Things God Did Not Say

I recently published an article titled, “The Bible on Homosexuality.” My reason for writing was to clarify for myself (and my readers) what the Bible says on this controversial subject. One reason I enjoy writing is because it forces me to gather my thoughts in an orderly way. The reason I wanted to do this with the topic of homosexuality is because a friend and former pastor has challenged my position since he has fallen under the influence of the LGBTQ+ teaching that approves of intimate same gender relationships. I wanted to clarify for myself the core biblical principles that are the foundation of my belief. When my friend read my post, he accused me of committing the logical fallacy of assuming my conclusion. This means he believes my opinion that God prohibits homosexual behavior colors my interpretation of the Bible passages that treat the subject.

My friend’s accusation is ironic because it is exactly what I accuse the LGBTQ+ interpreters of doing. Simply put, they claim that God never prohibited loving, monogamous, covenantal relationships between two people of the same gender. Then they overlay this opinion on the few Bible passages on the subject and interpret them in their own unique way. For example, they say that the verses in Leviticus 18 and 19 which say a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman are in the same passage as the prohibition of adultery. Therefore, since the context of the passage is about adultery, only married men are prohibited from lying with men. The passage says nothing about single men lying with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. So they say.

The LGBTQ+ view of Paul’s condemnation in of men lying with men Romans chapter one takes a similar turn. They take Paul to mean that God’s wrath is revealed against ungodliness (v. 18), and He condemns ungodly men for lying with men. They say that Paul says nothing about godly men lying with men, so that situation is neither approved nor disapproved. God did not openly state that godly men could not lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. Hmm.

These defenders of men lying with men hear Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians concerning pedophilia to be aimed at men who force themselves on children. They say what God disapproves of is anyone using a position of power over another to take advantage of them. God says nothing about children who consent to lying with older men. The LGBTQ+ interpreters make a similar claim about the men of Sodom raping Lot’s guests. They say it was not homosexual behavior that God condemned in Sodom; it was the gang rape committed by heterosexual men against other men. They claim that nothing specific is said against Sodomites who willingly practiced same gender intimacy. Really.

I could almost accept these different interpretations as examples of debates over disputable issues. Almost. However, when I consider the larger implications of their position, I have real trouble believing it is a dispute over a gray area of Scripture. For example, if the passage in Leviticus is primarily about adultery which then controls the rest of the prohibitions, that means an unmarried man could lie with an animal. The same goes for incest which is mentioned in the same passage. A brother could lie with his sister as long as neither is married. I don’t think so.

The same trouble arises with the LBGTQ+ interpretation of Paul. God said nothing about godly men lying with other men; God said nothing about willing children lying with older men. They maintain that because these situations are not mentioned, we must assume they are neither approved nor disapproved. If they are not disapproved, they must be acceptable to God under certain conditions. This is how my friend comes up with his opinion that men are allowed to lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. This is the logical result of saying that if God didn’t specifically prohibit something, it implies tacit approval. That is nonsense.

For one thing, that position stretches credibility to the breaking point. Are we really expected to believe God approves of incest or beastiality in some situations? Are we really expected to believe pedophilia is alright if the child consents? It is true that some issues are not explicitly covered by the Scripture. When we encounter one of those issues, we must use our knowledge of the broader scope of God’s Word to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Christian tradition has always interpreted Leviticus and Paul to mean that God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. As Hodge says, “We are governed by this tradition of truth running through the whole sacred volume. All is consistent. One part cannot contradict another. Each part must be interpreted so as to bring it into harmony with the whole. This is only saying that Scripture must explain Scripture.”^[1]

I am going to repeat what I wrote previously. “While it is true that first century culture was very different from ours, I believe the reason both Old and New Testament passages express God’s disgust with homosexual behavior is not simply cultural; I believe that all sexual perversion tears at the fabric of God’s intention for sexual intimacy…. God created male and female humans in His image and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. That alone eliminates the possibility that same sex relations would fulfill God’s intention. Beyond that, God established the bond of marriage between man and woman as a ‘one flesh’ union.” Paul uses this to explain why sexual sin is in a different category from all others.

We are on shaky ground when we build a theology on what God did not say. If we believe that God’s Word is eternally true, no amount of cultural difference will alter the basic truth it teaches. My friend likes to point out that Christian tradition has been proven wrong on several occasions throughout history. The Crusades represent a centuries-long misinterpretation. The supporters of slavery claimed biblical foundation for their error. Yet when these views were corrected, it was by a large majority of the church which brought unity through its general acceptance. Today’s argument in favor of homosexual behavior is being put forth by a tiny minority, and it is causing broken fellowship wherever it is accepted.

As I wrote years ago in “The Uncomfortable Subject,” the church has a poor track record dealing with sexual sin. We sit alongside gluttons and gossips and scofflaws with little thought for their sins. Yet we recoil at the mention of reaching out to homosexuals with the gospel; perish the thought that we might invite them to join us in the pew. I do not agree with my friend that we must reinterpret the Bible on this sensitive topic. I do agree that the church must find ways to embrace all sinners while not denying God’s judgment of their sin. God does say we should do that.

Related Posts: The Uncomfortable Subject; The Importance of Being Right; Disagree Agreeably

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 113.

The Bible on Homosexuality

God did not – could not have – directed the Bible to our generation or any specific generation except the one to whom it was originally delivered. So, when we say that we believe the Bible was inspired in every word (plenary verbal inspiration) in its original form, we mean that the Holy Spirit prompted the writers to use words that could be understood by their contemporary readers and applied to their situation. Beyond that, we must draw inferences that will apply God’s inspired Word to our modern situation. This is what we call Bible interpretation. To interpret a passage properly, we must consider the context: historical, literary, linguistic, and thematic (the theme of all Scripture).

Some of the thorniest interpretive difficulties arise when we are attempting to make moral applications from the ancient biblical text. The principle of reading in context still applies, but we must be careful how we move from the original situation to our own. A perfect example of this is raging through the modern church like a California wildfire. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? The Old Testament law delivered through Moses is unambiguous. The Hebrew text in Leviticus 18:22 literally says, “You [men] must not lie with a man as bedding a woman.” Going to bed with someone meant the same thing then as it does now; it implies sexual relations. Men were forbidden to have sex with men.

There are two important factors to consider when interpreting Old Testament law in our modern context. First, we ask if it is something that was unique to the Mosaic Covenant that no longer applies, or is it a universal principle that became encoded in the written law? Regarding homosexuality, there is a cultural issue that was present in ancient Israel. The cultures they were going to displace did practice all manner of perverted sex; it may be that God wanted this prohibition stated explicitly to keep His people from following the ways of their neighbors. This makes sense, but I believe there is a more general basis for God’s prohibition in this case as I will explain momentarily.

The second factor that must be considered when interpreting the Old Testament is whether the subject is treated in the New Testament. In the case of homosexuality, there are three passages in Paul’s epistles that clearly state God’s opinion of the behavior. (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) The interpretive difficulty we are facing today arises from the efforts of the LGBTQ+ community to redefine the biblical proscription of same sex relations. The main thrust of their argument asserts that Paul wrote to a culture radically different from our own. They believe that Paul was referring to the cultish pagan practices of his day when he declared that God’s wrath was upon those who practiced perverted sexual behaviors. They maintain that not all modern homosexuals fall under God’s judgment.

While it is true that first century culture was very different from ours, I believe the reason both Old and New Testament passages express God’s disgust with homosexual behavior is not simply cultural; I believe that all sexual perversion tears at the fabric of God’s intention for sexual intimacy. This understanding encompasses the larger biblical context of God’s relationship with us. God created male and female humans in His image and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. That alone eliminates the possibility that same sex relations would fulfill God’s intention. Beyond that, God established the bond of marriage between man and woman as a “one flesh” union. Jesus carried that concept into the New Testament in His discourse on divorce saying that what God has joined together, man should not attempt to separate.

Paul singled out inappropriate sexual intercourse as different from all other sin because it has a spiritual component. He says that when a believer (a vessel of the Holy Spirit) joins himself to a prostitute, he is entwining Jesus Christ in the process. While Paul does not mention homosexual unions in this passage, it does raise questions about the nature of any sexual encounter outside of the biblical institution of marriage. Sexual intercourse creates a oneness that is spiritually similar to the oneness of God in His trinitarian nature. Any time we pervert the husband/wife (male/female) intimacy God designed, I believe we diminish the image of God. That is my interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Anyone who spends much time in discussion of God’s Word will eventually hear “That’s just your interpretation” at some point. In his seminal work, Systemic Theology, Charles Hodge explains why this is true. “It is admitted that theologians are not infallible in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in his works. This change of view as to the true meaning of the Bible may be a painful trial to the Church, but it does not in the least impair the authority of the Scriptures. They remain infallible; we are merely convicted of having mistaken their meaning.” (p.59)

I believe the LGBTQ+ community has mistaken the meaning of God’s words concerning homosexual behavior. As Hodge predicted, we are going through a painful trial in the church over this. There are other important positions based on differing interpretations that are troubling the church: the meaning of inspiration; doubts about biblical inerrancy; how Jesus will return; the nature of heavenly existence; the reality of hell. Unfortunately, it is never enough to say, “I believe the Bible.” What you believe the Bible says is a result of your interpretation. Pray that God will give you the wisdom and spiritual guidance to discover the original intent of God’s Word.

Related Posts: The Uncomfortable Subject; Here Comes the Judge; Truth Dysphoria; Clobber the Argument; You Have Heard That it was Said; How do you Read Paul

Confidence or Craziness

The book of Job is a puzzling one for most people. It begins with a conference in God’s presence including some vaguely identified beings, one of whom is “the satan.” As I explained in “Understanding the Book of Job: the Heiser Effect,” the Hebrew word from which we get the name, Satan, means accuser and was linked to the serpent in Genesis which was probably not a serpent at all, but a “watcher.” This fits the context of Job because when God asks the character what he has been up to, he admits to watching what is happening on earth. This is what brings up his accusation of Job: he only trusts you, God, because you have him hedged in with divine protection.

This is where the trouble begins for most of us when we see what God does. He basically turns Satan loose to afflict Job, though within certain limits. We have to ask ourselves why God would do that. We know the end of the story, so we can at least see that if God was testing Job’s faith, he passed and was blessed abundantly in response. But for Job, the end was not at all clear. Job’s suffering was both physical and mental. His body was afflicted with painful lesions, and his soul was wounded because he knew he had been righteous in his behavior before God.

I am not alone in thinking that God does test His people. John MacArthur says, “When God wants to prove the quality of one’s commitment, He tests it. The test may come directly from Him, as with Abraham when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22:1–2), or it may come through difficult circumstances, as with the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings (Deut. 8:16), or it may even come from Satan himself, as God permitted with Job (Job 1:12; 2:6).”

As we know from Job’s speeches, there was little comfort in knowing that God’s hand was on him. And yet, Job displays his true faith when he says, “But I myself know that my redeemer is alive, and at the last he will stand up upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, but from my flesh I will see God, whom I will see for myself, and whom my eyes will see and not a stranger.” This is an amazing statement of faith when we realize that Job lived long before the Cross on which his Redeemer died and even long before the God he worshipped revealed Himself to Moses.

When God did speak to Moses centuries later, He gave a provision in His law to correct a potential injustice. The concept of a redeemer, a go-el (גְּאוּלִים), was part of Jewish law. We see it in the story of Ruth when Boaz redeems Naomi’s inheritance on Ruth’s behalf. Of course, the ultimate demonstration is God’s provision of His Son as our Redeemer. We are redeemed, bought out of slavery to sin by the payment Jesus made on the Cross.

What is amazing about Job is that he had the confidence that God would provide a redeemer for him even though there was no written promise to do so. Job’s friends thought he was crazy. Even his wife told him to curse God and die. Job’s answer to his wife is another expression of his deep faith: “You speak like one of the foolish women speaks. Indeed, should we receive the good from God, but not receive the [adversity]?” He told his friends that even if God should take his very life, he would still put his trust in God. That’s crazy, or else it is the ultimate statement of confidence.

Here is MacArthur again: “When you are tested, remember that God is working on your spiritual maturity and that He will never test you beyond what you are able to endure and will always provide a means of victory” When we face trials, we must be sure we are like Job: righteous in our behavior. God does chastise His children when they stray, but we cannot be like Job’s friends and assume that a trial necessarily means we have sinned. (Although, if we have transgressed, God’s discipline brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness into our lives.)  James confirms what MacArthur says: trials work for our maturity. You can be confident of that. That is not craziness.

Related posts: Understanding the Book of Job, Finally; The Goodness of God in the Bad Times; The Winnowing Fork of God;

---

John MacArthur, Strength for Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997).

When in Rome, Do What the Bereans Do

I saw a Bible tie-in today I hadn’t noticed before. When studying the Scripture, it is interesting to know what Moses or Jesus or Paul did, but it is more valuable to know how their actions tie into our present lives as believers. When I read through Acts seventeen this morning, I noticed that the unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica used the Roman law to accuse Paul. In verses seven and thirteen, they said Paul was teaching what was contrary to the decrees of Caesar.

It is ironic that the Jews would use that approach since God’s first commandment was to have no other gods before Him. That would seem to put them in a position contrary to the decrees of Caesar as well. It is true that there were times in Roman/Jewish relations that Rome allowed the Jews to practice their religion, but it is disingenuous to try to use the Roman law to indict someone with whom they disagreed. The Jews in Corinth tried the same tactic, and the authority there saw through their hypocrisy and summarily dismissed them.

Here's the tie-in. There is a cult of secular humanism in America that is trying to use the law to squelch Christian beliefs and practices. Sometimes they twist an existing law to serve their purpose. They did this years ago when they banned Bible reading and prayer in public schools. They claimed such activities violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Ironically, their actions violated the free expression clause of the same Amendment. At our country’s beginning, the freedom to practice one’s religion in public or in private was one of the pillars of the Founding Fathers' beliefs. They were rebelling against the state sponsored religions in the countries many of them had fled. Allowing free expression is not the same as establishing a state religion.

When the secular humanists cannot use an existing law to promote their agenda, they write new ones. Much of the cancel culture we are forced to live under today is based on regulations that were invented to protect imaginary victims – victims who are practicing things that the Scripture forbids. For example, same sex marriage, transgenderism, and all sorts of sexual perversion is now protected by law. Worse, these things are being promoted in popular media and in the public schools at ridiculously young ages.

Sadly, secular humanists are not the only people using their brand of religion to promote an unbiblical agenda. Entire denominations of formerly orthodox Christians have come under the spell of the secular humanist teachings. They have chosen to abandon Scripture and ordain homosexual ministers and bless same sex marriages. Individuals from these apostate churches openly support politicians who lobby for free access to abortion and attack conservatives who attempt to limit or eliminate it.

Unbelievers everywhere are dictating what Christians can and cannot do by twisting or enacting laws that support their views. The media is full of stories of Christians being dragged to court just like the Jews did to Paul. Sometimes we get a judge who, like the proconsul in Athens, sees through their schemes. More often, Christians are forbidden to practice biblical behavior because of some new “offended” class of citizens. This is especially egregious when those who call themselves Christians support that kind of travesty.

We will find ourselves in disobedience to the Word if when in Rome we do as the Romans do. We need to adopt the stance of the Bereans in Acts 17. They listened to Paul, and despite the accusations of the unbelieving Jews, they searched the Scriptures to see what was true. When the Islamic radicals attacked in 2001, many Christians wondered if it was an act of judgment by God. I wondered similarly when I wrote “Today’s Chaldean Chastisement” about the COVID 19 pandemic. At the very least, we must keep our own behavior in line with Scripture. Whenever possible, I believe we do our fellow citizens a favor by attempting to stay true to the principles on which our country was founded. Remember: everyone in Judah suffered when God exiled them to Babylon. We could use a few people like Moses’ friend Phinehas. If we keep acting like Romans instead of Bereans, we will not escape the potential judgment that may be coming sooner rather than later.

Related posts: Today’s Chaldean Chastisement; The Winnowing Fork of God; Paging Phinehas Eleazar

Is it the Devil, or is it God?

When trials and tribulations come, the first reaction of many Christians is to blame the Devil. It is not uncommon to hear a reference to Job noting that his trials were explicitly from the Devil. While that is true, it is also a fact that God allowed Satan to persecute Job. God’s purpose in letting Job be tested was to prove his faithfulness. Undoubtedly, God preserved the account as an encouragement to those who would suffer after Job’s time. (For more see “Understanding the Book of Job”)

 The New Testament also warns that our enemy has believers in his sights. As Peter puts it, “The Devil goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.” James also recognizes the reality of the Devil’s work recommending that we, “Resist the Devil, and he will flee from [us].” Many teachers have named three sources of the temptation believers face: “The world, the flesh, and the Devil.” Finally, Paul notes that “Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against… spiritual forces in the heavenlies.” While he doesn’t name the Devil, all of Scripture testifies that he is the leader of a host of malevolent followers. In another place, Paul calls the Devil, “The prince of the power of the air,” and Jesus called him “the ruler of this world.”

So, the Devil is real; he is perhaps the second most powerful spirit being in the universe. I believe that his enmity with God began before the creation of the world, and in fact, the main reason for the creation of humankind was to show all God’s creatures – including the Devil – how much He loves them. (Read Ephesians 3:8-11) It is easy to become so wrapped up in the things of this world that we forget that we are merely pawns in a cosmic battle that has been going on since before the foundation of the world. (See “It’s Not All About You”) Yes, the Devil loves to cause trouble for believers, but we take comfort in the words of John that, “Greater is He that is in [us] than he that is in the world.”

But we cannot escape the fact that God also causes trouble for His children. The message of the prophets in the Old Testament repeatedly states that God is the author of calamity. This idea can be found in many passages, but the clearest expression may be Isaiah 45:7 where God says, “I form light, and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things.” As I have written many times, the Hebrew word translated “evil” in this passage (and many others) has a broader meaning than our modern concept of moral evil or wickedness. Obviously, God cannot do morally evil things because that would violate His perfect holiness. But He can do calamity, disaster, and adversity when He finds it is necessary.

There are two primary reasons why God does sometimes cause trouble for His people. The one we see most often in Old Testament history is for judgment. The idea that God punishes disobedience goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Because of their failure to obey God, Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise and promised a life of blood, toil, sweat and tears. When God delivered His law through Moses, it had undeniable threats for those who choose to disobey. Blessings for obedience; curses for disobedience. (Read Deuteronomy 28) God desires a holy people, and if they can’t find their way, He prods them with the rod of correction.

Lest we think that God’s judgment was a uniquely Old Testament attitude, consider Ananias and Saphira. In the very early days of the church, this couple wanted to impress their neighbors with a sizeable gift to the community. Sadly, they misrepresented the actual value of their offering, and received a stiff penalty for lying: they were summarily executed by the Holy Spirit. When the Jewish enforcer, Saul of Tarsus, refused to see the truth of God’s Messiah, God struck him blind, then returned his sight when he repented. As the Apostle Paul, he wrote to the Corinthians that their disrespectful attitude towards the Lord’s Supper had resulted in some of them having died. The message is clear: don’t mess with Yahweh God.

The other reason for the trials we all face is explained by the writer of Hebrews. The author points out that any loving father will discipline his children to help form their character. Since God is the ultimate loving Father, His discipline is always corrective although it is not pleasant during its administration. We may feel extremely uncomfortable, even rejected by God when He chastises us, but as Hebrews says, the punishment is the proof of God’s loving concern for us, and the result is our improvement.

Whatever the underlying cause of our troubles, our response should be the same. Both Peter and James encourage believers to rejoice when they encounter trials. This is not an invitation to masochism; the reason for joy is because the result of properly endured trials is character growth. It is important to pray for clarity from God regarding the reason for our tribulations. If God is passing judgment on our wayward behavior, we need to know that so we can correct it. If our troubles are simply the result of living in a fallen world where the Devil still attacks when he can, our response must be to resist his temptations and flee to God’s promised protection.

Troubles will come. Jesus Himself promised worldly tribulation, but He followed the promise with another comforting fact: “In the world you have affliction, but have courage! I have conquered the world.” Until we are resurrected on the new earth where righteousness rules, we will be called to suffer trials. The good news for believers is, “Weeping lodges for the evening, but in the morning comes rejoicing.” I can’t wait for the dawn of that Day!

Related posts: The Goodness of God in the Bad Times; Understanding the Book of Job: The Heiser Effect; It’s Not All About You;

Who Needs God?

After I published “Even the Wicked,” I began to struggle with the conclusion I had presented as N.T. Wright’s summary of the message of Revelation. I recommend reading the whole piece, but I will briefly state that Wright says suffering is God’s way to bring about redemption. I don’t doubt his reasoning; I think he is right, and the history of the church proves it. Unfortunately, this leaves Christians with a troubling message to share with unbelievers: come to Jesus so that you may suffer. That doesn’t sound like a winning sales pitch.

Of course, this is precisely why people like Rob Bell have removed judgment and hell from their theology. Bell once said that preaching about God’s judgment to unbelievers doesn’t make for a compelling story. So, he stopped believing in hell. That’s not the answer, as any serious Bible student knows; you can’t just ignore uncomfortable truths in Scripture. When something in the Bible doesn’t make human sense, we are reminded that God’s ways are not man’s ways—His thoughts are far above ours. And though we can’t always think God’s thoughts, we must agree that they are righteous and just. Because that’s what God is. Completely.

While I agree with Bell’s opinion that hell and judgment are not attractive gospel selling points, I am still bound by the over-arching biblical command to glorify God, which as I have said before means to make God look good. The question becomes how to explain the apparently contradictory ideas of willingly suffering for Christ and still being attracted to Him. The first answer that comes to me is that there are other things that will cause even greater suffering if one remains apart from Christ. In other words, if our message to unbelievers is to be full gospel, we don’t downplay the suffering; we recommend the gospel (good news) because in it one finds a purpose in earthly suffering and the promise of eternal bliss.

At first blush, this seems impossible, at least in modern America. All our needs are met – most of them instantly. The most basic needs – food, clothing, and shelter – are met for almost everyone who makes even a little effort. The next tier of “needs” including things like transportation, entertainment, and recreation is also within reach of virtually everyone. Most unbelieving Americans are being honest when they claim they don’t need God – especially if that God requires suffering as the cost of believing.

However, the booming sales of antidepressants and the thriving counselling practices tell another story. Modern Americans are missing something; they just don’t know what it is. That’s where we come in with the gospel. The Preacher said it long ago: “[God] has put eternity in [human] hearts.” The popular Christian artist, Plumb, put it well: “There’s a God-shaped hole in all of us, and it’s a void only He can fill.” I wrote at length about that need in “Do We Really Need God?” It is basic to every human being whether they can see it or not.

The short description of the need comes down to three questions: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Why does it matter? Philosophers have referred to these three as the question of origin; the question of purpose; and the question of morals. The failure to answer these questions satisfactorily explains why the richest people still want more, why the man with the trophy wife still commits adultery, why the addict takes another hit. Nothing satisfies that inner need. The task for the believer who wants to share Christ with her neighbor is to drill down and find where that need is hiding. That’s not easy, and the successful conversation doesn’t usually start with “Are you saved?”

This dilemma is the second reason why I wrote Lead a Horse to Water. My first purpose in writing the book was to encourage people to build relationships where a gospel conversation could happen. The second reason was to offer suggested approaches to various types of unbelievers. In my book I referred to God Space by Doug Pollock who recommends asking probing questions of the unbeliever. He did not mean asking religious questions. He suggested getting to know them on a deeper level than their opinion of the weather or their favorite sports team. I also reminded believers that while it may seem daunting to come up with the right questions, we have the Lord’s promise that when we are defending the gospel, the Holy Spirit will give us the right words. Prayerful preparation precedes powerful presentations.

I still chafe over the idea that suffering for Christ is one of the primary things God uses to advance the gospel. Here again, church history validates the argument. In the third century, Tertullian is said to have commented: “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.” Two millennia of statistics don’t show a perfect correlation, but the places where the church is growing fastest in this century appear to be places where martyrs’ blood is being spilled. On the other hand, no blood is being shed in America, and church growth is flagging. Maybe the threat of the sword forces people to discover their greatest need. We should pray that God doesn’t bring the sword to America to make us see our need. Perhaps we can forestall that if we get about the business of spreading the good news.

Related posts: Rolling Thunder; Daily Bible Reading; Understanding the Times; Crisis of Faith 1; Crisis of Faith 2; Farewell Rob Bell