Counterfeit Gospels

Note:  Here is a great little article on the idols that are found in churches. I have even seen a couple of these in mine. Oh, my!

Counterfeit Gospels
Tullian Tchividjian

In his book How People Change (co-authored with Tim Lane), Paul Tripp identifies seven counterfeit gospels- ways we try and "justify" or "save" ourselves apart from the gospel of grace. I found these unbelievably helpful. Which one (or two, or three) of these do you tend to gravitate towards?

Formalism. "I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I'm always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do."

Legalism. "I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don't meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated."

Mysticism. "I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don't feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I'm looking for."

Activism. "I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what's right than a joyful pursuit of Christ."

Biblicism. "I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge."

Therapism. "I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs."

Social-ism. "The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships."

As I said a few months ago in one of my sermons, there are outside-the-church idols and there are inside-the-church idols. It's the idols inside the church that ought to concern Christians most. It's easier for Christians to identify worldly idols such as money, power, selfish ambition, sex, and so on. It's the idols inside the church that we have a harder time identifying.

For instance, we know it's wrong to bow to the god of power—but it's also wrong to bow to the god of preferences. We know it's wrong to worship immorality—but it's also wrong to worship morality. We know it's wrong to seek freedom by breaking the rules—but it's also wrong to seek freedom by keeping them. We know God hates unrighteousness—but he also hates self-righteousness. We know crime is a sin—but so is control. If people outside the church try to save themselves by being bad; people inside the church try to save themselves by being good.

The good news of the gospel is that both inside and outside the church, there is only One Savior and Lord, namely Jesus. And he came, not to angrily strip away our freedom, but to affectionately strip away our slavery to lesser things so that we might become truly free!

Sugar-Laced Poison: The Realities of Sexual Sin

Note: Too many voices out there telling us that abstinence is impossible. “Go ahead and try it. If you don’t, you might die missing out on something really good for you.” Here is an article worth taking the time to read. Sex is good, but it isn’t everything. One does not need it in order to truly live and be fulfilled. We need God, but we do not need sex, at least not in the same way we need the Lord. Enjoy!

Sugar-Laced Poison: The Realities of Sexual Sin
Kathy Collard Miller, D. Larry Miller
& Larry Richards, Ph.D.

GENESIS 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

When Satan tempts, he offers something that seems "pleasing" and "desirable." When Satan tempts a couple with sex, he makes it seem like they can't live without it and that it's the ultimate pleasure—which they are missing. Yes, sex is pleasurable, but the pleasure is not worth disobeying God. Temptation focuses on what we don't have and ignores what God has already given us.
________________________________________
How Others See It
Albert Y. Hsu: "The first step to a healthy approach toward sexuality is to recognize that sexual expression is not essential for life. Jesus himself is our example for living the single life without sexual activity.
________________________________________
Society and the media, especially movies, portray sex as if no one can possibly live without it, and that with it, life will be abundant with joy. Yet, only a relationship with God can meet such a claim. Sex is a short-lived pleasure that is wonderful, but spiritual oneness with God is more important and more valuable.

The word for wisdom in this passage refers to the idea of being "in the know." Another one of Satan's whispered lies about sex outside of mar riage is that we can't be "in the know" about whether or not this person is the one to marry unless we experience sexual intimacy with him or her. This isn't true because good sex doesn't have as much to do with com¬patibility as it does with serving the other person.

God wants married couples to grow and develop their sexual artistry within the safe atmosphere of marriage. Outside that boundary, members of a couple who have sex do not feel free to be who they really are because they are worried about whether their performance is acceptable.

The Birth of Shame
GENESIS 3:7-13 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed .g leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

After Adam and Eve sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, Satan's promise came true: their eyes were opened. But it wasn't what they expected. Instead of true wisdom, they lost their innocence about life and their trust of each other. Now they were uncomfortable with each other's bodies, and they tried to hide from each other. Then they tried to hide from God.
________________________________________
How Others See It

Liz Curtis Higgs: "Now fallen, Adam, who had named every animal in the garden, had to find a name for what they did: sin. A name for what they felt: shame. A name for the consequences: separation."

Joseph M. Stowell: "Realizing their shame and loss, Adam and Eve tried to cover their sin by sewing fig leaves together. Our world still specializes in fig leaves, because there is no hope of significance apart from God. When sin is present, as it is in all of us, there is also no hope of restoration to him in and of our selves and therefore no hope of true, shameless significance. That is why redemption is such a pivotal and wonderful reality. The marvel of it all is that God has taken the initiative."

John Eldredge: "You don't need a course in psychology to understand men. Understand that verse, let its implications sink in, and the men around you will suddenly come into focus. We are hiding, every last one of us. Well aware that we, too, are not what we were meant to be, desperately afraid of exposure, terrified of being seen for what we are and are not, we have run off into the bushes. We hide in our office, at the gym, behind the newspaper and mostly behind our personality. Most of what you encounter when you meet a man is a façade, an elaborate fig leaf, a brilliant disguise."
________________________________________
God does want us to desire wisdom, but true wisdom comes from knowing God—not from having sex with somebody. Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Disobeying God's commands will never give us true wis dom or joy, but seeking and obeying God will.

Disobedience brought consequences that Adam and Eve never anticipated. They were banished from the Garden of Eden. Adam had to work hard to bring food from the ground. Eve became submissive to her husband, and was fated to have pain during childbirth.

Disobeying God's laws always brings consequences. Couples who have sex before marriage may carry guilt into the wedding day. A man and woman who have premarital sex may become distrustful of each other. Their "knowledge" of each other is no longer innocent and could influence their ability to enjoy sex when married.

A Consequence We Never Anticipated
LARRY: After dating and falling in love with Kathy, I found myself overwhelmed by the desire for sex. As we continued to struggle I wanted to move up the wedding date. The cycle was vicious, and I judged myself a weak leader. It never occurred to me that making myself accountable to a small group of men could have made a difference.

For six years until I moved, I had been a part of a small group of men. We were wholly committed to our mutual spiritual growth. Before this group, I faced life alone. I shared with no one. Now, years later, I find the daily struggle to walk with Christ less harsh and victories more frequent. Truly, a small group of committed men makes each man stand a little taller and walk a little straighter. I wish that I'd had that support and accountability when Kathy and I were dating.

KATHY: Larry and I struggled with our sexual desires while we were dating, wondering if we would be able to stay pure until our wedding day. When we experienced the failure of going beyond the boundaries we had set for ourselves, we would both become upset. I had a hard time believing God could forgive us since it seemed like we fell too often. It was so hard to resist, yet I knew God wanted us to stay pure.

When we finally married, I didn't realize our sexual wanderings before marriage would influence our relationship. I had developed a great bitterness toward Larry, without realizing how deep it was, because he didn't have more self-control. I blamed myself tremendously also, but I thought he was primarily responsible.

My resentment and guilt about our failings influenced me so that I couldn't enjoy sex as much after we were married. It just didn't seem right to enjoy something we had previously struggled against. I also found that my body wasn't as responsive as before marriage. It wasn't until doing research for our book When the Honeymoon's Over that I learned the illicitness of our touching before marriage had become a stimulus in itself. It also became a trigger for responding. After Larry and I got married, the illicit trigger was no longer there to cause a strong reaction.

It took several years for me to work through my guilt and anger toward Larry. I finally put it behind me when I truly accepted God's for giveness. Then I was free to forgive Larry and myself.

My sexual response improved over the years, but I missed out on greater enjoyment in the beginning because of our history while dating.

Passionate Patience
GENESIS 29:16-20 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel." Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me." So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

The Bible is honest in sharing the sexual immorality of many people in the history of God's people, but there was one person who waited seven years to sexually enjoy the woman he was madly in love with: Jacob! Jacob agreed to work for seven years in order to earn his marriage to his beloved Rachel, and he kept both of them pure during that time. He loved her so much that the long seven-year wait was worth it to him. The first step to purity is to believe it's possible.
________________________________________
How Others See It

Joy Jacobs and Deborah Strubel: "We must see ourselves as God sees us: as unique, created, loved beings. We are not animals. We are capable of reasoning and weighing the possible consequences of our actions before we perform them. When we start with correct beliefs about the sanctity of human life, we can translate those beliefs into correct attitudes and proper actions. Only when we accept responsibility for our actions and their consequences will we be empowered to change."
________________________________________
One of Satan's lies regarding sexual purity is, "No one else has enough self-control to resist, why do you think you can?" Yet many people do resist every day—our society just doesn't celebrate their dependence upon God. From the movies, other media, books, and pornography, you'd think that "everyone's doing it," but there are many who are not. Thankfully, there are also those who are vocal in encouraging people to "just say no!"

The Most Religious Cities in America

Haven’t you ever wondered what are the most religious American cities? You haven’t? Why not? Such information is so important for our faith! Okay, okay, I am stretching things. But with all the talk about how Hawaii has the most Christians per capita, than all the rest, we still come in at 26.

The Most Religious Cities in America – Men’s Health Magazine – November 10, 2010

Our list of America's Most Religious Cities shows there's a lot of praying going on in the Bible Belt. No shocker there.

But what is surprising is who's No. 1 in worship: Colorado Springs.

While it's true that Colorado, at 5,980 feet above sea level, is closer to heaven than even the Mile High City, we used a different set of numbers to divine our findings. We scoured the U.S. Census and the yellow pages (Yellow.com) for places of worship per capita. Then we tallied up religious organizations (U.S. Census) and the number of volunteers who support these groups (VolunteeringinAmerica.gov).

Finally, we considered the amount of money donated to religious organizations (Bureau of Labor Statistics and spent on religious books (Mediamark Research).

Most religious

1. Colorado Springs, CO
2. Greensboro, NC
3. Oklahoma City, OK
4. Wichita, KS
5. Indianapolis, IN
6. Jacksonville, FL
7. Portland, OR
8. Birmingham, AL
9. Charlotte, NC
10. Little Rock, AR
11. Fort Worth, TX
12. Montgomery, AL
13. Raleigh, NC
14. Durham, NC
15. Virginia Beach, VA
16. Charleston, WV
17. Dallas, TX
18. Omaha, NE
19. Kansas City, MO
20. Tulsa, OK
21. Memphis, TN
22. Houston, TX
23. Des Moines, IA
23. Anchorage, AK
25. Seattle, WA
26. Honolulu, HI
27. Cheyenne, WY
28. Phoenix, AZ
29. St. Paul, MN
30. Minneapolis, MN
31. Nashville, TN
32. Boise, ID
33. Grand Rapids, MI
34. San Antonio, TX
35. Sioux Falls, SD
36. San Diego, CA
37. Lexington, KY
38. Fort Wayne, IN
39. Salt Lake City, UT
40. Columbus, OH
41. Tampa, FL
42. Arlington, TX
42. San Jose, CA
44. Washington, DC
45. Jackson, MS
45. Baltimore, MD
47. Orlando, FL
48. Anaheim, CA
48. Billings, MT
50. St. Louis, MO
51. Columbia, SC
52. Riverside, CA
53. Corpus Christi, TX
54. Atlanta, GA
55. Lincoln, NE
56. Modesto, CA
56. Philadelphia, PA
56. Las Vegas, NV
59. Louisville, KY
60. San Francisco, CA
61. Pittsburgh, PA
62. St. Petersburg, FL
63. Denver, CO
64. Bakersfield, CA
65. Richmond, VA
66. Spokane, WA
67. Aurora, CO
68. Albuquerque, NM
69. Chicago, IL
70. Cincinnati, OH
71. Wilmington, DE
72. Milwaukee, WI
73. Cleveland, OH
74. Austin, TX
75. El Paso, TX
75. New Orleans, LA
77. Sacramento, CA
78. Detroit, MI
79. Buffalo, NY
80. Los Angeles, CA
81. Madison, WI
82. Tucson, AZ
83. Oakland, CA
84. New York, NY
85. Toledo, OH
86. Reno, NV
87. Fresno, CA
88. Yonkers, NY
89. Lubbock, TX
90. Rochester, NY
91. Miami, FL
92. Newark, NJ
93. Manchester, NH
94. Fargo, ND
95. Jersey City, NJ
96. Portland, ME
97. Hartford, CT
98. Boston, MA
99. Providence, RI
100. Burlington, VT

How to Date Your Spouse

Note: Here is a clever idea – date your spouse! Now why didn’t anyone think of that before? Who said that dating has to stop once a couple becomes married and has children? In fact, that’s when dating needs to continue. This is not rocket science, but it is foundational to a happy and growing relationship. Surprise your spouse one day soon and plan to go out on a date.

How to Date Your Spouse
Dr. Gary and Barb Rosberg

If you're like many married couples, you've gotten caught up in the routine of jobs, parenting, church, and other commitments. And many of those couples are so busy they don't take time to nurture the foundation of their family - their marriage and their relationship with each other. But when that marriage foundation begins to crumble, everything else will come down with it. And that's why we want to coach you on how to nurture that relationship - and one of the great ways to do that is by dating your mate.

When you were single, dating was a time to get away alone, to talk, laugh, and have fun together. You took time to learn more about each other, about your past and your dreams for the future. But here's the deal: Now that you're married, you need to do the same thing! You need to get away alone and continue to talk, laugh, and have fun together! You need to learn more about each other! And that's why dating shouldn't stop with marriage.

Dating your mate will help the two of you begin to reconnect, rekindle the romance in your relationship, and pull your marriage out of the rut it's stuck in. But it's not just going to happen on its own. It's going to take time, effort, and planning. It means you're going to have to make your marriage and your spouse a priority. And that's why we want to help you get motivated to start dating your mate again, by coaching you on how to get the ball rolling.

First things first - your spouse needs to come to the top of your priority list - just a bubble behind Jesus. You need to give your spouse priority access to your time - instead of just the leftovers. Priority time for your spouse means occasional date nights and getaway weekends. These type of events need to be planned ahead of time, of course, because if you wait until the last minute, you may have trouble fitting them into your busy life. But priority time also means smaller time slots each day, such as having dinner together, taking a brief walk, spending time talking, playing a game, or watching a favorite program together.

If you and your spouse haven't really "dated" for awhile, and you're not sure where to start, just start simple. Think back to what the two of you enjoyed doing together before you got married. Think about what your spouse likes to do. Think of something new the two of you can try together. It doesn't have to be something elaborate! If you used to go for walks in the park together - try that! If your husband loves sports - go to a game with him! If your wife loves antiques - go antique shopping with her! If the two of you have never taken dance lessons - sign up and go together! The idea is to get the two of you some alone time together - time to reconnect as husband and wife!

We realize that people are different and there are different lifestyles and different areas of the country. And we know people are at different stages - some have little children, some have difficult work schedules. People have different financial situations. The point of this article is to jump-start your thinking.

So, as you begin reconnecting and get back to dating your mate, here are some things you need to consider:

First, get the right perspective. Recognize that you have to give you and your spouse some time. If you've been stuck in a rut for awhile, you have to realize that you didn't get there overnight and you won't resolve everything overnight. But you can begin today to work on reconnecting, rekindling the flame, and reuniting your hearts and souls.

Reconnect with God and be in prayer. Seek God's help for wisdom and discernment as you consider how to go about this dating process. If there has been much pain and hurt in your marriage, you may need extra strength and courage to forgive or ask for forgiveness. If there has been distance, you need wisdom to know how to reconnect. Ask God to bless your endeavor.

Make a commitment. You need to "do" the dates, but not just as a quick fix. Planning some dates and going out with your spouse is only the start. You need to maintain your marriage by constantly being aware of your spouse's love needs and striving to meet them on a daily basis in your everyday life.

Keep it up! Don't stop dating just because you went on a couple of dates and your spouse seems to be appeased. Or because you think you've done enough to get out of your rut. Or because you think you've run out of ideas. Be creative! Your dates don't have to be expensive or elaborate, they just need to be. You and your spouse need special times together. That's what dating is all about. It should never stop! So keep on dating!

So, here's the drill today. Ask your spouse on a date. It can be as simple or as fancy as you want. Take your spouse to dinner. Go for a walk. Whisk your mate away for an overnight getaway. The sky is the limit! You were probably pretty creative when the two of you were dating before you got married - so draw on that again! We can guarantee you one thing: The rewards will be well worth it!

A Sign of the Times: Repent!

Note: No need to comment on this article, just read!

A Sign of the Times: Repent!
By Chuck Colson

No doubt you've seen cartoons of bearded guys in white robes standing on street corners carrying around a sign that says "Repent!"

Well today, I'm going to be that guy. Except I don't want to be standing on a street corner. I want to be walking up and down the aisles of every American church, carrying a simple message: Repent!

And here's why. So many Christians these days I talk to are positively wringing their hands over the state of our nation. And they have every reason to. The economy is in serious trouble, Washington is oblivious (and don't think the recent election will change that much), our children are subjected to sleaze every time they turn on a radio or a TV, and on and on.

Whose fault is that? Don't blame the liberals. Don't blame the gay lobby or the media.

Look in the mirror. The Church, the bride of Christ, has been unfaithful. WE are at fault. We—collectively and individually—have chased after every idol the world has to offer. We have tried so hard to be relevant that we've become almost completely irrelevant. We offer no other way, there is nothing distinctive about us.

We have not been what Jesus called us to be: Salt and light. We have blended in with the world so well that we are practically invisible. That's why so few nonbelievers can see what Paul wrote about in Colossians: "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

Has the church in America become the church in Laodicea? Will the Lord say to us, "I know your deeds, you are neither cold nor hot . . . You say, ‘I am rich: I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched…poor, blind, and naked."

Hard words. Terryifying words.

What are we to do? Exactly what Jesus told the church of Laodicea: Be earnest and REPENT! Change our minds—which is what the Greek word for repent means, metanoia! Change our way of thinking, our way of living. Make a u-turn. Abandon our love of self and embrace the love of Christ. Abandon our ways, the ways of the world, for His ways.

Enough of self-absorption. Enough of going to church for self-validation—because it makes us feel good; enough of buying into the "Jesus and me" brand of Christianity that we evangelicals are especially susceptible to.

Enough of living exactly like our non-believing neighbors, glued to electronics, engaging in promiscuity and infidelity, spending beyond our means.

Enough of ignoring the suffering of the poor. Enough of being ashamed of the truth claims of the Gospel. It's time to repent.

The Issue of "Weight" for Married Couples

Note: I know this is bad timing especially right after Thanksgiving! But it is an important topic and something spouses ought to discusses with one another.  Should “weight” be an issue for married couples? Should a spouse be judged for being overweight? Here are some remarks about what other Christians believe – some are married and some are not. What do you think? This would be a good topic to discuss with your spouse. Enjoy!

Dear Dr. David:

I once heard a message about husbands complaining about there wives gaining weight. His answer was to buy your wife a membership to the gym and watch the kids so she can go! As a wife and mother of several children, yes I do have a hard time with males telling us to just “lose weight!” Men have never experienced having a baby attached to them for nine months that causes you to crave everything but the kitchen sink while taking sixteen hours of pain equivalent to being ran over by a “Mac” truck to “deliver” them into the world and then having to attach them to your breast for another year or two. All of these activities including having a monthly cycle, causes us to “crave” to replenish our bodies. Not to mention that we start out with more fat cells than you guys do in the first place! Give us a break guys! ~ Also Disappointed

Dear Disappointed:

You are not alone in your sentiments. Many women believe men are too shallow in their concerns about their wives’ weight. Many women believe, as you do, that men don’t fully appreciate what they’ve been through, with child-bearing, raising children, and often working a job, to try to stay fit. Many believe men should not be so visually oriented, and should not place so much emphasis on how their wives look, especially when it comes to weight.

I would love to hear from others on this topic, but let’s be fair. Let’s sound off from both men, and women’s standpoint. The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?

Dear Readers,

In a recent advice column I shared some opinions about whether husbands or wives should be concerned about how their mate looks. I challenged you to respond as to whether love should be unconditional. I received many responses —most suggesting that it was a complex issue. Many of the responses indicated that we should never judge others by their outward appearance, and yet should be concerned with our mate's health. We should also be just as concerned about their inner beauty, and building our relationship on those enduring traits.


What follows are a sampling of the responses I received:

Dear Dr. David,

The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?

The way the question is posed, the answer would seem obvious. Of course we (husbands) should offer our wives unconditional love. But then does that sort of love become a license or carte blanche for anything goes with appearance? I think not. I think the issue is often more complex....with other sub-issues attached. Is she sick of sex and trying to keep him at distance? Is there a wrong relationship with food? Are there relational difficulties that she is working out through gaining weight? And really as a doctor, the underlying question of how this is all affecting the general picture of her health is probably a better place to start.

But raising all these issues is easy compared to actually addressing them in a substantive manner.

Dear Dr. David,

I read the letter from the wife who was responding to a man wanting her to lose weight. She cites many different reasons for having weight issues, among which are pregnancy, child nursing years, and menstrual cycles...all of which are very valid reasons for having a desire to take on a lot of nutrition. I feel the problem is not only that people (men and women alike) are taking on a lot of extra nutrition, but they are taking on foods that are loaded with fats, sugars, hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrups, packaged, processed instant meals - and basically empty calories...couple this with the high stress of today's lifestyle resulting in higher than normal levels of cortisol which is the result of overstressed adrenal glands -- which causes the body to begin retaining excess fat in the stomach and hips especially. We are becoming a very overweight society as a whole - men, women and children.

I believe that the Lord would want men and women alike not to be focusing on the outside, but the inside of a person -- praying and discovering ways to help each other become healthy - which would include a more natural, nutritious diet & exercise. I believe it's a matter of love -- when people are overweight, they tend to have a poor self image, feel tired all the time, have no energy, feel self conscience and are in danger of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and the like. If you truly love someone, you don't want them to feel bad about themselves or be unhealthy - you want to help them to nurture their bodies so you can grow old together, so you have a life and future together, so you know you're doing all you can to be healthy and happy for the Lord, for yourselves, your children and grandchildren. If couples were to approach weight issues in this light, it would be apparent that the motivation was love, not a fleshly desire to see a perfect '10' in their mate, thus removing the resentment and opposition to be 'told' what to do.

Dear Dr. David,

I am responding to the article re: a complaint from a woman who says it just isn't easy to loose weight due to childbirth and cravings, but I believe that there is so much more involved in her response. You see there can be so many variables involved. It isn't as straightforward as we would like for it to be.

There can also be a medical reason as to why weight loss is so difficult, or a genetic disposition to carry more weight if your family background shows this. Not to mention having to take care of everyone else in the family -- starting with your husband and children and possibly your ageing parents. And if you are a mother who also works outside of the home...well there go your extra hours that you could be using at the gym! Who then can find the time to take care of themselves when everyone else is put first and we position ourselves last? It is an uphill battle to say the least!

Dear Dr. David,

I think that men should give women a break. I agree with the woman. But I have had 4 kids and I wasn't the one who had gained the weight. My hubby was. I gained but have gotten back down to almost my regular size. To me as long as you're busy and eat right you can lose the weight if you want.

To me neither man nor woman have the right to judge anyone because of their weight. Some people can't help it, and some can if they have the energy or passion to do it. My hubby is handsome just the way he is. It feels great to lose or to even get in shape and so that is why I choose to be in shape. But men should leave us woman alone. God made us totally different. And God tells us to accept everyone the way they are and, as for me, I do. I think men should have a baby grow in them and see what its like, but that's not how God made them so we have to accept it.

Dear Dr. David,

I read these advice columns quite often but was prompted to reply when you asked for people's opinion.

First of all, I am not yet married. I personally think that it is not just women that need to watch their weight and look their best for their husband. It's also just as important for the husband to keep fit and in an healthy state. Not only is it biblical ("looking after the temple of God") it is also not your body. From what I see in the Bible and read and hear from marriage sermons/ books etc., when you get married you give your life and body to your spouse and you get theirs.

I also believe that 'usually' the shape your body stays in is a reflection of the love and how well your relationship/ marriage is going. If the husband treats his wife as a princess and makes her feel like a princess, the wife will look after her body as she feels loved and special and the husband will have a fit wife. Men are visually minded, it's the way we are wired and it's healthy to be attracted to your wife.

Dear Dr. David,

In response to your question about the appearance of our spouse. We should definitely love a spouse unconditionally, BUT there are health risks involved when individuals (men and women alike) allow their bodies get too far out of control. I don't mean only overweight. An individual can be thin and be unhealthy because of their poor diet and/or lack of exercise. An individual can also be too thin and be controlling their "too thin" body in some very unhealthy ways (anorexia or bulimia). I think it's important that we be concerned about our spouse's health, but a few extra pounds throughout our lives together should not be cause for alarm - love them "unconditionally." Weight does not determine the depth of a loving relationship!

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 4

Note: This is the fourth and final piece in Michael Craven’s article on “Changing Culture.” He gave two examples: Prohibition which lasted from 1920-1933. And the second was the legalization of abortion which was the promotion of the autonomous self. His third example will be on how the early Christians overcame pagan Rome.


In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul mentioned a Christian virtue that is considered to be the greatest. Remember what he said it was? LOVE. The virtue of love is the greatest weapon we have to topple strongholds. Not just love itself, but love that comes to us from God – agape! Yet, love is one of the least virtue we practice. We are more into power, prestige, money, fame, techniques, and cleverness, but least into love. God has already given to the church the greatest weapon of all which Paul referred to as the “greatest of these.” But rather than practicing love, we choose to practice lesser things.


Why is this so? Because the very definition of love entails “personal sacrifice.” How much sacrifice is spent on power? Prestige? Fame? Accumulation of money? Cleverness? Love on the other hand demands our all. This is why we set love aside and look for something else less demanding of us. If you haven’t read all four articles, go back and start with Part 1. By the end of your readings, you will be given a better perspective on what battles you need to focus on and how to best fight such battles. Enjoy!

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 4
Michael Craven

We now come to our third and final example of cultural engagement: the early Christian church and its triumph over the pagan culture of Rome. The Roman world was brutal and generally indifferent to suffering. Sympathy and mercy were weaknesses, virtues anathema to those of Rome. The ancient world was both decadent and cruel. The practice of infanticide, for example, was widespread and legal throughout the Greek and Roman world during the early days of Christianity. In fact, abortion, infanticide, and child sacrifice were extremely common throughout the ancient world.

Cicero (106-43 BC), writing in the period before Christ, cited the Twelve Tables of Roman Law when he wrote, "deformed infants should be killed" (De Ligibus 3.8). Similarly, Seneca (4 BC-AD 39) wrote, "We drown children who are at birth weakly and abnormal" (De Ira1.15). The ancient writer Plutarch (c. AD 46-120), discussing the casual acceptance of child sacrifice, mentions the Carthaginians, who, he says, "offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds while the mother stood by without tear or moan" (Moralia 2.171D). Polybius (ca. 200-118 BC) blamed infanticide for the population decline in Greece (Histories 6).

Historical research reveals that infanticide was common throughout India, China, Japan, and the Brazilian jungles as well as among the Eskimos. Dr. James Dennis, writing in the 1890s, showed how infanticide was common in many parts of Africa and was "well known among the Indians of North and South America" (Social Evils of the Non-Christian World, 1898). Suffice it to say, for much of the world and throughout most of its history the culture of death and brutality has been the rule, and a culture of life, love, and mercy has been the exception. It is to the cause of this exception that we now turn.

In roughly AD 27, a young Jewish carpenter—in an obscure Roman outpost—began to preach and teach, saying he was the Son of God, the savior of the world, the promised Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures. He claimed to be a king whose kingdom was not of this world—a kingdom without end. This king—Jesus—would validate all that had been revealed to the Israelites: there was a God and this God, who was hidden from the world, was a personal being who had made mankind in his image because he desired a relationship with mankind.

And so this Holy God further revealed himself—becoming incarnate. God became flesh and dwelt among us to do what only he could do: reconcile the chasm between God and man that sin had caused. God would implement his plan for reconciling man to God, man to himself, man to man, and man to creation. Suddenly, a radically new conception of reality, the world, and life would take hold. A new ethic and morality would challenge the old. All life would now be understood as precious, the intentional gift of a loving God. The kingdom of God was inaugurated on earth! A new day had dawned, and those who had been drawn into this kingdom began to think and act in new ways. They would strive to live and act in obedience to their king—not their flesh and not their culture.

These early Christ-followers did not organize special interest groups or political parties. They never directly opposed Caesar; they didn't picket or protest or attempt to overthrow the ruling powers. They didn't publicly denounce or condemn the pagan world. Instead, they challenged the ruling powers by simply being a faithful, alternative presence—obedient to God. Their most distinguishing characteristic was not their ideology or their politics but their love for others. They lived as those who were, once again, living under the rule and reign of God, a sign and foretaste of what it will be fully, when Christ returns.

They expressed their opposition to infanticide by rescuing the abandoned children of Rome and raising them as their own—an enormously self-sacrificial act at a time when resources were limited and survival was in doubt.

Following the end of the Punic Wars in 146 BC, the breakdown of marriage and the family had begun in earnest. By the time of Christ, Rome was a pornographic culture. Marriage was a "loose and voluntary compact" (Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [reprint, London: Penguin Books, 1994] 2:813). Sexual licentiousness, adultery, marital dissolution, and pornography were widespread. It was into this depraved cultural context that Christians would introduce a radically new and different view of life, sexuality, marriage, and parenting. In contrast to the Roman concept of Patria Potestas, according to which fathers had the right to kill their wives and children, Christians taught husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Eros gave way to agape.

The early Christians, acting in obedience to Christ, began to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. So alien were their charitable acts and self-sacrificial lives that the Romans referred to them as "the third race." In the centuries to follow, even though Christians were still a demographic minority, their care of the poor and sick, would serve as the first steps in achieving cultural authority. By being seen as those who reached out to and cared for the weak and suffering, the early church would establish its "right to stand for the community as a whole" (John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public [Eugene, OR: Wifp and Stock, 1997] p. 8). Sociologist James Davidson Hunter points out, "because Christian charity was beneficial to all, including pagans, imperial authority [political authority] would be weakened" (To Change the World, 2009, p. 55).

Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome, clearly understood the power of these Christians when he wrote the following:

These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods (Epistle to Pagan High Priests).

Emperor Julian clearly saw the writing on the wall. The Roman Empire would not succumb to political upheaval or force but to love, the love of Christ. Julian's dying words in AD 363 were "vicisti Galilaee" (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).

Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, Western civilization would become the most successful civilization in history.

If I am correct—and the history of the church bears this out—then the most effective approach to changing the culture in our day begins by being a faithful presence. Being faithfully present—odedient to God—in our families, our marriages, our neighborhoods and communities, and our vocations, a presence woefully lacking in the American church today.

I am reminded that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness" (Eph. 6:12 ESV). And how did Christ conquer these powers? By coercive might or worldly conceptions of power? No! Christ overcame the world by the unanticipated and ultimate act of love and humility—he poured out his life on behalf of the world. May we do the same and pray the rulers of our age say on their deathbeds, "vicisti Galilaee" (You Christians have conquered)!

End of Part 4 of 4

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 3

Note: In Part 3, Michael Craven will focus in on abortion and show that a root cause for it was born out of a need for maintaining personal autonomy. He shows in Part 3 how the advancement and expression of SELF we see in the sexual revolution of the past and on into our present is really about personal autonomy. The bible calls this idolatry or the worship of self (Rom. 1:23).

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 3
Michael Craven

The second example in our study of cultural engagement is the legalization of abortion. The legalization of abortion did not emerge out of a vacuum nor did it appear as a sudden and unexpected contrast to established values. Roe v. Wade was the inevitable consequence of incremental cultural changes that began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The Enlightenment would, among other things, give birth to the "autonomous self." Modern man would seek to exalt himself above God, leading to sexual anarchy and removing all impediments to unfettered sexual expression.

Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of the sociology department at Harvard University, wrote this in 1956:

Among the many changes of the last few decades, a peculiar revolution has been taking place in the lives of millions of American men and women… it goes almost unnoticed. … Unmarked by dramatic events on a large scale, it is free from civil war, class struggle, and bloodshed. …It does not try to overthrow governments… Without plan or organization, it is carried on by millions of individuals, each acting on his own….Its name is the sexual revolution.

Sorokin is describing a change in our cultural condition, a condition that—on the surface—appears free from any visible or overt influence. However, that is not to say that forces instrumental to this change weren't present. As to the cause of this revolution, Sorokin observed that, "Any considerable change in marriage behavior, and increase in sexual promiscuity, and illicit relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences" (The American Sex Revolution, [Porter Sargent: Boston, MA, 1956] p. 7).

It is here that we can begin to identify the emergence of cultural change. In 1870 there was one divorce for every 33.7 marriages. By 1956 that number had already changed to 1 divorce for every 3 marriages (Revolution, p. 8). This is not a significant difference from where we are today, with roughly 1 divorce for every 2 marriages. Thus the breakdown in marriage began somewhere between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. This shift in attitude toward marriage and monogamy corresponds with the establishment of Enlightenment ideas within our culture-forming institutions such as education, media and the arts, science and philosophy, government, and so on. This transfer of power within the commanding heights of culture was only made possible by the church's retreat from these same institutions.

The Enlightenment sought to free man from subordination to the divine. Human reason became divine and man—unrestrained by anything outside himself—would, in essence, worship himself. Modern man would (and still does) embrace the myth of the autonomous self and this assertion of autonomy would eventually find it fullest expression in sexuality.

In the late nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud would argue that "sexual love [is] the prototype of all happiness." Among other things, this definition implied that love is based ultimately on the pursuit of pleasure—a quest to satisfy the self rather than others. Thus the self-sacrificial love of agape, rooted in the Christian worldview, would begin to be supplanted by the self-centered desire of eros or erotic love, rooted in the autonomous self.

On the heels of Freud came Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League in 1921, which would go on to become Planned Parenthood. Sanger, like Freud, argued that the repression of sexual desires was harmful, adding that such repression would result in negative health consequences and even the inhibition of intellectual capacity—not an uncommon theory in her era. From our vantage point, we easily see Sanger as a moral monster. However, Sanger's argument for abortion as a tool for population control and poverty alleviation gained traction precisely because there was growing agreement with Darwinism and eugenics among elites, which was buoyed by a racism among the populace that was prevalent at the time.

Following Sanger, a two-part cultural phenomenon took place in 1948 and 1953 with the publication of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's monumental works on male and female sexuality. Kinsey [a zoologist] determined to demonstrate that Americans were far more sexually deviant than was actually the case, thereby disproving the traditional belief that private immorality has public consequences. For Kinsey, any moral restraint on sexual conduct was against nature. Kinsey would succeed by fabricating new science using dubious data to reform America's laws governing sexual conduct and subsequently changing social attitudes toward sexual mores.

Then, in December of 1953, Hugh Hefner, building on Kinsey's inspiration, launched Playboy magazine. In his first issue, he acknowledged his commitment to Kinsey's findings. He wrote, "We believe we are fulfilling a publishing need only slightly less important than one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report."

According to Hefner, "Playboy freed a generation from guilt about sex, changed some laws and helped launch a revolution or two." Playboy is the magazine that changed America by waging war on marriage and its implicit monogamy—a major impediment to sexual autonomy.

While Hugh Hefner was popularizing the Kinsey philosophy through the Playboy culture, another notable figure was introducing the Kinsey philosophy to America's school children beginning in 1964. Dr. Mary Calderone, a former Kinsey associate, was chosen to lead the newly formed Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Established by the Kinsey Institute, SIECUS became and remains one of the most influential resources for sex-education in America's public schools. The initial grant to establish SIECUS was given by Hugh Hefner through the Playboy Foundation.

Calderone wrote: A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality—for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance (Mary Calderone and Eric Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 171.

Finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States would remove the final barrier to complete and absolute sexual autonomy: the risk of procreation. Americans would now have the right to kill their unborn children and preserve their autonomy.

And what was the basis of the court's decision? Privacy. In other words, the autonomy of the individual woman was elevated over and above both the interests of society and the child she carries.
It was the quest for autonomy, born in the ideology of the enlightenment and expressed in the secular humanistic worldview that now shaped the culture-forming institutions in America.

Rather than a grass-roots movement, the abortion culture was the product of a distinct worldview held by a relatively small network of people—cultural elites who possessed the credentials to shape our key culture-forming institutions. Christians, generally speaking, no longer lead the institutions of culture‚ where the culture is actually formed. It is why we are losing the culture war: we're not fighting on the right battlefield or with the right weapons.

End of Part 3 of 4

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 2

Note: Remember the statement: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Michael Craven gives one proof from history the church has forgotten – The Prohibition Movement. Morality cannot be legislated. His statement: “The church's characteristic love of neighbor was diminished by a perceived desire to control thy neighbor. This perception would only embolden resistance to the church's role in the public square and its kingdom mission.” Enjoy the history lesson.

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 2

Michael Craven

Our first example of cultural engagement is Prohibition (also known as the Noble Experiment), which lasted from 1920 to 1933, and banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption. The prohibition movement, which actually started in the 1840s, suffered a brief respite during the Civil War and was revived in 1869 with the creation of the Prohibition Party. However, it was the establishment of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in 1873 that would mobilize its constituents—primarily the Protestant church—to achieve Prohibition in 1920. This was‚ in effect‚ the beginning of the culture war as we have come to know it. At its peak, the Temperance Union boasted close to 400,000 members with chapters in almost every major city and town throughout North America.

The Temperance Union initiated and led one of the largest grass-roots movements in American history. The sheer enormity of this movement brought extraordinary political weight to bear on state and federal legislators. The goal was moral reform and the means were political pressure, eventually resulting in the 18th amendment to the constitution.

Upon achieving Prohibition, the famous preacher and evangelist Billy Sunday declared: “The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”

Like so many Christians of his day, Billy Sunday believed a great moral and religious victory had been won. He, and they, would be wrong.

Initially, Prohibition appeared to be working. Liquor consumption dropped, arrests for drunkenness fell, and the price for illegal alcohol rose higher than the average worker could afford.

However, shortly after Prohibition was passed, disobedience toward the law and law enforcement began in earnest. The intensity of the temperance movement was matched only by the inventiveness of those who wanted to keep drinking. Enforcing Prohibition proved to be extremely difficult. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to try to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy (an establishment illegally selling liquor by the drink) in America.

In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs. The demand for alcohol was outweighing (and outwinning) the demand for sobriety.

In addition to the fact that Prohibition was largely ineffective at reducing (much less eliminating) alcohol consumption, it actually created new and more serious social problems. Crime became organized on a scale previously unseen—still a problem today—and crime syndicates accumulated unprecedented wealth and power. Violence skyrocketed as gangs fought for supremacy and corruption among government officials became an embarrassing national scandal. Economically, tax revenues of nearly $500 million annually disappeared from federal coffers, more than ten percent of federal income. In an effort to stop bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal spirits, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols.

Bootleggers responded by renaturing the alcohol at which point, the Treasury Department ordered the use of even more deadly poisons such as methyl alcohol; this killed more than 10,000 people during the period of Prohibition (Deborah Blum, "The Chemist's War: The Little-told Story of how the U.S. Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition, with Deadly Consequences," Slate, Feb. 2010).

Near the end of Prohibition, Americans were weary of what had become a social and moral disaster. In 1932 wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. summarized the sentiment of Prohibition's many disheartened supporters:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

Here's the point. As Robert George, fellow Christian and noted Princeton law professor points out, "the legal prohibition of anything works well only when supported by a widespread recognition of the evil of the thing prohibited" (Clash of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis, [Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Wilmington, DE, 2002]). Unfortunately for Prohibition, the public did not recognize "the evil of the thing prohibited." This is the problem with trying to moralize society through political coercion: good law follows the cultural and moral consensus; it cannot create it. In other words, law cannot change the culture as it relates to the actual beliefs and values of society.

Finally, the church's aggressive actions in the prohibition of alcohol helped to alter the public perception of the church from a valued social institution to an overbearing political interest group determined to impose its will on an unwilling public. The church's characteristic love of neighbor was diminished by a perceived desire to control thy neighbor. This perception would only embolden resistance to the church's role in the public square and its kingdom mission.

End of Part 2 of 4

Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 1

Note:  How should the church seek to change the culture around it? Is it by preaching the gospel? Is it through social activism? Is it through a political process?  What exactly is the church's mission and how can it best carry it out?

Michael Craven has put together a four part series on this very issue. I have underlined and highlighted sections of this article and future ones (four parts total) that caught my interests. Read these four part articles closely and prayerfully.  Michael touches upon a topic that in some ways divides Christians.  Where do you stand? Enjoy!

By Michael Craven
(Adapted from a lecture given at the Troutt Lecture Series on behalf of the Council for Life in Dallas, Texas on October 7, 2010.)

Changing from the culture of death to a culture of life. This is really an audacious statement when you think about it and yet we talk of changing the culture all the time, as if this is an easy thing to do. Of course, as Christians, we do desire to see the culture reflect values and beliefs that represent the kingdom and honor Christ. However, when we speak this way we are speaking in terms that reflect an inadequate understanding of culture‚ what it is and how it is formed. Furthermore, such declarations assume that culture is a rather simple state of affairs—the mere rearrangement of which will yield a different culture. The fact is, culture is a far more complex phenomenon‚ especially our culture today with its extraordinary contest and synthesis of ideas, values, and worldviews.

As to the means of achieving this "rearrangement," the prevailing view seems to be, "If you can change the hearts and minds of enough people, the culture will necessarily follow." Over the course of the next several weeks, I will challenge this assumption and offer what I think—and what history seems to prove—is a far more effective approach to cultural engagement, especially if the goal is real change in the society's values and beliefs.

In light of the "hearts and minds" approach, there have‚ over the years‚ arisen a multitude of well-intended—mostly conservative—organizations built upon this premise. However, I would argue that this approach tends to only garner a constituency of like-minded folks; those who already share the same hearts and minds. What they generally fail to achieve in any measure are conversions‚ meaning the persuasion from one side of an issue to the other. This reality ultimately leads to a shift—intended or otherwise—in strategy. What often begins as an earnest effort at public persuasion—the affirmation of a higher ideal—inevitably gives way to political advocacy on behalf of the organization's constituents. The already converted don't need to be persuaded; what they want is to see their view of the world advanced over and against all other competitors. They want a "champion" who will insure their view triumphs.

This change in approach to cultural engagement is largely the result of politicization. What do I mean by politicization? Several weeks ago, In James Davidson Hunter's recent book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010), he argues that "in response to a thinning consensus of substantive beliefs and dispositions in the larger culture, there has been a turn toward politics as a foundation and structure for social solidarity." Hunter is saying is that due to the disintegration of common values, worldviews, and the like that now animate our pluralistic culture, our society is increasingly polarized as competing interests seek to establish their respective views as the right view. As a consequence, persuasion is thought to be an inadequate way of competing, so in order to defend (or advance) our view, we resort to worldly forms of power—namely political power.

In light of this quest to triumph rather than persuade, organizations—including, in some ways, the American church—inevitably alter their mission. We are no longer content to say, "Help us persuade others to see a better way‚" or "Help us help others be faithful." When the issues become politicized, concerns necessarily shift from the good of all to primarily the interests of the group and their advance. Fear replaces the affirmation of higher ideals as the means of motivation, and opponents become the enemy. And in the case of the church, we simply make ourselves one more "special interest group."

Of course, everyone justifies this approach‚ both on the left and the right‚ convincing themselves that the advance of their agenda is in the best interest of all. However, politicization forces the abandonment of the "us for them" approach for an "us against them" tactic and constituents simply become the financiers of the campaign. Success is only measureable by "winning"; merely being faithful—a somewhat ambiguous quality—is no longer tolerable. Thus these efforts, which began with the goal of commending their view of the world, eventually descend into political coercion as the means of cultural change.

That is not to say that political activism is unimportant; it isn't! Nor am I saying we should avoid politics. I'm not! What I am saying is this: our expectations of politics are often way too high, far beyond their real power. For one, politics has never been the means of actually changing the culture and, two, it is certainly not the means by which the Christian church—the most powerful social and cultural transforming force in history—has or should fulfill its mission and purpose.

Over the course of the next several weeks, I will give three examples of cultural engagement. The first is the Prohibition movement, which sought to accomplish moral reform through coercive political means and ultimately failed, eventually doing harm in the process. Next we will examine the abortion-on-demand movement, which as I will show, employed a more sophisticated approach to cultural engagement and thereby achieved a significant measure of success. And finally, we will look at the early Christian church and its true triumph over pagan Rome.

End of Part 1 of 4

Coping with Consequences

For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal – 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 NIV

Charles Swindoll wrote the following words. He expressed it so well that I offer it to you. The two truths he lays out below are the truths that I also have exactly felt and believed during some of my own darkest times. Enjoy!

I have found great help from two truths God gave me at a time in my life when I was bombarded with a series of unexpected and unfair blows (from my perspective). In my darkest hours these principles still become my anchor of stability, my only means of survival.

Because they work for me, I pass them on to you. Memorize them. Write them on a card and carry it at all times.

First Truth: Nothing touches me that has not passed through the hands of my heavenly Father. Nothing. Whatever occurs, God has sovereignly surveyed and approved. We may not know why, but we do know our pain is no accident to Him who guides our lives.

Second Truth: Everything I endure is designed to prepare me for serving others more effectively. Everything. Since my Heavenly Father is committed to shaping me into the image of His Son, He knows the ultimate value of this painful experience. It is being used to empty my hands of my own resources, my own sufficiency, and turn me back to Him---the faithful Provider. And God knows what will get through to me.

Things may not be logical or fair, but when God is directing the events of my life, they are right.

The Role of Older Women in the Church, Part 4

God has a specific design for all ages of His people in the church. Whether one is young or more mature, male or female, God has a designed and purpose for each to fulfill.

In the last three blogs, we have seen what are the roles of Older Women in the church. We have seen some characteristics of how they ought to behave as older Christian Women.

Here is a review:

First, older women ought to be reverent in their behavior (Titus 2:3).

Second, older women are not to be malicious gossips (Titus 2:3).

Third, older women are not to be enslaved to much wine (2:3b).

And now - 


Fourth, older women are to be known for teaching what is good (Titus 2:3c).

Teaching what is good is simply teaching things that are noble, holy and godly. In other words, teaching the things of God. You see, the idea is this: Now that they are older, and now that they have in their younger years taught and trained up their own children, teach now the younger women in the church. So then, their teaching and training ministry is not over with since their children are raised and gone. They still carry a vital teaching role. They now can direct their efforts to teaching the younger women.

In fact, that is precisely what Paul says in the very next verse: Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God – vv. 4-5.

The word “encourage” means “to cause someone to be of sound mind and to have self-control.” It is closely related to the word “sensible” (1:8; 2:5). The idea is for the older women to help the younger women in the church to cultivate good judgment and sensibilities.

To encourage is merely another way of instructing others in the Word of God. And what better people to instruct than those who are younger in the church. Younger women need godly examples.

Of course there is a strong debate on whether women in general are permitted to teach and have authority over men in the church (see 1 Tim. 2:12).  This is a sensitive subject worth a series of blogs that will be one day forthcoming. But one thing is certain and there is no debate: Older women should have a teaching ministry especially among the younger women in the church.  When godly Christian older women hold back from teaching the younger women in the church, the body of Christ will suffer for it.

The Role of Older Women in the Church, Part 3

Tim Peck is the minister of the Life Bible Fellowship Church of Upland California. Listen to his thoughts about wasting opportunities:

The older I get, the more I realize that there’s a lot of waste when you’re young. The young have so much idealism, but so little wisdom. They have boundless energy and enthusiasm, yet they lack many of the life skills necessary to harness that energy and enthusiasm for lasting good. They’re ready to take risks, yet often they take foolish risks, rather than calculated ones. So much is wasted during our youth.

And the older I get, the more I realize that being older has a lot of waste as well. When we finally have the wisdom of hindsight, we no longer have the guts to take the risks we did in our youth. All that wisdom, learned from the school of hard knocks, yet its wisdom we’ll probably take to our graves with us. We have the perspective of experience, yet we distrust new ideas, so we waste that perspective. Aging has a lot of waste.

But what would happen if the young and old respected each other? What would happen if the generation gap closed some, so the vigor and idealism of the young was joined with the hindsight and wisdom of the older? What would happen if the young and old had a common vision of God’s kingdom work on this earth, and instead of discounting each other, they respected each other for what each group had to offer? It would almost be like the day of Pentecost, when the church began, and God’s Spirit was poured out on both men and women, young and old, slave and free, where all without distinction received the Spirit of God because of their faith in (and obedience to) in Jesus.

Perhaps, this is why Paul singles out older men (Titus 2:2), older woman (2:3), young women (2:4), and young men (2:6), so as to encourage them all to help one another out and not let their age become a stumbling block to themselves and to one another.

Here are some qualities that ought to characterize older women in the church.

First, older women ought to be reverent in their behavior (2:3). The phrase “reverent in behavior” is actually one word in the Greek. It is known as a hapax legomenon, which simply means this word is a rare word only used here in the New Testament. The basic foot meaning refers to being priestlike and it came to refer to that which is appropriate to holiness. In other words, older women are to be godly examples of holiness.

God’s want to display in older women (and of course not just the older women, but especially them) His glory through their holiness. So when others see their virtue and godly behavior, they will honor God and see Jesus in the character and the lives of such seasoned saints.

Anna is a prime example of this. She was a widow at the age of 84, and “she had never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers” (Luke 2:37). Because at her age she lived for the Lord so honorably and faithfully, God allowed her to immediately recognize the infant Jesus when Joseph and Mary brought Him to the temple. The moment Anna saw baby Jesus, she began giving thanks to God and told others about God’s wondrous plan of redemption for Jerusalem (v. 38).

Now folks, this was before Jesus had done anything significant in terms of a miracle. This was before Jesus had said anything significant. How did she know that this child was the Messiah – God in the flesh? To me, one baby looks like all other babies. What made this baby so special and how did Anna know? Simply: God opened her eyes and showed her. Why? Because she was a woman of holiness and seeing the Messiah and knowing what God was about to do became her reward.

With Timothy, Paul had this to say: 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God – 1 Tim. 2:9-10 NIV

God wants women to dress the part. What is their dress code? “Good deeds,” which is “appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”

Second, older women are not to be malicious gossips (Titus 2:3). That is, older women are not to listen to nor should they take part in the slander of others. This is easy to do since they are most likely as this age not to be working or bearing children. They got time on their hands and it is easy to be caught in the latest gossip club of the church. Men are capable of abusing others physically and women are capable of abusing others verbally, which in some cases can be more destructive and longer lasting.

The words “malicious gossips” is the Greek word “diabolos,” which means “slanderer or false accuser.” It is a term used of Satan, whom Jesus described as “the father of lies” (John 8:44). Thus the gossip is not so much idle chatter, but falsely slandering another person secretly to others and spreading rumors all throughout the church.

Third, older women are not to be enslaved to much wine (2:3b). Notice that Paul said “much wine” and not “some” or “little” wine. Paul is not forbidding the drinking of wine. He is forbidding becoming a slave to over indulgence. Paul is referring to drunkenness.

On the island of Crete, some had turned to wine as a stimulant and a means of ameliorating the pains, frustrations and loneliness of old age. This was not to be true of older Christian women in the church.

“Enslave” means “to be held in controlled against one’s will.” Thus the idea of bondage is pictured here. Therefore, “much wine” becomes more of a prison than a means of escape. When older women do such things, three things happen:

1. They bring dishonor to the Lord.
2. They give to the church a bad reputation
3. They lead others (especially younger women) into their ungodly example.

Paul just laid out the negative things that can tarnish the life and testimony of older Christian women. But are there positive things older women are to do?

Yes, there are and we will see what they are in Part 4.

The Role of Older Women in the Church, Part 2

The bible has a great deal to teach about the role of women in the church. We are just focusing primarily on what Paul had written to Titus. Here is our text:

3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God – Titus 2:3-5 NIV.

In Part 1, I mentioned that the first thing Paul points out to Titus to look for are “older women.” Why? Because these season sisters have a lot to contribute to the rest of the saints. Their experiences are rich. Most likely when Paul told Titus about older women, he was referring to women who were around the age of sixty. Such women are to be given special esteem and consideration.

But there are some practical ways for older women to serve in the church.

First, they can pour their lives into teaching and encouraging younger women in the things of God. Think about it: Older women can minister to younger women, other older women, divorce women, widowed women, married women, women with or without children, single women, etc. They are such a rich resource of the church. To not use the older women in your church is to not use one of God’s most prize resources. They can also visit the sick and those in prison. They can serve the body in the area of hospitality.

In towns and places that were very much pagan to the core, Christian women would go through the streets and marketplaces searching for abandoned newborn babies who were unwanted and had been left to die. Abortion at this time was often too expensive and the procedures were often times not safe. Birth control pills and devices were not even around, therefore, unwanted babies were left and abandoned at birth. The unsaved would find male babies and raise them as slaves or gladiators, and if they found a female, she would be raised as a prostitute in order to give the person who raised her a lucrative income. However, Christian women who would find these babies first, would often bring them to church and allow others who could not have kids of their own to raise them as their own.

Older women who had already gone through the child rearing stage could offer help and assistance to young mothers just starting out. By helping out in this way, older women would spend quality time with other women and use such a time to talk about the things of God and build strong disciples.

When Paul used the term “likewise” in verse 3, he was pointing back to what he had just said about “older men” (v. 2). Just as there are roles for older men, there are also roles for older women.

Too often the church has a tendency to look outside of its membership to find that right program, that gifted speaker, that awesome idea in order to help its membership expand its faith in God. But how often do we see that God has given to the church rich resources in the older men and women who are in the church? We must not put such people on the shelf ant not use them. They have a lot to contribute and if directed properly by church leaders, they could become an invaluable asset to the church’s family.

So what are some of the specific qualities that should characterize older women in the church?

More to come in Part 3

The Role of Older Women in the Church, Part 1

The role of women in the church is a fine study to undertake. Some shy away from such a study for fear of women and possible backlash. But I believe such fears are unfounded. Women welcome a clear presentation of what the bible teaches to be their role. To not teach it is to forfeit a Christian woman’s right to know her role and to step into a sphere of blessing.

When Paul wrote to Titus, here is what he said: 3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God – Titus 2:3-5 NIV.

Let’s dissect this passage and discover the richness of God’s truths regarding how women - -both old and young are to conduct themselves in the house of God. And may I add that this is not just when women are in church one or two days a week. This is a perpetual lifestyle.

First, older women in the church are to be given special respect because of their age. A mother as well as a father are to be given honor by their children (Eph. 6:2; Exod. 20:12). This is not a command to be obeyed and taken seriously only up until the children reach age 18. This honor extends to parents up until the time of their death. In fact, an older woman who does something wrong should be lovingly rebuked as a mother (1 Tim. 5:2). Therefore, when Paul addresses older women here, he first wants to get across the idea of treating them with respect and honor.

Who then are to be considered older women? Well, Paul does not actually specify on an age here. Typically, child bearing ends around 40-45 years of age and child rearing ends at about 60-65. I think it would be reasonable to say that older women in the church would be those around 60 years old. In fact, this is the exact age Paul mentions to Timothy when he says to put widows on the church financial support list who are at least 60 years old (1 Tim. 5:9).

When Paul wanted to bring in line two warring women in the church at Philippi – Euodia and Syntyche, he graciously urged the leaders “help these women who have shared my struggle” (Phil. 4:2-3). There is an inference of respect and honor applied here.

I believe such godly older women are such a rich source of spiritual resource in the church. Such women deserve special esteem and consideration. What would cause an older woman to be given such high esteem? See the list below taken from 1 Timothy 5:3-10:

1. She is at least 60 years old
2. She fixes her hope on God
3. She prays regularly
4. She is or was a faithful wife and godly mother
5. She shows hospitality to others
6. She assist those in distress
7. She devotes herself to doing good works

Paul says to Timothy, if you come across a widow in your church who has these qualifications, then the church, if it is able to afford so, ought to financially support her.

It is wrong to allow such a person to be given over to the state for support. The church ought to set aside its own funds and help in practical ways. I know we tend to only want to support those who can somehow contribute to the church in service. Nothing wrong with that. But the church should also contribute to the support of older women who are in need of financial support as long as they meet the qualifications as outline to Timothy. This is a great way to show honor and esteem to seasoned saints.
Nevertheless, older women can serve in the church in numerous ways. What are some of these ways?

More to Come in Part 2

What the Bible Is Not

Note: Although the Bible is one book, it contains sixty-six documents all with various stories, personalities, places and teachings. None of which contradicts one another. However, if you were asked: “What is the central theme of the bible from Genesis to Revelation?” How would you respond? This short article by Tullian is amazingly simple over what some have made overly complex. Enjoy!

What the Bible Is Not

Tullian Tchividjian
Pastor and Author

Contrary to what many Christians have concluded, the Bible does not tell two stories: the story of Israel in the OT and the story of the church in the NT. No, the Bible tells one story and points to one figure: it tells the story of how God rescues a broken world and points to Christ who accomplishes this.

In the OT God revealed himself through types and shadows, through promises and prophecies. In the NT God reveals himself in Christ who is the substance of every shadow and the fulfillment of every promise and prophecy. In other words, the OT predicts God's rescuer; the NT presents God's rescuer. Therefore, the whole Bible-both the Old and New Testament-is all about God's rescuer.

Even though it's a children's Bible, The Jesus Storybook Bible is, in my opinion, one of the best resources available to help both children and adults see the Jesus-centered story line of the Bible.

In the Introduction of that book, author Sally Lloyd-Jones rightly explains what the Bible is not before she beautifully explains what the Bible is. She writes:

Now, some people think the Bible is a book of rules, telling you what you should and shouldn't do. The Bible certainly does have some rules in it. They show you how life works best. But the Bible isn't mainly about you and what you should be doing. It's about God and what he has done.

Other people think the Bible is a book of heroes, showing you people you should copy. The Bible does have some heroes in it, but (as you'll soon find out) most of the people in the Bible aren't heroes at all. They make some big mistakes (sometimes on purpose), they get afraid and run away. At times, they're downright mean.

No, the Bible isn't a book of rules, or a book of heroes. The Bible is most of all a Story. It's an adventure story about a young Hero who comes from a far country to win back his lost treasure. It's a love story about a brave Prince who leaves his palace, his throne-everything-to rescues the ones he loves. It's like the most wonderful of fairy tales that has come true in real life!

You see, the best thing about this Story is-it's true.  There are lots of stories in the Bible, but all the stories are telling on Big Story. The Story of how God loves his children and comes to rescue them.

It takes the whole Bible to tell this Story. And at the center of the Story, there is a baby. Every story in the Bible whispers his name. He is like the missing piece in the puzzle-the piece that makes all the other pieces fit together, and suddenly you can see a beautiful picture.

My hope and prayer for all is that we would come to a bigger, better, deeper, and brighter understanding of this remarkable Story and its infallible Hero!

The World: Love It or Hate It?

Note: Here is a short but interesting article on the need to make a distinction on the word, "world" used in the bible.  We live in the world, we are part of the world, yet God gives to us some definite guidelines to follow:  "Love the world, hate the world, go into the world, separate yourself from the world."   Confused?  You need not be. Read on.  Enjoy! 

The World: Love It or Hate It?
Tullian Tchividjian
Pastor and Author

Have you ever wondered why the Bible seems to be guilty of double-talk when speaking of "the world"? John 3:16 tells us that God the Father loves the world so much that he sent God the Son to fix it. But we're told in 1 John 2:15‑17 not to love the world, and James tells us that "a friend of the world" is "an enemy of God" (James 4:4). We have Paul telling us in 2 Corinthians 6:17 to be separate from the world and to "go out from" unbelievers, while Jesus, in Mark 16:15 commands his disciples to "go into all the world."

What's going on? Is the world good or bad? Are we to love it or hate it? Enter it or exit it?

The answer: it all depends on which sense of the word world you mean.

As scholars point out, the word world has three basic meanings in the Bible. It can refer to (1) the created order, (2) the human community, and (3) the sinful ways of humanity, or cultural godlessness. It's this third meaning, for instance, that Paul identifies when he tells us, "Do not be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Romans 12:2). He's not telling us to avoid the created order or other human beings. It's actually worldliness that Paul is warning against.

Furthermore, when it comes to the world, it's necessary to differentiate between "structure" and "direction." It's the difference between what there is and how we use what there is. The world as structure refers to the people (such as my next-door neighbor), places (such as Miami), and things (such as art or music) of the created order. "Direction" refers to the ethical use or misuse of God's created goods. As the Bible teaches, God created all things good (structure). But our sin has broken and corrupted every good thing God created, "directing" it away from him. Everything in the created order (every person, place, and thing) has been twisted out of shape by our sin.

Sex, for instance, is a structural good that God has built into his creation, while sex outside marriage is an ethical misuse of that good. Or, to take an example one of my friends uses, the storytelling ability of movies is a structural good that's a part of God's created order (God himself is a storyteller). But the illicit sex, perverse humor, and shallow story lines found in many movies represent an ethical misuse of that created good. Therefore, while God loves the structure of the world (creation), he hates its sinful direction (fall), though he's now in the process of redirecting it back toward himself (redemption).

We are, of course, to follow God's lead in this. We're to love the world's structure (peoples, places, and things) while fighting against the world's sinful direction. Or, as Flannery O'Connor put it, if you are a Christian you "have to cherish the world at the same time that you struggle against it."

Is God Our Cheerleader, or Are We His?

Note:  Here is a very good article that will put some perspective on how we try to manage the way we become encouraged.  Read for yourself.  Enjoy!

Is God Our Cheerleader, or Are We His?
Jay Sampson

I remember some things about the fall of 1987, but none nearly as vividly as our high school football team playing in the state championship. The whole city seemed caught up in the anticipation of what was happening. There was even a coach's quote that made it onto sweatshirts, bumper stickers and business signs: "never, never, never, never, never give up." Sadly, few in the stands wearing the shirts realized that they and the coach were actually quoting Winston Churchill. Nothing could deter our enthusiasm to cheer for our team! "NNNNNGU" was seen all over town.

In the semifinal game, as time grew short and our team found itself behind, the chants from the stands came raining down on the field. "Never, Never, Never, Never, Never Give Up! Never, Never, Never, Never, Never Give Up!" Our team rallied to win and advance to the finals. It was all very cathartic for an entire town caught up in the exploits of its players. Those players would later say that hearing the cheers from the stands gave them encouragement to play well, but the truth is neither I nor anyone else sitting in the stands that night had any effect on the outcome of the game. The players had to pull it off. In fact, on the other side of the field was a group of fans equal in size and voice to our side. They cheered just as hard and just as loud - and their team went home defeated. We did all we could, but it was up to the team to pull it off... and they did.

Even though we would go on to lose the state championship, this great memory is replete with human drama and the glorious unknown. It makes for good inspiration. However, it parallels a disturbing trend I've noticed among followers of Christ to take this storyline and its exhilarating mystery and apply it to our spiritual lives. If I may oversimplify, I see two predominant schools of thought regarding how God is active in our spiritual lives. The core of the difference is who is central in the story. We love to be the center of the story and the focal point of God's affection. But when it comes to walking in the Spirit, is God my cheerleader, the one shouting "NNNNNGU" and praising my performance... or am I His? It may seem inconsequential, but what you believe about the roles in this scene has an impact on how the characters relate to each other, as well as how life's day-to-day events unfold.

In a recent devotional, beloved Christian author Max Lucado somewhat gave voice to the "God-as-cheerleader" viewpoint. In an excerpt from his book, Let the Journey Begin, Lucado, seeking to encourage the downtrodden, says:

"God is for you. Turn to the sidelines; that's God cheering your run. Look past the finish line; that's God applauding your steps. Listen for him in the bleachers, shouting your name. Too tired to continue? He'll carry you. Too discouraged to fight? He's picking you up. God is for you. God is for you. Had he a calendar, your birthday would be circled. If he drove a car, your name would be on his bumper. If there's a tree in heaven, he's carved your name in the bark. We know he has a tattoo, and we know what it says. 'I have written your name on my hand,' he declares (Isa. 49:16)."

Now, obviously Lucado, who also authored a book titled It's Not About Me does not believe that we can find meaning by believing we are the center of the world. However, it sounds like Brother Max believes we can find value by believing that we are the center of God's affection. The logic would go something like this: Life is not about us, life is about God. And GOD is about us, so be encouraged. In this view, God's role in our life is as our biggest fan, perfect parent and consummate cheerleader. He wants your happiness even more than you do and he's cheering for it, so go out and get it!

To be sure, God has poured out His love on His children. He has loved us with an unfathomable love. He has demonstrated His love towards us by sending Jesus as our righteousness and our salvation. But whenever God occupies a grandstand in our lives and not a throne, we err terribly. At times (especially when time grows short and we find ourselves behind) we like to talk about God as our biggest fan. He cheers us on as we walk through life, telling us that we can do it - but ultimately having little to do with the final outcome.

It feels good and right to be the center of the story and the focal point of everyone's attention. When we think of all that God has done in Christ for His children, it is easy to see how we can think that God is solely focused on doing all He can to cheer for us. The problem with that logic comes in what we have to do to God to fit him into a cheerleader uniform.

In a curiously antithetical article, John Piper states the counter-argument, what we'll call the "God-as-cheered" viewpoint, this way:

"God is the one Being in the entire universe for whom self-centeredness, or the pursuit of his own glory, is the ultimately loving act. For him, self-exaltation is the highest virtue. When he does all things 'for the praise of his glory,' he preserves for us and offers to us, the only thing in the entire world, which can satisfy our longings. God is for us, and therefore has been, is now and always will be, first, for himself. I urge you not to resent the centrality of God in his own affections, but to experience it as the fountain of your everlasting joy."

He WANTS us to choose him, to follow him, to know that we are special to him but that it is up to him to make things happen, to order our steps. The result of God-in-the-stands, however, has some serious personal and theological effects. It's tough to serve a cheerleader God. If he is in the stands and on the sidelines and at the finish line, then how am I gonna get there? If he carries me only when I am too tired, can I just admit right now that I'm tired? Out here running on my own, I keep going in circles. I have no idea where I'm headed. If he picks me up only when I'm too discouraged to fight, can I just admit right now that, if I'm fighting and he's cheering, I'm gonna get handled... and quickly.

I think maybe I'm tempted to put God in the stands when things aren't turning out quite how I'd hoped. If God is cheering but I am the one running, then I can always blame it on me when things go bad - thereby absolving God of any possible egg on His face and paying the price for my own failure. You see the problem there, no? Relegating God to a fail-safe and fall-back will always get you to the same place, failing and falling again and again until you see that it is God who wills and works, God who makes alive, God who remembers based on His own choice, not your ability to perform.

For His own name and glory - God has created, worked, efforted, miracled. Now, needing fans, he has taken, among others, a washed up, tired, slow white kid named Jay and put HIM in the bleachers while placing himself on the throne of the victor. The race is over. The battle is won. The champion is seated on a throne... always has been. And, look at that, he does have a tattoo - only it's on his thigh... and it isn't MY name... it's his - King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16) - and all us tired cheerleaders in the bleachers are going WILD.

In the final analysis it's fair to say that there is something of a "both/and" thing going on here, similar to the quote from that sage Forrest Gump when he said, "Maybe both is happening at the same time." There is a time to know that God is your biggest fan, that he has all your successes and hopes in mind, that he doesn't want you to lick the trash can. Our name is written on his hand, and his greatness is written on his robe and thigh. But it truly seems from both general and special revelation that God has no bigger cheerleader than himself - and he has invited you and I to have a seat in the bleachers and join in the celebration.

Or, as a popular website reminds us these days, God is First. I am Second.