Nichols Blog

Joshua and I were headed to Wal-Mart to get a new magazine for my rifle and before we did I told him I wanted to pray.

So we prayed for Mama and Uncle Gary and Mister Phil. Afterwards I turned to him locked safely in his car set in the back of the top-off, door-off Jeep and said, "Brother, you know we have a God we can speak to any time, any where if you are in Christ."

To which he responded,

"Jesus Loves Us, Papa".

How does a two and a half year old deduce this from the liberty to speak to our Heavenly Father? He wasn't just being a parrot, this was a conclusion of Joshua's. And his conclusion warms my heart.

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
(Luk 21:1-4)

I wonder how alarmed this woman would be if she were able to perform an audit on individuals' finances in the Church today. I don't wonder because we don't give enough, but rather because we give other people's money and call it giving, or 'tithing'. The issue of "giving" has come up a lot lately and I am convinced the seeds of prosperity gospel teaching have become well-germinated in the Church in many subtle ways. I am further convinced that the error is because we fail to see that God views man in terms of finances as one of a steward, not as a resource; or, stated more succinctly, He doesn't need your money - He uses money to train us (Luke 16,Matt 25).

While most would agree with this philosophically (after all, He is God, right?), most organizations and even local churches today mix in what they consider to be a "pragmatic" approach to giving. That is, while it is true that God doesn't need your money, WE do so you should give it to us to get God's "blessings". My post here will not dig into the false teaching of "tithing" so many leaders continue to hurl at Christian ears since that deserves its own posting. Here I am more concerned with this view that the act of giving somehow supercedes God's commandments about how we handle our money or that He even "blesses" people with money who have acted irresponsibly with their finances.

Would you give money to someone who buys their food at 17.25% interest on their third credit card and considers getting a big screen television because it is on sale while their home electricity is being threatened with disconnection by the utility company? If this doesn't sound ludicrous to you then you wouldn't understand this blog post. If it does sound ludicrous, can you help me understand why would we teach people that God intends His children to live according to this madness and tell them He actually will provide for it by giving them more?

Debt and its indication of disobedience and bondage is not my focus here. The fact is, most people in this country carry some form of consumer debt whether it is credit card debt, student loans, car loans, or any other debt on a liability - they are losing money every day. If you owe money and are unable to pay it, the money you have is simply not your own - it is the lender's (Prov 22:7). Every cent spent apart from paying off that debt only lengthens the debt and compounds the interest accrued on it. Failure to heed this and continuing to deepen the debt without lifestyle adjustment is a sickness, similar to the man with emphysema pulling off his oxygen mask to have a smoke. The sickness in the Bible is called by various terms:  "covetousness", "idolatry", etc.

When finances are dealt with in most church teaching, "faith" is introduced as some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card. Rather than teaching that our willingness to postpone some purchase because of a lack of resources is an evidence of our faith, we teach that God will give us some money back if we give it to <insert Christian organization here>. Rather than teaching that faith eats Ramen noodles and drinks water while riding bicycles, we teach that faith is believing God will sustain our obesity and SUV's because we throw a five-spot at some charity. Rather than teaching that the "cheerful heart" God wants us to give from is only accessible from a life of freedom, we exhort people to imitate cheerful giving while they sink in the pit of bondage evidenced by debt. In short, "faith" in the common application toward mammon is seen as an acceptable usurper of moral responsibility. This is indeed a "faith" but the faith of palm readers and psychics, not the God of Israel who is conforming His children to the image of His Son.

Clearly stated, a Christian simply should not be "giving" until he (not his bank) has something to give. No Christian is unable to give that has acted responsibly with his or her finances. And even if he or she couldn't give the verse above teaches us Christ is far more interested in the desire of the heart (to give). A Christian giving money who refuses to allow God to govern his finances is just no different than the mafia guy praying for forgiveness for killing a guy but has no intention of changing his ways. It's the same rotten religiosity no matter which way I look at it.

The typical response to the proposition that a Christian should hold off on "giving" until they have paid off debts which are holding them in bondage typically invokes the response you'd expect: "Yeah, but then a lot of ministries would cease to exist". Apart from the humanistic confidence this conclusion exudes, I hope you see the underlying (flawed) premise in this conclusion: God sees man as a vital financial resource generator, not as a steward. Also, we are potentially stating that God finds slavery of His children suitable for the advancement of His "ministry" objectives. How? Debt is always revealed as slavery in the Bible. People don't go into debt because they give too much, they go into debt because they overspend, plain and simple. God is far more interested in changing the mind that tolerates slavery to things like cars, degrees, televisions, etc. than He is with the measly $100 being tossed in the coffers.

Finally, consider this - if God really intends Christians to continue their giving while being enslaved to consumer debt why not exhort the congregation to give much more than they can handle? Why not be asking for the entire limit on their credit card? This might sound overstated, but after thinking about this for a long time I can see no difference. You might as well give lots if you are holding to the belief that you can give with money that is not your own. If you are thinking "well, that is extreme. I want to get out debt someday but can't for a while; I can stop giving until then." Why not? Wouldn't it be wiser to pursue ridding yourself of the slavery and set aside all the money you saved on the interest so you can give more later on? It makes both spiritual and mathematical cents <grin>.

So how does all this play out in the "real world"?

First, debt happens. You are not "evil" or "unclean" because you have some debt you cannot pay, but you are enslaved. But you are enslaved with the God of the Universe interested in your liberation ! Rather than trusting Him to give you a bit to keep giving, trust Him to get you out of the slavery and free up your resources. He will do this first by causing you to agree with Him about the pitfalls of living beyond your means (if that is the situation that got you there) and also providing a way to free you from it. He has done this in my life and He will in yours.

Second, if there is some financial situation that is simply binding you from being able to give anything away be very wary of compulsion which is anything other than the Holy Spirit's unction. If the Lord would have you give "all the living that you have" as the widow above did, then do it. If you are giving just because of some social pressure or habitual sense of duty then STOP - that stuff is self righteous and repugnant. Consider that the reason you have little is because God is seeing how you as a steward will do and He is more interested in your character and mind set toward money than He is in your money. The mantra "faithful in little, faithful in much" is an inescapable truth.

Third, if you feel you must teach about giving be sure to first teach about God's view of how men should handle their money to begin with. The lust that gets people into trouble financially is sin. We do people a disservice when we allow them to steep in that sinful mind set. This is especially true if we are actually suggesting they have liberty to demonstrate godly behavior while continuing in their sinful ways. We are essentially causing them to sidestep their sin and I really wonder how interested we are in the spiritual well-being of our listeners if we can entertain that.

No, not the TV Show .

There is a horrible irony that can be missed in Deuteronomy if you aren't carefully following along with Moses' recollection of the Great Wilderness Adventure. It is an irony I believe God has stuck in there to teach us about our own capriciousness and failure to embrace Him as the God of all.

Do you recall why the Israelites were sentenced to wander until their death (sans children) in the forsaken wasteland outside Canaan? If you answered, "they saw giants" you would be wrong. Not because the scouts in Numbers 13 didn't think they saw giants, but because they couldn't have seen giants. I have been told this story again and again being told that the reason the Israelites were scared of entering Canaan was because of giants that lived therein, but this is flat out wrong. Otherwise, this verse would be false:

For only Og king of Bashan [map] remained of the remnant of giants; ...
(Deu 3:11a)

If you look up the location of Bashan (today's Golan Heights) you'd see Bashan it outside Canaan. Bashan has significance in the Bible as being often a representation of that which is big, mighty, strong. The 'bulls of Bashan' were known for their size. The mountains are large. Deuteronomy 3:13 explicitly tells us it was known as 'the land of giants'. They represent the largeness man attributes to other men who have might, or power. This Og was no different. Besides being a giant he commanded a numerous army over some 60 cities (Deut 3:4).

Deuteronomy 3:3 tells us Israel defeated this Og and his armies. Actually, it says "the Lord our God delivered into [their] hands Og". We once again see God using geography for spiritual significance. The Israelites blamed their lack of faith to go in and take Canaan on their belief that giants dwelt there thanks to false, but sincere, testimony. Yet here we see them defeating the only giant that did exist and they did so outside the land in which they were intended to be conquerors. This must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow, as surely some of them realized that they were able to conquer giants and their destiny could have been much different. The next forty years of their life would have the haunting "What if?" stalking them when they ate yet another piece of manna or packed up yet another tent.

God makes it clear to us here that men are capable of perceiving giants where there are none. He also makes it clear to us that whether there are giants or not doesn't matter in His economy since He is the single entity we need to fear. It is one thing to trust God for battle, but it is even more profound when we trust God for correcting our perspective.

I feel extremely awkward in social gatherings, especially at work where I am late on a project that has been very expensive. I was invited to join the top dogs in the company for a fun time at a hockey game in the suite they have reserved. Though I am certain I think too much about matters and am convinced one of the benefits of salvation is freedom from man-pleasing (Rom 2:29), nonetheless I sense heat in the glares from some other folks in the company. I wish I had meditated on this "giant" teaching before I went in there. The Spirit of God was faithful to bolster confidence in me and put things in proper perspective and I ended up really enjoying talking with everyone there, but later I reflected on how quickly the sensory scouts in me want to run back to camp and yell "There Be Giants There!" and retreat.

Falsifying conviction is meaningless, void.

The manifestation of this rotten motive is infinitely creative. We see movie stars traveling the world adopting babies, speeches made to the poor by government leaders on the campaign trail, coins dropped in the beggar's cup by the guy out on a date with the Christian girl. We keep a mental list of recent morally outstanding acts we have recently committed to assuage both the devil our adversary and the preacher our referee. To make matters worse, every week there is a new book released by some guy who does nothing but read the Bible and write books all day convincing us that we aren't doing enough and convinces us our burdens should be the same as his burdens. An accompanying DVD set is of course available for a recommended "love offering" (tr. "price") of $49.95 to help you "catch the fire".

Two incidents occur in Deuteronomy which speak loudly about God's opinion on this disposition. The first occurs in Deuteronomy 1:41 just after the great Sentence rendered upon Israel for her unbelief - life in the Wilderness. It is interesting to note how Israel responds to God after He just issued this sentence of life in the Wilderness and a direct command to go by the Red Sea:

Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD, we will go up and fight, according to all that the LORD our God commanded us. And when ye had girded on every man his weapons of war, ye were ready to go up into the hill.
(Deu 1:41)

Just a few moments ago they were cowering because they'd fight big scary giants in the Promised Land (Num 13:33), yet now all of a sudden here they are at Moses' patio with their war gear ready to go fight. God informs them through Moses that He will not be among them and cautions them to stand down, but of course they set out to war anyway and are consequently run out like a pacifist at an NRA conference by the Amorites, crying like snot-nosed babies when they return. The error here was their imitation of conviction - they thought because God had just chastised them for their unwillingness to fight in Canaan, they could put on a demonstration of battle in hopes God would notice and change His mind about the Wilderness sentence. They didn't want to do what God commanded, but rather wanted to appear busy doing similar activity.

Later on, we see God's perspective on man's propensity toward theatrical spirituality. Just after the big Wizard Of Oz demonstration at Sinai all the people of Israel were shaken to their core and implored Moses to go have a word with God:

Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
(Deu 5:27-28)

If we stop here, we might be led to believe God was impressed with Israel's words. But continuing, we see God more grieved because they are only able to express solidarity with Him in words:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
(Deu 5:29)

We see here God's profound revelation of the way men really function - they will not be the right kind of obedient until they are corrected in their heart. Their lips are meaningless.

How might this understanding impact our equipment of today Christians? I believe every exhortation to a character quality which is commanded by God must be very carefully delivered. "The heart", it is said "is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Given man's insatiable desire to justify himself in the eyes of himself and others, we must be very careful to withhold exhortations toward things like giving, acts of service, discipleship, etc. until we have firmly established that such things are indicators of a healthy heart, not steps toward reforming a crooked one. Failure to abide by this will simply be producing more Wilderness-dwellers with the veneer of spirituality and reduces Christianity to mere moralist ideology. Sure, they eat manna from heaven and have really long-lasting shoes but from God's perspective they are utterly useless and He will oppose them and their exploits to the end.

Last time, we looked at what we can learn from Moses in his dealing with situations and how he interprets events that are taking place. What is important to note in the chastisements to the people he was leading is his constant reminder of their encounter with Pharaoh and their witness to the Red Sea miracle. Even more striking is that this bit of history serves for chastisement for future prophets as well. Over and over we read in the Old Testament God's reminder to Israel how he delivered them from Egypt. Moses also draws on the water coming from the rock and the manna from heaven for affirming God's faithfulness and making the Israelites murmurings unreasonable in his mind.

History is important to God. It is so important to Him, He journals His relationship with man spanning thousands of years in every imaginable culture in a single book. He also treats history as having a direction, a purpose. One of the key attributes of men in the Bible we consider "great" is their ability to draw on history with God, both personally and in a larger scope of the human experience. This manifests itself as a dividing line between Moses and the people he was called to lead. They consistently fail to remember their history with God, while Moses continually recalls God's faithful dealing with him and his people. This necessarily leads them to two different places in terms of disposition and responses to life's upheavals.

It also makes Moses very lonely.

The maturity to set aside the current emotional tide we are engulfed in to recall God's faithfulness and displays of power in our life is only cultivated in the soil of saving faith. The Israelites concluded God hates them in Deut 1:27. How do people that walked across the dry land of the Red Sea conclude something like this? When I read this I realize how little I recollect my history with God and the various witnesses in my own life that testify to God's power and faithfulness. Life becomes something of a knee-jerk reaction when history doesn't penetrate into my interpretation of surrounding events.

We read in Deuteronomy 4:9 an explicit warning against forgetting our experiences. Here, it is called taking heed to one's self and keeping one's soul diligently.

Deuteronomy is somewhat of a spiritual autobiography for Moses. We read how he is grieved and challenged and what his thoughts were during the trials of the Unintended Wilderness Adventure. Why is this important? Because of the endorsement Moses receives at the end of the book:

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
(Deu 34:10)

Also consider that the Old Covenant which we call "the Law" is called "the Law of Moses" in the Bible - his name is usually attached to the fact of the law in Israel. The Law and Moses are so inextricably bound, Moses comes to represent the Law - this will be significant later as we investigate why Moses was not permitted in the Promised Land. Most striking, though, is how his fame persisted untarnished even through Christ's day. He appeared with Christ on the Mount during the transfiguration. Later, the writer of Hebrews mentions Moses' glory as an comparator for Jesus' glory.

When we come across someone with these kinds of treatments in the Bible it is important to look into the assumptions they make in their statements beyond merely what they say . This is useful for discovering the unspoken theology of folks like Paul and so on who have formed our understanding of God. Remember that we study the Bible not for content but rather giving God time to form our theology. We have to go slow and deep for this kind of treatment.

An early example of this is in Deuteronomy 1:19-32 where we read Moses' personal account of the spies' report and its undoing of Israel. What is interesting here is seeing the elements of the spies' data Moses considered important, or authoritative. Compare the account here to the one in Numbers 13-14, and we see the spies' reporting gloom and doom, which is what the rest of Israel chose to listen to and ultimately led to their exclusion from the Promised Land. Note that Moses' recollection in Deuteronomy, though, shows him having only heard the part about the fruit of the land being good and the land being good. Deuteronomy 1:25-26 shows Moses' incredulity that Israel would not go into Canaan and "forgets" to mention the big scary people and cities the spies also reported. He heard what the naysayers were saying, he just chose to throw out their observations since it ran counter to what he believed God was capable of.

I see in this difference of perspective something I have observed in other mature, great men of God - they simply do not acknowledge all the data which is a valuation from the perspective of human strength, might, intellect, or other resources. Everyone else around them is crying about how miserable a situation is while they draw on what they know about God and put that situation in that context. Uncertainty is subject to their understanding of God and the conclusions they draw are not based on their own perception.

I have finally completed a lengthy study of Deuteronomy spanning fourteen months. This book has blessed my year. I am going to publish a series of posts mostly logging the nuggets I discovered in Moses' ruminations. Along the way, I'd like to share some approaches I took to considering some of the assertions made in the book both conceptually and theologically in hopes it might encourage folks to slow down and read this important book.

Why I Set Out To Study Deuteronomy

I firmly believe Christians should always have a study from somewhere in the Old Testament going at all times. This can take form in so many ways, for example:

• Epoch - isolating a period in Israel's history and digging in with maps, literature from surrounding territories at that time, etc.
  • Babylonian or Assyrian exile
  • Judges
  • Just after the division of Israel
• Book - using a book to anchor study
• Character - study a person or group of like persons
  • The Life Of David
  • Kings Of Judah
  • Prophets with no books
• Covenant - examine the various covenants God has made
  • Noahic
  • Adamic
  • Abraham
  • Davidic

I will avoid going further into this right now though, since that smells like a different post. :)

Metawhat?

Obviously, studying Deuteronomy constitutes a book study. One of the compelling features of Deuteronomy that made me want to dive into it is that it is the most oft quoted book in the Bible itself. This makes Deuteronomy valuable for what we could call "metatheology", or theology which is describing its own theology. This manifests itself in a variety of ways, such as learning about the theology of Paul, Jesus, etc. by seeing how their own writings / sayings are consuming the passages from Deuteronomy. What context are they used in? Since the New Covenant ushered in a further revelation of God through Christ, how was that understood to be foretold in Deuteronomy by the New Testament folks? We could go on and on. The point here is that we can actually learn something about Bible interpretation and application to living by seeing how the New Testament writers expound on it.

If you set out to study this aspect of it, though, bear in mind that the New Testament references are probably quoting from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible common during Jesus' ministry and His apostles') so don't get confused by some disparity in wording. To be honest, I didn't get into this as much as I thought I would. The personal lessons I was learning were too attractive to devote the time a formal study of this deserves. Nonetheless, I found my understanding of New Testament books deeper as I studied Deuteronomy.

A Two-Way Mirror

When I set out, I thought this was going to be an interesting study of an important time in Israel's history, but it turned to be a very personal book with profound impact on the way I think, the way I act when I am alone, the way I view current events, and a host of rich spiritual by-products. It ended up being a mirror where I saw my own propensity toward religiosity, wandering, unbelief, and self-blindness. Sounds fun, huh? Not only is there recognition of personal trends shown in the book, but the assertion that God is interested and therefore watching my life. This sounds basic, but Deuteronomy drives this home in a way that makes me interested in what God thinks about my behavior, thoughts, etc. It is one thing to know God 'sees everything' but entirely something different to care. Deuteronomy has a way of making me care.

Which leads me to...

The Main Point

Obviously I am not in a position to tell you 'the main point' of Deuteronomy, except as it resounded in my brain through the months. The recurring idea which permeated my life that came from the Wild Wilderness Adventure in Deuteronomy is God's expectation for His children to know and walk in His ways.

And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?
(Deu 10:12-13)

Walking in God's ways is quite distinct from keeping God's commandments in Deuteronomy. When you hear Christians arguing about what the Bible 'says' or doesn't 'say' both parties have lost, even if one has a more accurate hermeneutic. The goal, you see, is to know God's ways, not just His words. An illustration would serve here.

As Chaya has grown (age 4 now!) we are transitioning from training which is conditioning to that which is revealing. For example, when the children are little and they touch something off-limits, they would get a thump on the hand with a low, calm 'No'. This was behavioral conditioning - we were not dealing with their heart. As they get a bit older, I expect the children to not only do what I tell them, but do so with 'happy hearts'. Frowning or crying or fussing while cleaning up the Lincoln logs is not obedience. It is compliance. This is 'keeping the commandment'.

Now we are watching for opportunities to discuss with Chaya the choices she must make to be in our will. If I hear Mama obviously trying to move Chaya along to bed without directly commanding her and Chaya is delaying with distractions, I call Chaya in and ask her what Mama is desiring for her at the moment. She always answers correctly! She may be acting like a distracted little girl, but she knows what we desire and that is what we expect her to walk after.  Let me be clear that apart from Christ, Chaya will never be able to do this with godly desire so we are not promoting some kind of salvation here. Rather, we are teaching her to deal with her own lusts so they do not consume her and make her deaf to the Lord's prompting. 

Today she wanted to play some (annoying) music while her little brother was laying sleeping and sick on the couch. I asked her what she thought she should do, given that Joshua is sick. She answered 'not play the music'. She learned my 'ways' in both of these instances. We make a point to be explicit with commandments for our kids since it is unfair to expect a child to deduce an adults facial expressions or other nuances, but it is reasonable to expect the child to act on what they know would please the parent.

Herein lies the difference between 'keeping a commandment' and 'walking in the ways' of God. Actions done from what I know God is pleased by regardless if there is a commandment speaking into my situation and is based on the conglomeration of truthful statements about His nature in the Bible are steps in the life of "walking in His ways". This way of thinking transcends covenants. So much disputation in the Church today is centered around the application of Covenants in our Time/Space continuum, yet being concerned with what all of what God says reveals about what He is pleased by elevates us to a much more meaningful plain.

I can't help but see irony in CNN's sudden interest in the Jonestown tragedy (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/13/jonestown.jim.jones/index.html) at the same time they have rallied behind Barack Obama. They even attack Jim Jones' promotion of socialism while elsewhere themselves attack people who dare to call Obama's plan of economic redistribution 'socialism' (ummm..that's what it is folks).

About three weeks ago, our family sat down for our 'family time' and as we were sitting down, our daughter (3 yrs) asked if she do something before her younger brother (2 yrs). Mama wisely pointed out that she had talked to Chaya about wanting to do something, or get something, before other people so I thought we'd have a discussion about putting other people's interests before our own:

(Php 2:3)  Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Furthermore we talked about the kingdom of God and how entering in or living in the kingdom of God is not compatible with the 'me first' mentality, as in Mat 18:1-5:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
(Mat 18:1-5)

It might seem strange to be discussing such profoundly 'difficult' things with a three year old, but we did not water the principle down with baby-speak, talk down to her, or make it seem like some attitude reserved for the pious. Rather, we exhorted her to pursue such a mind set as if she could attain to it  and practice it just like she practiced drawing her letters or singing her solfeggio. We kept it FUN, not lofty. NORMAL not exceptional.

What was especially ironic was that we were in effect teaching our little children to be as little children are characterized by God in the passage above; that is, humble and without selfish ambition.

A week went by and I had pretty much forgotten this conversation until I took our children to the park early Saturday morning. After a short time on the slides and ladders, the children wanted to go play on the basketball courts with the small basketball and football I had brought along. Chaya immediately asked if Joshua could throw the basketball first when we got there. I was puzzled, not exactly sure what she was asking for. But then it occurred to me that she was practicing being last. I just replied 'sure, honey' and let it go. Like I said, we don't want to treat things like this as some kind of superhero attitude because it will rot out the sincerity with fame. When we got to the court I was watching to see if she was going to 'follow through' with this mentality. As we stood at the 10 foot high net and watched 3 foot Joshua throwing his basketball in the air, I asked Chaya if she would like to throw her ball, too. She quickly answered 'I am waiting for Joshua to go first.' How could I not well up with tears as I stood there learning about humility from my three year old daughter and know that she would probably attain to it more than her papa ever could?

Similar occasions have since played out before mine and Natasha's eyes and in every instance Chaya has been joyful in giving up her privileges which she really is entitled to.  As I have pondered my own awe at a child grasping and executing such profound issues, I have since come to believe that we are damaging our children when we fail to challenge them toward manifesting the attributes of a resident of the kingdom of heaven. The verses from Matthew I quoted above should prove that children are more suited to be trained and act like citizens but over and over we seek to find ways to justify their selfish lusts which of course are due to their unregenerate state and fail to exhort them to refrain from them.

This is not merely going for 'good behavior'. Similarly, this is not 'saving' them through such challenges. This is simply forming in them an expectation of normalcy from what God considers normal and not the world and preparing them to note the contrast when the age of accountability comes. Furthermore, as the practice of putting others before themselves becomes more and more difficult due to the power of sin in their members, this will more sharply reveal their own desperate requirement for a power outside of themselves to be normal.

This gets deeper when we consider that the things Jesus discussed in the Sermon the Mount were reasonable expectations for those in the kingdom of heaven. If being 'as a child' is a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of heaven, it would be reasonable to conclude that God believes children are capable of manifesting those things outlined in the Sermon on the Mount too, even if only superficially. Consider the resiliency children demonstrate when admonished or chastised...they typically bounce right back (if the chastisement itself was godly) and are ready to try again. What if we took advantage of that resiliency and taught them about rejoicing when other children are mean toward them? What if our 'sunday school' classes were less focused on entertaining children with the latest plastic doo-dads and were instead creatively engaging children to attempt the behaviours described by Christ?  How much less difficult would grasping that be when they can actually do so by the power of the Holy Spirit?

This would also serve to drive the child to exactly what God is after - despair at their own inability to do the outward things from a heart which is motivated by selflessness and love. This was precisely Christ's intent with teaching ridiculous notions like 'be perfect, as your Father is perfect.' He didn't want to inspire the proud humanist, but rather bury the humble with their acknowledgment of their sin. And it is here a parent who desperately craves his child's life to be in Christ can be poised to assert the simple fact that Jesus took away their sin and wants to give them His life, if they will just believe in His name for salvation and receive His free gift. A person who doesn't recognize his own inability to manifest God's holiness will at best be a parrot, no matter how young or old.

Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Sun Tzu On The Art Of War VI.I,II

Given the recent events in California and New York, it seems like it is beneficial to consider a very obvious fact: prescriptive sanctification of gay union, that is the passing down of this ideal from parent to child, will by and large only be possible through adopted children. We can expect to see a quickening pace of acceptance of gay unions across America, so formerly unfathomable industries will soon begin to emerge in their wake. After all, Satan has used commerce and industry throughout history to entrench sin into culture, pitting one lust against another. Along with this will become a spike in adoption agencies' expectation to consider gay men and women for 'parenting' unwitting children. What a mess.

This is just a vague, initial draft of ideas which may be useful for strategy in the legal realm. I am not too fond of such things, as the line into civil matters is too often crossed by Christian men to distract them from the battles that matter. But with children's future ideology potentially being warped in matters of sexual immorality and being promoted by government, it may be time to enter.

There a few things which might be useful for limiting the prescriptive sanctification of gay unions and might make use of the respective secular institutions' weaknesses to short-circuit counterclaims. These might include:

• Psychology's invasion of theology among church leaders and seminary output
• Republican controlled congresses have largely detracted from decentralized government, and thus are just as prolific at passing frivolous public laws as Democratic controlled congresses

Laws, Laws everywhere and not a stance to make

One of the great by-products of relativism is its own implosion. It is unable to stand up under its own tests and so the ambiguity introduced by its pastors in pop-culture and media is not only necessary for its own survival but would be useful for protecting agencies under its umbrella.

What does this have to do with law makers? Since congress is fond of passing numerous laws regardless of being Republican or Democrat, ambiguity toward discrimination against homosexual adoptions might be introduced a little at a time, casting a larger net and a quieter strategy. An example of this happened in technology-land with the Black Sunday kill . I encourage you to read the article even if you aren't a geek as it shows a brilliant strategy that might work at the legal level. I am no lawyer, of course, but in my own small mind it  works great <s>. Basically, DirecTV issued an effective strike against hackers of its cards by slowly sending updates to the satellite cards that seemed harmless but actually formed a larger dynamic program that was finally invoked and destroyed the pirated cards.

Consider this: a Christian adoption agency has two males submitting an application for adoption. The agency is now head-to-head with the ACLU and is wondering how to reject the application without being sued for discrimination. If there were elements of definitions within multiple laws that could be pulled together from the aforementioned frivolous laws for the defense of these agencies (actually, the children they serve), that could create a precedent that can be used by other agencies under its umbrella. Since we have now determined to legislate from the bench, this might redirect the powerful, rich gay advocates toward these kinds of battles and put them back on defensive instead of offensive positions. The ambiguity encouraged by the relativism of our modern leaders could be brought full circle to defend the absolute discrimination against gay adoption.

DoctorPhilACalvinisticOprahBarthidocious

Since the gospel has been replaced with mental constructs, discipleship with professional counseling, and shepherds with CEO's, the church is perfectly poised to flood psychiatric journals and other academic venues with 'expert' opinions about the damaging effects of same-sex unions on their children and can use a whole slough of complex conclusions to support the basic claim that IT AIN'T NORMAL AND IT WILL DEFORM OUR CHILDREN. Of course, much more syntactic sugar would be applied to this statement in these papers, lectures, and studies. Now is the time to backfill these types of 'authoritative' resources with these studies for the reference by lawyers who will fight against same-sex adoptions.

The promotion of these men who encourage fleshly solutions to spiritual problems in the church could work to great advantage here, though it does rot out the inner life of the Christian's who succumb to their wise-sounding words. But at least their language would reflect almost exactly how the child psychologist's in the 'secular' world talk, so perhaps they could provide use for keeping children away from having dual dads or moms.

These are just first thoughts, but I am curious where they go...