what I thought was necessary for my youth group, rather than writing on issues that weighed heavily on my heart. The post I promised on divine revelation remains unfinished, because I don't think it's what God would have me write, at least for the time being. Far better to address questions being posed to us in everyday life.

So what is weighing on my heart right now? I'll share some of it with you. I recently went on a church retreat where the topic of study was that of being part of the chain of Christian faith that has persisted for the last 2000 years, and passing truth on to the next generation. I don't want to see fair-weather faith and irresponsibility in my generation. I don't want to see the glory of Christ traded for some feel-good teachings attributed to Jesus. I don't want to see bold truth traded for trendy buzzwords and a hip Sunday morning atmosphere. I want to encourage the current generation of believers to be genuine followers of Christ.

There are other issues, not quite as monumental as this. Nonetheless, they must be addressed. What is a proper Christian response to homosexuality? What is church anyway? How do we serve God if we're not pastors or missionaries? What is good worship? And what is with this essential oils trend I see among 'biblical homemakers' (a term which deserves its own post)?

So here's an apology to you, readers; I promised a new post this week and totally didn't deliver. What I will promise is that from now on, I'll be writing about the questions God places on my heart, rather than what I think is 'supposed' to come next.

The Seven Worldviews

It's been a busy weekend, so I'll keep this short.

As I’ve mentioned before, one of the foundational questions of worldview is “What is God?” There are seven different answers to that question, as presented by Norm Geisler in When Skeptics Ask; a few have their own subtypes. Here they are:

1. Theism: God exists.

               -Polytheism: many gods exist.

2. Deism: God exists, but isn’t involved in the world.

3. Pantheism: God is everything, and everything is God.

4. Panentheism: God is developing/evolving with the rest of the world.

5. Finite Godism: God exists, but is limited or imperfect.

               -Open Theism: God doesn’t know the future.

6. Agnosticism: we can’t know if God exists.

7. Atheism: God does not exist.

Knowing these concepts of God can help you identify them in the culture around you. Can you think of a popular science fiction franchise that is steeped in pantheism? (Hint: “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us…it binds the galaxy together.”) What reasons might a panentheist have for supporting humanitarian projects? Do you know of any worldviews that are a mix of two or more of these?

What's Your Worldview?

We've established that worldview is a person's beliefs and assumptions about reality. Your worldview affects your values, which affect your behavior, which affects your culture.

Have you thought about your worldview? Do you think you make assumptions or do you think that you consciously choose to believe in what you do? Do you even know what your worldview is? Here are some questions to help you think about that:

-Who, or what, is God?

-What is a human being?

-What is "nature"?

-Where did life come from?

-How do we know what is really true?

-What is morality, and how is it determined?

-What determines the value of children?

-What role do parents play in raising children?

-What is religion? How does it fit into everyday life and business?

-What is sacred, and what is secular?

-What is the purpose of man? Why does he exist?

Your answers to these questions will reflect your worldview, whether or not you're aware of what it is.

Greek Philosophy and Hebrew Theology

Are you a Greek or a Hebrew?

“What kind of question is that?” you may ask. Maybe you’re looking at the title of this post and thinking, “I’m neither a philosopher nor a theologian. Is this post for me?” Yes, it is.

I’m talking about worldview.

The Greeks worshiped a pantheon of gods, but these gods were too human. Instead of awe-inspiring deities, it was more like soap opera characters with superpowers. So the Greeks started to reject the idea that a higher power existed. Instead, impersonal Nature was the driving force in the universe.

Because of this, the Greeks had no cause to believe that divine revelation existed. Instead, they tried to determine absolute truth based solely on human reason. The problem was (and still is) is that in such a situation, truth becomes muddled. Black and white merge into grey, and virtues are subjective. The Greeks pursued philosophy because they had no answer to the question, “What is truth?”

On the other hand, no one remembers the Hebrews for their philosophers, because they didn’t have any. They had no use for them. See, the Hebrews did not believe the power of human reason was sufficient to find truth; it’s too subjective. In order to find truth, divine revelation is necessary, as it came from God our Creator, definer of the universe, and is therefore objective.

Such a society produces theologians, people who study God, and all their philosophy (that is, way of thinking) is concerned more with the practical application of the truth revealed to them. The Halakha (part of the Talmud) is full of various rabbis’ teachings on how to apply principles found in the Torah to everyday life (“halakha” literally means “the way of walking”). The Hebrew question wasn’t, “What is truth?” but rather, “How do we live the truth?”

Thousands of years later, western civilization still reflects the Greek view. Even those who are Christians still subscribe to Greek ways of thinking, and quite often teaching in contemporary churches does not reflect the view that all Scripture is God-breathed. Living the truth has been traded for feel-good, self-improvement type of teachings, which leave many of us grappling with the idea of ‘dying to self,’ among other Biblical concepts.

So: do you use your reason to find the truth, or do you use it to figure out how to live the truth?

Are you a Greek, or are you a Hebrew?

Worldview: Why is it Important?

Worldview: a person’s beliefs and assumptions about reality. It’s the lens through which they look at everyday life. It informs their daily choices – perhaps not what cereal they choose to eat in the mornings (though it’s possible, since paleo relies on an evolutionary worldview), but rather things like voting on social matters, what they choose to volunteer for, what they spend money on, or what hobbies they pursue.

The foundations of worldview are found in these questions:

-What is God?

-What is man?

-What is reality?

A society’s worldview affects personal values, which affect behavior, which affect culture.

Supposing a society’s worldview included a belief that demon’s whispered evil things into the left ear. That society might believe that the left ear heard only evil things, so they might cut it off, and you get a society of people with only their right ear intact. Or, instead they might only take advice if the person giving it to them was standing on their right. Or they might walk around with a cork in their left ear. An insult aimed at a person who made poor choices might go something like, “You must have been listening through your left ear!”

Laugh at my superstitious example if you want. Such a result is fairly inconsequential – though if demons really did do such a thing, it would be an entirely different matter. Let’s compare something more relevant: man being made in the image of God vs. man being an accident of nature.

If mankind is made in the image of God, as the book of Genesis informs us, then what does that say about the value of a human being?

No other creature in heaven or on earth is made in the likeness of God, and no other beings are loved so much by their Creator. Did you realize that not even the angels are as special? There’s no plan of salvation for them. In speaking of the prophets and of the gospel, Peter mentions that “even angels long to look into these things” (1 Peter 1:12). God didn’t die to save the fallen angels; he came to save us. He took the punishment that his justice required so that we wouldn’t have to. Being made in the likeness of God has a number of implications beyond this.

If mankind is not created, but randomly appeared through natural processes, then what does that say about the value of a human being?

In such an instance, a person’s value would be determined, perhaps, by their contribution to the gene pool, or by their contribution to whatever is valuable to their society. Maybe it’s strength, as in ancient Sparta, or maybe it’s art and philosophy, as it was in ancient Athens. Whatever it is, we eventually realize that if there’s no higher authority than ourselves, we can do whatever we want to other people. Or maybe we end our existence prematurely, falsely believing that life has no meaning or purpose.

These two basic worldviews are reflective of the mindsets of the Hebrews and the Greeks. In my next post, we’ll explore the mindset of those two civilizations and how they still affect us today.