biblical marriage

by

Max Lucado – A Sad Demise

While many would long claim that Max Lucado has relinquished his stand on Biblical Christianity years ago, others still find encouragement in the poignant words that he has written down through the years.

However, in the shadows of what has happened with former Christian leaders like Ray Boltz and Joshua Harris, there is a serious question that true followers of Christ must ask themselves and those with whom they choose to fellowship.

At what cost am I willing to compromise?

In November 1605, an anonymous letter alerted authorities to the dangers of a man named Guy Fawkes. This man fully intended to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London, England, and kill King James the First. The plan was to remove the Protestant king and place a Roman Catholic king on the throne again. Thankfully, the plan was foiled and Guy Fawkes paid the ultimate penalty for his treason.

Over 400 years later, there are still those who seek to warn true believers of the dangers that are being faced within evangelical Christianity.

One of these is Alisa Childers.

Alisa Childers writes in her article dated January 13, 2020, about Max Lucado’s glowing endorsement of Jen Hatmaker, who openly endorses the LGBTQ lifestyle as being acceptable along with same-sex marriage. She also affirms the false teaching of men like Richard Rohr.

I highly recommend reading the entire article found at this link.

She continues:

But we are not encountering anything new. Every generation of Christians has been tasked with the command to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Alisa then continues with the following paragraph from Al Mohler. Read these words carefully.

In a recent briefing, Al Mohler noted that when we look at the history of the mainline denominations being lost to liberal theology, it wasn’t because the liberals outnumbered everyone else. Rather, “In almost every case it’s the muddy middle that ends up ensuring the liberal future of the church, because those moderates are unwilling to draw clear doctrinal and moral boundaries and to make them stick. They are far more concerned with holding the denomination, the institution, or the congregation together than they are with keeping a very clear commitment to the historic Christian faith and to its central doctrines and moral teachings.” (emphasis mine)

To conclude, it is imperative that we stand for truth no matter what others may think. In fact, it is right and Biblical that we stand even when others who supposedly claim the name of Christ are willing to back away from historical Christianity and the truths found only in the pages of Scripture.

by

Consistent Inconsistency – Part 3 – Divorce

This next problem is one where way too many churches are consistently inconsistent, and I believe it is a shame for several reasons.

  1. This should NOT be a problem within the body of Christ, but it is.
  2. This should NOT be divisive between brothers and sisters, but it is.
  3. This should NOT be what defines congregations, but it is.

The problem I am speaking of is the matter of divorce.

It is imperative that we define marriage and what God commands regarding marriage. Biblical marriage can ONLY be defined as: One man and one woman united together before God in the bonds of matrimony for the rest of their natural lives. As God is the One Who created marriage, it is He and He alone who defines the rules for what makes a marriage. Government has NO RIGHT to try and define what they think marriage is or what it should be.

Stated otherwise, this means: Continue reading →

by

A Perverted Rainbow

Today, America wakes up to its first full day of celebrating a law that mocks God and biblical marriage. People are faced with a choice. Do we obey man or do we obey God? This ruling is going to cause some to abandon the beliefs of the Bible. Many in a church social club, I formerly pastored in California, will be rejoicing in the diversity of America. That group of people, along with millions more, abandoned the faith a long time ago in favor of votes that kept biblical marriage from defined as one man and one woman.

However, that was just a small part of the problem. The problem goes all the way back to the beginning of earth’s history. You see, dear readers, the reality is that EVERYTHING God created was good. It was perfect. There were no weeds, no thorns, no crying, no death, and no sin of any kind. God created one man and one woman with the command to take care of the earth and to populate the earth.

Sin entered the world because of a promise that Satan made to Adam and Eve. If you just listen to me, your eyes will be opened and you will be “just like God.” He was wrong and the perversions of everything that was good began.

God ordained marriage between one man and one woman only.
Satan perverted it and said that marriage could be between two or more of whatever your lustful heart craves.

God ordained marriage to be a holy union between one man and one woman to bring forth children.
Satan perverted that and said you can shack up with whoever and whatever you want, and if you want more to your cause, recruit them from the children being born.

God ordained government to bear righteous rule over the peoples of earth.
Satan perverted that and said governments can be opposition to each other and more importantly, that they can stand against God and His Anointed One, Jesus Christ.

God decreed that a flood would destroy the world and only those INSIDE the ark would be saved from the total destruction.
Satan perverted that and said that the drinking, marrying, carousing, debauchery, and wickedness was a great way to live and to ignore the ramblings of the crazy, religious, bigoted, preacher of doom. After all, God is a God of love. He won’t destroy anybody.

rainbow_promise_genesis_9_v_13_postcard-p239124178906562053baanr_400

THE WORLD PERISHED!

After the flood, God created a rainbow to be His seal in the heavens. It was a declaration to show the mercy and longsuffering of God. The rainbow was His picture to a depraved world that while He would never again destroy the world with a flood, He would be coming again. The next time He comes, there will be no rainbows. There will only be fire and total destruction of ALL that stand opposed to Him.

The true rainbow is made up of 7 different primary colors of a spectrum. It is a beautiful reminder of the wonder that God long holds up His wrath and judgment against the wickedness of this world. Seven in the Bible indicates perfection and completion.

However, Satan perverted that sign and it is now used around the world as a symbol of “gay pride.” It has only 6 colors. Six in the Bible is the number of man. This “rainbow” is not a true rainbow, but is a symbol of perversion, debauchery, sodomy, lust, pedophilia, and bestiality – just to name a few. The one below is a perversion, and for the record, the White House KNEW what was coming and this was done deliberately. Read Psalm 2 for the conclusion.

white-house-rainbow-3

If you are one who claims the name of Christ, you cannot celebrate what took place yesterday any more than you can celebrate the mass murder of babies in America through the means of abortion. Woe to those who call evil good, and who call good evil. God will not be mocked. Destruction is coming and the world will perish.

If you are reading this and think that this is the final conclusion of the LGBT community, then you have been duped. The LGBT community will NOT stop until the next step of Satan’s agenda has been accomplished and accepted. Polygamy will soon be accepted. The age of consent will be dropped just as is happening in other parts of the world. Adherents of LGBT, PFLAG, and NAMBLA cannot have their own children and will only grow as they prey on more and more young people trying to entice them to a life of lust-filled debauchery that will never offer anything but disease and heartache for it is not what God ordained.

Soon, this blog may be taken down because it will be considered hate speech. I know that day is coming. Many companies openly rejoice in the ruling by SCOTUS. One day soon, true believers will be given a choice to conform to the world’s standards or lose their jobs.

My prayer is that each of you who know Christ will seek to love those around you. Stand fast in the faith and know that greater is He that is within us than the evil one who thinks he rules the world. Encourage your hearts knowing that God is and always will remain the Sovereign of all creation. He is coming again and whether we die by old age or martyrdom, we will be with Him for all eternity. So, let us go through each day, one day at a time, and remember that this world is not our home.

by

Machoism: A Sinful Response to Feminism

Feminism and egalitarianism has done major damage to the American culture. Primarily, it has skewed the image of how men are supposed to behave and their roles within a society. Although not every single tenant of feminism and egalitarianism should be viewed with overt hostility, we should, however, be cautious in allowing ourselves to submit to any system’s premise that is unbiblical. For the most part, almost all proponents of modern feminism and egalitarianism seeks to undermine the authority of men, feminize the male persona, elevate the homosexual agenda, and bring the law in subjection to sexual immorality and unattainable equality for all. Nevertheless, even with all that said (now that I have some head nods from males and perhaps some females), men need to be cautious and just as aware in defaulting to the knee jerk reaction against feministic attitudes – machoism.

Also called machismo, machoism may vary its form depending on the culture, generation, business, religion, peer relationship, and home. Generally speaking, machoism presents itself in a way that that is dominating, assertive, or aggressive simply because the person is a man, or feels that they have the right to be so because they are a man. This can be done sexually, physically, or socially. The definition may change depending on who is talking and the research or experience they have had, and the standard of identifying any instance of machoism is pretty subjective, but, nevertheless, machoism is a real problem and a sinful response to any perceived usurping of the authority of the male figure.

The kind of machoism that I have seen within Christendom can sometimes be borderline Islamic. Anywhere from a man stating in front of his wife’s friends, “Submit woman!” to irritability that manifests itself in harsh tones or overbearing gestures, some men treat their wives in such a way that is enough to cause heads to turn. Thankfully I have never witnessed any physical threats, but machoism can also lead to forms of spousal abuse or rape. However it may manifest itself, this kind of thinking is usually rooted in the idea that a women “has her place” and that any form of perceived disrespect is grounds for disciplinary measures (whatever that may be).

machismo

Continue reading →

by

Emotional Pornography

The following article was written by Jon Gleason of Mind Renewers. He is originally from Oregon, but now resides in Scotland where he is the pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes. The article is reprinted here by permission from Pastor Jon.

Emotional Pornography

I’d been saying it for a long time. A couple of years ago, I noticed others began to say the same thing, or something similar: many modern romance novels (even “clean” ones) are emotional pornography, and may do as much damage as visual pornography.

I don’t normally link to Mormon sources, but I appreciated this article addressing the addictive nature of these books: Romance Novels Can Become Addictive.

Psychologist Julia Slattery: “There is a neurochemical element with men and visual porn, but an emotional element with women and these novels.”
….

Women are more stimulated by romance than sex, so they read romantic stories (and they don’t have to be explicit to work) they can experience the same addicting chemical release as men do.
….

Women may find their standard for intimacy begins to change over time because they may not be able to get as satisfied with their partners as they can reading a book.

Pornography addiction counselor Vickie Burress said reading romance novels or viewing pornography may eventually lead to an affair for some women.

Then, there is this article, written about the same time, by Russell Moore: Can Romance Novels Hurt Your Heart? (Though I can’t give Moore a blanket endorsement, either, he’s much more sound than a Mormon source! And this article is excellent.)

Pornography and romance novels aren’t (or at least aren’t always) morally equivalent, but they “work” the same way.

Both are based on an illusion. Pornography is based on the illusion of a perfectly willing, always aroused partner without the “work” of relational intimacy. Often romance novels or their film equivalents do the same thing for the emotional needs of women that pornography offers for the erotic urges of men.

….

In both artificial eros and artificial romance, there is the love of the self, not the mystery of the other.

Voyeurism is watching the private lives of others. Whether it is peering into a picture of a physical body that should have been private, or peering into the intimate emotions of others, it is still voyeurism — and it is inherently selfish.

It’s not surprising, actually. The god of this world will use every resource at his disposal to attack a gift from God as good as marriage. If he can draw the eyes of men to women other than their spouses, he certainly will do so, even if it is fictional images of women that they will never meet. If he can draw the emotional eyes of women to other men, he will do it, even if it is fictional portrayals of emotional responses to fictional men they will never meet. Why would we think our adversary would only attack husbands? For though women can be drawn into pornography and men can be drawn into emotional pornography, it is most often the emotional pornography that is used to attack wives.

Both the pornographer and the modern romance novelist want you to vicariously enjoy something, with someone else, that God intended for your spouse. An artificial “person” becomes the object of your attention. In the romance novel, you emotionally identify with a character, sharing in the feelings described in the book.

But of course, your spouse may not stir those feelings in the exact same way. “Others have a spouse who behaves in that way, and that way.” Even if it is only subliminal, the books create expectations of certain kinds of feelings. “It’s supposed to feel that way when I look at my husband or when he talks to me” can even become, “My husband doesn’t love me like that man in the book loved her, he doesn’t make me feel the way he made her feel” — with all the danger to a marriage which that kind of thinking brings.

Ultimately, as Moore said, both emotional pornography and visual pornography do the same thing — they stir up relational feelings and responses that are focused on some other person, when that “other” is not in a relationship with us at all, is not even real — and so, it simply becomes about my feelings.

“Oh, that’s silly, Jon. You’re blowing this out of proportion. It’s only some Mormon and some seminary professor who had too much time on his hands saying this.”

A response (I don’t recommend the link [language], but I give it for completeness) in the Guardian was quite interesting. “Romance novelists and readers have come together to defend their chosen genre….” (Wait. This is news? Is anyone surprised that novelists and their readers would defend their work? Ok, back to the post.)

What really caught my attention was the following quote from a defender of romance novels:

There is nothing wrong with you for exploring different worlds, different relationships, different emotions, different personal experiences through fiction, and if romances are your preferred way to be entertained, more power to you.

This is an advocate, not a critic (her website name includes “Trashy Books”). She says these books are a way to experience different relationships and emotions. Is that really what God wants? When we make our wedding vows, do we vow to be completely for our spouse? Should we involve ourselves in these kinds of emotional experiences?

As with many things in our corrupt culture, some people will read these books without taking any real harm. Not everyone reading a modern romance novel identifies vicariously with the characters (though that is what the authors usually seek to attain, even in many “Christian romance novels”). Not everyone becomes emotionally involved, and many do not become dissatisfied with their spouses. The subconscious effects may not be significant for many people.

But to the extent a viewer of pornography sets his/her desire on a picture or video, that person gives to a mirage the gift of intimacy and desire that should have been given to a spouse alone. And to the extent a romance novel reader identifies with the emotional attachment of one character to another, that person gives to a mirage the emotional gifts that should have been reserved for his/her spouse.

These “gifts” chip away at a marriage, especially when we receive (in exchange for these “gifts”) expectations of our spouse which God does not want us to have, and which our spouse may not (and perhaps should not) ever meet.

by

Still …

True, biblical love, is not self-serving. It is a gift from God, given in measure to His redeemed. Far too often, people who are married fail to grow in their love for their spouses, but continue to live for love themselves. This should not be so among the people Christ has redeemed by His blood.

Friends of mine, at my church, made this short video – depicting the love from God that we ought have for one another. Particularly in the covenant of marriage. I pray this prompts many to examine themselves and turn to YHWH in repentance and renewed faith.

by

Part 2 – Complacency or Hypocritical?

***** – The title is a work in progress as the post actually deals with more than parents. For now, this is the second in the series started last week. – *****

ComplacenyToday, many who call themselves Christians have a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a part of a church. Some within this demographic have merely relegated what church means to simply being part of a religious service an hour or so a week. Everything that needs to be done within that hour timeframe is what seems to have become church. We give a few dollars, sing a few hymns or praise songs, hear a prayer or two, and then listen to a message about God.

Rising from our comfortable seats, we mentally pat ourselves on the back and give God a high five for the privilege He gained in having our esteemed presence for another week. Going out the door, we collect our children and then wrongly assume that our week can finally begin now that the “God and church” thing has been checked off our weekly social calendar.

Sadly, the church-at-large has in recent decades done a very poor job of acting in a way that reflects to the world a commitment to sound Biblical doctrine and in a way that reflects to its members a foretaste of the glory and fellowship we will know in Heaven. Pastors and teachers have long failed in their calling and many even serve without a calling or an anointing from the King of kings. They are messengers in name only because it is certain that their message often bears little to no resemblance of the truth of Scripture.

While this article will not deal at length with the doctrine of ecclesiology (the church), it is important that we remember that the church is not the building where people congregate. The church is and can only be comprised of true born-again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. These believers are those whose faith is in Christ alone for their salvation and they have been brought to a point where they have confessed and repented of their sins which alienated them from the holy righteous God of the Universe.

If the church styles itself as being a place for the world, it will be required to do whatever is necessary to ingratiate itself to those who ultimately hate Christ due to the nature within them. The world will never love the true Church because Scripture is clear that it hates the Lord of the Church first.

The gathering of believers that wants to attract the world will soon be using plays, programs, ungodly music, more programs, skits, even more programs, and worst of all, preaching that is not preaching at all. It will be devoid of words like sin, hell, judgment, damnation, and the need for repentance. Instead, the average attender to a social club on Sunday morning will hear hip, cool, relevant sermonettes that will leave you feeling good about yourself but will not demand a change, nor will the sermonettes point you to the Sovereign God who demands our worship and praise be centered on Him.

So, leaving a service where God was not exalted and glorified, where worship was mostly absent, where true believers were not exhorted and built up in their faith, and where there has been practically no conviction of sin, parents leave to begin their next week. Nothing has changed from the week before, and the home front continues to look more and more like a battlefield than it does a home where the fruit of the Spirit reigns.

Many problems of a spiritual nature can often be traced to a lack of thorough Biblical instruction. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reminds us, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Thus, when the Scriptures are not adequately proclaimed from the pulpit as being from God then the results we currently see are to be expected. Poor orthodoxy (doctrine) will inevitably result in poor orthopraxy (Christian conduct).

It would be wrong though to leave the problems found in the home solely at the feet of the minister. He must proclaim the truth in love and with a great deal of mercy and compassion, but he cannot live out the necessities of the Christian life in all those who attend. As a minister, I am ultimately responsible for what I proclaim from the pulpit and also responsible for what is practiced in my home.

At the same time, parents who are true believers are responsible for what they allow to be taught to their children from the pulpit and also what they allow to be practiced in the home. True believers who desire the truth of God throughout every aspect of their life must learn to be a Berean Christian. These faithful men and women searched the Scriptures daily to make sure that what they were being taught truly was the inerrant and infallible Word of God.

While the breakdown between the pulpit and faithful exposition of the Scriptures is often too easily identified, what is not so easy to see is the breakdown in the home. The home is often a castle where we hide away from the world, and sadly, from other believers as well. Thus, there is a great lack of accountability and discipleship – until, that is, the wolf comes knocking on the door and parents wonder where it all went wrong. Divorce, rebellion, drugs, alcohol, and sexual activity outside of marriage is just as rampant inside the church as it is outside the church.

Yet, the problem is compounded when the church instead of acknowledging its sin and failure to be a true community of believers begins to shift the blame in every other direction. Therefore, when a person struggles through a particular sin in their life or in the lives of their family structure, the church is often nowhere to be seen. The individual or family often goes through their struggles alone and will normally fall away from the one place that should have been there for them all along.

The sad reality is that the church is often happy taking the offering and praise for one hour on a Sunday morning, but it remains conspicuously absent the remaining 167 hours of each week. How pathetic and tragic it is that this one hour is supposed to be a reflection of the joy of fellowship with Christ and His Bride that will be found in Heaven for all of eternity.

The true church of the living God has a very poor understanding of its role and responsibility towards one another, and outside of the church this has never been so evident than in the homes of those who claim the name of Christ. Our problems at home are often merely carried over to the church, and people wonder why they struggle to worship together more than one hour a week.

Believers must understand what is transpiring in the home in order to see why revival tarries and so many churches are operating as merely a business instead of a fellowship of believers that is a lighthouse to a dark, sin-filled world, and why there is no power or anointing from the Spirit of God.

If the connection between the true church and the home is this vital, then we need to consider why the church looks the way it does. If judgment is to begin in the church, then the warning must also include the truth that it is true believers who make up the church and therefore, by extension, judgment will surely hit us where we live, namely, in our homes.

(…to be continued.)

by

Gay Is Not the New Black

Voddie Baucham has written a though provoking article (just read some of the more than 300 comments that follow it!) about the current cultural battle over the covenant of marriage. Here is a small excerpt, here is a link to the entire article.

It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.”1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2