Providence Verified Pt. V - Leaving Home

Between Providence Verified and Hard Lessons Simple Truths series we left off at my Afghanistan deployment and return to Hume Lake. I would consider the crossing paths with Charlie at Hume to be another example of God’s guiding hand. He is one of the people whom I heavy his words and council. The summer of 2012 was a blessing. The spiritual healing I experienced in the opening week and the privilege to be a part of such a ministry throughout the summer have only reinforced the place Hume has held in my heart.

During the course of the summer I had time to catch up with friends from across the state. Many of whom I grew up with and God has carried them to other places in ministry. I am constantly surprised how small the Church can feel sometimes. For more years than I can remember, my notion of “home” was equally referencing my family and church. I was anxious to return. Much of that community I have known since at least 3rd grade. Moving through life together for almost two decades has built inseparable bonds. During those years away I continued to grow in my knowledge of faith and theology. It was wonderful to return to my church home but there was a nagging feeling that I no longer belonged at that church. Summer at Hume provided time to consider the conversations and figure out what I should do when I returned home. Although my reasons for leaving my previous church were based on my theological convictions, none of the issues were concerning orthodoxy. I have no doubts they were and remain a Christ-following Church.

The following Fall I had a talk with one of the pastors concerning my sense of belonging. It was in that meeting that I was confirmed I no longer belonged at my home church. I was at William Jessup for the simple reason to be near my home church. If I was no longer to be at my home church should I necessarily continue at William Jessup? After one of the required Bible courses it was clear to me they held scripture in a different place than I did. In some classes students would openly mock Reformed and/or Complementarian theologies in class. I did not get the sense that such topics were to be engaged. Furthermore, there was only one theology class available and the reports from friends left something to be desired.

On the flip side, during Summer I was reminded of the buffet of Christian colleges in Southern California. Of the 300+ summer staff at Hume each year there are significant numbers of students from Azusa Pacific, Biola, and California Baptist. Point Loma Nazarene, Westmont, and William Jessup students are usually found on staff as well, but they usually have only a handful of students from the other schools. I spent the summer talking to friends who attended the different schools to gain perspective. Hume also has a Summer Preaching series each year, which often has a fair number of speakers from Biola. Biola was already on my radar because I had read a number of books by Biola professors such as William Lane Craig and JP Moreland. I was introduced to another theologian that summer, Erik Thoennes.

I knew I no longer belonged at the place I called home. By the Fall of 2012, I had endured 8 years of moving somewhere new each year. I thought when I returned from Afghanistan I would live out the rest of my years in Citrus Heights. God had a different plan. While at Jessup, I attended a nearby church for their college ministry. It was robust and active, but only attending for a portion of it made obvious gaps in forming clear community. My attentions were divided. I was still devoted to the Youth Ministry throughout these months. It was arguably equally difficult to leave my community and students for a new endeavor.

I completed my application to Biola University in the last week it would have been accepted. I was not accepted to Biola until less than a week from when classes started. In one of the more stressful periods of life and with the assistance of my housemate/best friend I packed up everything I owned in a moving truck. My friend drove my car behind me and I made a full scale move in 4 days. Did I mention I really don’t like moving? I’ve done it far too many times. My gypsy-like pattern for about 10 years would appear to contradict that but do not be deceived.

When I arrived to Biola I skipped much of the Orientation process to unload the moving truck. Prior to my application I checked to see the financial aid status at Biola. They were advertised as a Yellow Ribbon school which generally means they match the tuition contribution from GI Bill. Pretty much every private school takes part, the purpose is so Veterans can attend private colleges which cost way more than public colleges. Biola did not accept 18 of my 108 credits. As a transfer from a university there was no 70 unit cap. It was then I also found out the limited nature of Biola’s Yellow Ribbon participation which would cost me about 5k per semester out of pocket. Had I known this, I would’ve applied to Azusa Pacific or Cal Baptist who would not have charged me anything out of pocket. That week I contacted their admissions to survey how many units I could transfer to one of them. At most I was able to transfer 90 credits to either school.

At that point, I was frustrated why I came to Biola. Alas, God must have brought me here for a reason, I had two weeks to take classes before I could withdraw for a full refund. I could eat the cost of living for a semester to sit on my hands and transfer the following Fall. Such a move would have saved me around 10K. The money wasn’t a make or break issue. My deployment in Afghanistan was… well paid. Regardless, it was still a significant sum of money I would have to accept departing from when I previously did not. When I initially returned from Afghanistan I invested most of my bounty and kept the remains for a down payment on a house in Sacramento. Now I looked at that egg and started to chip away at it. I might credit my skills with getting classes to the lessons I learned from junior college but the decisive factor was God’s grace. My familiarity with Dr. Thoennes was based on my experience with him at Hume. I didn’t realize his classes are among the hardest to get. After an impassioned request, I was number 76 on the class waitlist for a class of 40. The first day of class, 5 of us on the waitlist showed up, 5 us got in the class. In the 200 level Theology Course every student was at least a Junior. Everyone in the class waited to take this sophomore level required class with this professor.

Over the next two weeks, sitting under the instruction of Dr. Thoennes and the other professors at Biola, I realized why God brought me there. The importance of money was dwarfed by the quality and rigor of the theological training and faith modelling I experienced at Biola. Little did I know or recognize, God’s providence was still in guiding my path even in my undergraduate years.

Biblical Gender Roles: Headship vs. Domination

Among my deployment goals, at least for the duration of the deployment, one has been to write more regularly. Clashing with my desire to write something of substance with a decent frequency has been my understanding or at least growth of my understanding of the given topic I wish to share about. Most recently I raided John Piper's online book repository and have had a more fruitful use of my time. I recently finished Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (BFMW) and promptly continued on with Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood(RBMW).

When I started reading the first book I was expecting it to talk about masculinity and femininity from scripture. I was thinking something along the lines of John Eldridge's Wild At Heart or Way of the Wild Heart. While it did address masculinity and femininity, the focus was much more specific: defending the complimentarian (gender roles do exist within scripture, such as male headship, pastor/elders, and the sort) view and responding to the egalitarian (gender roles do not exist within scripture and there should be no difference in the manner men and women approach God or each other) view. The topic of gender roles in the church is not one of the most popular topics. In all fairness, I don't think I have ever sat through a sermon addressing gender roles, at least not in person. I have listened to a number of sermons which the gender roles were addressed from time to time but not in detail that would compare with this material. I have read 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5-6, Titus 2, a number of times. Until a few weeks ago, I never read any articles/essays concerning the Greek text in those verses, or really exploring these topics in depth. Frankly, I was rather unaware of the research and doctrinal implications of these two views. Don't worry I won't attempt to condense the 400 pages I've read so far on this topic into this blog. I wanted to narrow in on what I noticed as a prime issue at the heart of this debate.

The first point I noticed, which has been a bit of a recurring theme among Christian debates, was the immediate approach to scripture. How does each side approach the scriptural support, lack of support, or silence regarding the topic at hand? Did one group tend to focus on arguing from experience vs. scripture? How did they go about trying to address a difficult or culturally unpopular instruction? Did the denial of one non-essential view overflow to a greater essential doctrine peril? One of the variables which make Christian debates particularly easy and painful at the same time is that no matter what, both sides need to rely on Scripture to have any ground. I say easy and painful because many arguments in the secular world cannot come to a solid starting point, yet painful because there should not be such levels of dissension regarding clear teachings of scripture. One side or another often finds themselves judging God's Word instead of humbly approaching it seeking to understand its mystery and submit to its authority.

The second point of controversy within the discussion of gender roles is the misunderstanding of domination compared to headship. Domination is the embodiment of might-over-right, overbearing, abusive, much of what defines popular culture's idea of masculinity. Instead of domination being regarded as the enemy for what it is, masculinity at large was assaulted. Men were told to be passive teddy bears that didn't hurt anyone, their feelings, or to even have a desire to inflict hurt. Some men laid down their masculinity by abdicating their roles as leaders, protectors, and providers. Other men sprinted into the other direction to become dominating womanizing thugs, who disguise themselves as gentlemen because they wear a suit. The modern man has been in crisis to define himself. Domination works for many men as a sense of identity because few women can compete in that arena. The fruit of domination expressed further expressed itself in violent crime, abusive attitudes, and general disregard of others. I would never attempt to defend justification for domination as it is the epitome of immature masculinity. This is the target of reference which egalitarians hone in on to destroy, and for good reason. I have yet to read and I don't expect to ever hear a scriptural defense for a dominating attitude. Headship is the embodiment of mature masculinity, one of my favorite sections of verses in Ephesians 5 describes headship. Christ is to his Church as a husband is to his wife. An excerpt from RBMW which also hits home:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships...A man might say, “I am a man and I do not feel this sense of responsibility that you say makes me masculine.” He may feel strong and sexually competent and forceful and rational. But we would say to him that if he does not feel this sense of benevolent responsibility toward women to lead, provide and protect, his masculinity is immature. It is incomplete and perhaps distorted.

“Mature” means that a man’s sense of responsibility is in the process of growing out of its sinful distortions and limitations, and finding its true nature as a form of love, not a form of self-assertion." -pg 29

I recall some students in the high school group picking my brain on the infamous "woman submit" theme found in Ephesians 5:22-24, my response was twofold. One, a man not dare quote verses 22-24 without including 25-33, to do so is not only incomplete to the context of the text but it can lead one to wrongfully think scripture rubber stamps a dominating attitude, yet it immediately gives instruction to the husband on how to love his wife. I found it interesting that the instruction of submission, an action, for which men are more typically action-oriented was given to the wife. While love, an instruction of emotional-orientation, was given to the husband.

Christ perfected headship by his sacrifice, leadership, and love. This is to be the example that men are to follow that we might be mature men. I'm not saying to be mature Christian men, this is just to be a mature man. Because this is what it means to be a man, how much more should we look to the men in the Church fulfill this role in an exemplary manner?

This is a Hard Teaching - 1 Timothy 2:9-14

Needless to say after returning home, my blogging has been greatly diminished. This is mostly due to being back in community and much of the thoughts that roll around have been able to be discussed. Then again, while basking in perhaps one of the most enjoyable Sundays I've had in many years, this thought hit me and I wanted to see if I can grapple with it.

1 Timothy 2:9-14 probably ranks up there at the top of many people's minds when it comes to difficult passages to understand and even more apply. I think Peter said it well in 2 Peter 3:14-16, with "there are some things hard to understand" being ever so clear. The response to this passage usually varies somewhere between justified chauvinism and ignoring the passage altogether. Perhaps the unique factor about this difficult passage isn't so much its clarity but just the opposite. Plainly read it has some serious guidelines that are difficult to apply and to justify; both to the non-Christians who view God's Word as a sexist book which seeks to subjugate women; and to those earnestly seeking to follow God's Word but are at a bit of a loss on this passage's application.

This commentary tends to focus on the cultural aspect and focus on the physical adornment and exclusion occurring in the church than this as an impendent issue. The problem with this is it doesn't address if the practice of flaunting wealth and style are still applicable things to avoid in orderly worship, worse still it often tends to resign this passage to being cultural and thus outdated and we can justifiably ignore it. The primary problem with this as with other difficult passages is the inevitable slippery slope we establish within Scripture while fully ignoring clear teachings to satisfy our own wills or misunderstanding. Or as Peter through the Holy Spirit says, "ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." If we believe the Bible is God's Word and that God is perfect without error, then we must deduce the Bible is God's inerrant Word. This also happens to be a primary doctrine for you two other doctrine nerds who might read this.

On to the meat, within the context the most biting part I would think is verse 12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." While there is plenty of meat to deal with verse 11, for the sake of brevity (like I am good at that anyways...) I would rather refer to Ephesians 5:22-33 which it explicitly describes the relationship a husband and wife ought to have. A piece I have heard and fully agree with about the Ephesians passage, if a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, why wouldn't she want to submit to him? Enough said.

I suppose the difficulty I have by attempting to tackle this passage is much in the practice (or lack of practice) of church discipline. The best way I could describe church discipline is the maintenance and accountability of our own. Paul speaks of this most clearly throughout 1 Corinthians (5:9-13, 6:1-8, 11:27-32). Peter also explains the concept in 1 Peter 2:13 - 3:22. In Church we ought to submit ourselves to one another, everyone ought to be submissive to someone; many of us are submissive to the pastor/elders, deacons, older men and women, and so on. There are checks in balances in the Church as well. We call him Jesus. Once we grasp the idea of submission to one another, the judgment we are to cast upon one another as a Shepherd protects his flock; in love, and the purity of Christ's Church the passage in Timothy doesn't irk as much.

It is important to remember one of the primary duties of pastors/elders in scripture is to practice authority (Shepherd in fluffier terms) over the members of the church. I might be isogeting my youth ministry experience on this, but when Paul restricts women from practicing authority over men is it really that outlandish? Consider this; within the family are mothers not the most appropriate to deal with certain issues of their daughters and likewise fathers with their sons? Likewise I directly consider this in light of my work with the high schoolers. If there is an issue with a girl, I would not attempt to address the issue at large. Women handle women's issues and men handle men's issues. I think many of us would find it odd if women sought to offer guidance on being a man when men are present to give such guidance. This is in no way saying mothers cannot teach their sons as some naysayers would attempt to imply. Children are to submit to their parents, and likewise parents are to practice authority over their children.

Whether you want to get into the issue if women can teach men, I think that is a less clear issue. The most profound example I would point to in scripture is the instruction Priscilla and Aquila gave to Apollos in Acts 18 Priscilla and Aquila are addressed 6 times in scripture. Of those 5 of those times Priscilla is addressed first, considering the writing style it is believed she had the stronger relationship with Paul in faith. In the personal setting, such as home church/bible study in which the couple instructed Apollos, it is reasonable to say Priscilla did more teaching, yet she did so without practicing authority over Apollos. I think it is also important to specify that Paul says a woman is not to have authority over a man, not boy, man. Leading up to a man, I would say it is more than permissible to practice authority on non-adult males. Then the can of beans opened "What is a man?" That is a separate blog unto itself. The short answer, a man is a male who takes responsibility for himself and those around him.

Does this expand to women in the pulpit? Yes, I think it does. I will make it clear though, based on what I have seen and read showing that women are more numerous in ministry, I believe this to be the result of males not being men. If males would be men, much of this controversy and frustration would disappear. The confusion and misunderstanding of what Paul wrote through the Holy Spirit will clear up and we can practice Church as it was meant to be done.

A Tale of Two Church Leaders

I recently finished two interesting books each on opposing sides of the “Emergent Movement”. I approached the Emergent church in Divergently Emergent Church earlier this summer. I can’t say what prompted my curiosity, because I already had a pile of books on my “to read” list but I was browsing away and with almost impulse buying speed I purchased Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. and Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. The package arrived rather swiftly, much sooner than I expected, and unlike my usual pattern of adding the new stock to the bottom of the “to read” pile o’ books I read them both within the week.

When I pondered the effects of the Emergent Movement I must say with complete honesty, I had little more experience than “I read an article about it here” or “I read this on wikipedia”. I was not as informed as I should have been. I suppose it was coming clean with myself that I was not as informed as I attempted to be which prompted my impulse buying and swift reading. I knew of Mark Driscoll only from a few references in sermons and I think one clip I saw with him doing a Q&A session several years ago. I was familiar with Rob Bell’s books and have seen several of his Nooma. I knew they were both in the Emergent category, but beyond that was nothing but speculation. As you might have noticed I did not offer kind words towards the Emergent Movement in my previous blog.

I don’t think I could’ve read two other books which offered a more polar opposite sides of the Emergent movement. Mark Driscoll was quick to differentiate himself from Emergent, instead adheres to Missional or Emerging. I am not a fan of titles or terms, especially when dealing with Christ’s Bride. Rob on the other hand never mentioned Emergent/emerging or really any term to identify his set of beliefs. As I continued through his book it was extremely clear Velvet Elvis was not written in a systematic style, to say the least. This blog is the first which I will stop apologizing for encouraging whoever reads my blogs to read the latest and greatest book. Mark Driscoll’s was perhaps the best book I have read concerning church, goals, ministry, and establishing a church according to scripture. His vision of church was the embodiment of what I vision church to be. A church whose primary goal was to effect the surrounding area, it would send people throughout the local community and expect its members to invest into the Kingdom. To call Mark’s style unorthodox would be an understatement, what came across to me as un-compassionate, non-loving, and crude ministry in his earlier years were instead tough love on level I have never experienced. He was not eloquent in his speech or methods, but he had the vision, goals, and heart to accomplish them and has made a radical impact on Seattle.

It was not just the success of a man who founded a church which grew to over 4000+ members in 8 years. Throughout his book it was clear the majority of that time was survival and less than 500 members. I was most compelled by the vision to actively seek the punk rock, smoking, un-churched people, growing a church from a group which did not grow up in church. Mark’s commitment to reach such a socially liberal minded crowd, yet be unflinching in his commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine, captivated me. I was inspired by the audacious idea of encouraging people not committed to the mission to leave. A church which constantly kept the big picture in sight, not to bow down to attendees seeking to use resources not in line with broadening the Kingdom. I have often heard the body of Christ analogy, but never was I reminded of the colon’s importance or its role within the church as well.

On the flip side, Rob explicitly encourages us to change Christian doctrine and theology, and implicitly denies scripture as the God’s Word. I have never outright experienced liberal theology like Rob’s. I thought such people only existed on ABC documentaries or classrooms of colleges. I was in awe that as a leader of a church, Rob would openly say “I didn’t even know if I wanted to be a Christian anymore”, as a result of massive attendance, growth, and normalization of his church. He didn’t refer to Christ’s strength to get him through his stress; in fact he described his faith with a “flavor of the week” type of attitude. Anyone who claims to be a Christian leader and would unapologetically have an “I don’t feel like it anymore” attitude brings serious questions to my mind. What kind of Christian Truth is evident with such a statement?

When I considered his implications and the possibilities he suggested I am terrified. First, I think thousands of people are being mislead into a pseudo Christian faith which I describe to be more like a New Age existentialism with a touch of Jesus in the middle. Second, within the first two weeks of starting his church he had more than 2,000 in attendance, at the time of print his church claimed more than 10,000 members. Unlike a misguided, hateful preacher who seeks to proclaim a God of hate with protests at soldiers’ funerals; Rob has a charismatic, appealing type of faith which is claiming a large population. As I went through his book I found 40 claims which I believed to be either questionable or clear denial of Christian doctrine and authority established through Scripture. I know I don’t know everything, but following my recent studies on theology, I am aware of the bigger picture in which certain claims can lead people to a Jesus who never lived. There is a huge part of me that wished I just read everything wrong instead of actually recognizing the theology and approach to scripture Bell advocated and adhered to.

As the months have been passing and my eagerness to rejoin the civilian world grows, I have been pondering much upon my return. A new chapter of my life is on the horizon, my church is in a state of change, and I look forward to accomplishing my long list of goals which have been set aside for the last several years. I wonder, could such an impact be made to better model our church after the scriptural example of Mark Driscoll’s? I have so many hopes and ideas, yet I fear falling into the trap life tends to ensnare people into a pattern of life as normal.

Epilogue: It has been over a year since Mark Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill Church and subsequently, Mars Hill Church divided into independent churches or closed. It was a sharp reminder that however passionate and truthful a church leader might be, they are not perfect. Given the long history of challenging aspects of Driscoll's style and ministry, I found it profoundly sad that the issue which brought the end of Mars Hill was what I viewed as a misunderstanding compounded by his overbearing leadership style. Rob Bell similarly left his church, I believe it was to go on a speaking tour for a time and he continues to write, he had a number of TV projects. Love Wins essentially served as his theological treatise to depart from orthodox Christian doctrine. Conservative Christian scholars, authors, and leaders examined that writing as Bell's endorsement or adherence to Christian Universalism. A label in my estimation that Bell objects to, not becuase it mischaracterized his position but because it was a label.

Necessary Beliefs

It has been a little more than 10 years since I decided to practice my faith to the point of inconvenience in which I allowed it to take hold of my thoughts and actions. Since then I could not count how many people through the years have claimed beliefs masked as Christianity but were unsupported by any form of valid Christian authority. It was during those years I came to the understanding that I cannot trust what a man says or has said to direct me in my faith. I must rely on Scripture and the reasonable interpretation of such. Beyond the authority of Scripture we are left to our interpretations, hopefully through the Holy Spirit’s guidance we can test to know what ought to be followed and what ought to be discarded. Not to discount the teachers of the day, there are many gifted teachers doing God’s work, my first and foremost litmus test when considering a given message is if it is founded in Scripture or not. If so, it is taken with authority of possibly being the proper view of God’s Word, if not it cannot be taken with any more weight than one man to another.

In retrospect, as I consider the manner I approached the doctrine of Faith to be followed I am thankful that thus far I have not adhered to an unscriptural doctrine before my pursuit of understanding Christian doctrine began in Germany. It started as learning the rational and secular defenses for Christianity known as Apologetics, but upon the Introduction I learned it was really basic evangelical theological doctrine, much of which is necessary to be established “a priori” to understand the Bible and God as the Bible describes him to be. I have not yet been confronted with a set of doctrine that I disagreed with that has been established as necessary beliefs, the vast majority of the material presented I never considered as topics of issue or contention, such as: God’s simplicity, necessity, impassibility, unity, or immateriality just to name a few. In the volume I recently completed those traits listed are among 28 other necessary traits which encompass the God of the Bible.

If someone approached me 3 years ago and claimed I must believe those traits of God to be a scripturally faithful Christian, I would have laughed at them and questioned their seriousness, sanity or both. I most certainly would’ve questioned their faith and sincerity of knowing Christ. Christianity has been packaged in so many ways to be more “marketable” for lack of better words. I theorize the more evangelistic in nature of the ministry the more simple the message will be packed. Reasonably so, it is likely unnecessary that someone acknowledge God’s immutability before they are personally introduced to Jesus. I grasp the need to summarize the Christian Doctrine such that a layman can understand it; I don’t think a better summarization is done by the Gospels. However, the Gospels are often too complex to actually understand and for further evangelistic purpose they are carved even more to get to a message something along the lines of “We are all sinners, sinners go to Hell, God forgives sin, confess your sins to be saved”. I have previously expressed thoughts on the Prayer of Salvation and the potential detriment I think it offers to a life of authentic faith.

I find myself being much closer to the person claiming that one must believe X set of doctrines to be an authentic Christian. Without becoming Pharisaical where does that leave me? I do not regret learning the doctrine of what I have bonded my life to; in fact knowing the deeper understanding of Christian doctrine has further strengthened my faith immensely. I recall describing my worldview to a friend a while ago as a buckyball, a C₆₀ molecule that has been described as flexible as a rubber but as strong as a diamond. I chose this description based on the molecular configuration, because every atom is interconnected. My understanding of the sciences has already strengthened my assurance that Christianity is true, understanding the doctrine is one more area to reinforce my faith, so much so I can hardly call it faith. I know Christianity to be true better than I know 2+2= 4.

I understand my faith is vastly different from those around me because of my personal relationship with Christ, the experiences I have had, my willingness to accept truth, and the empirical knowledge I have. Just as every friendship is an individual relationship, so too every person’s faith is at the individual level. I do not dare to claim one must fully understand orthodox systematic theology of the evangelical Christian faith. The danger I am more aware of, if one does not understand the essential doctrines of the faith they claim, there are serious issues that may arise.

The most important, how does one know the God they claim to have a relationship with, is the God of Christianity? If one denies that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God the implications from such a seemingly skeptic claim quickly pile into a web of heresy or blasphemy. If the Bible has errors and is still the Word of God, then God makes mistakes, if God makes mistakes then he is not Truth, if God is not Truth, then he is not perfect, if God is not perfect, then he is not omniscient, if he is not omniscient, he cannot be God. This is one simple example of many that can be formulated from orthodox evangelical Christianity. Each “if” statement can be used to counter a number of paths to prove the existence and rationality of Christianity. Consider the example provided, only expand the “if” “then” to 28 necessary qualities and see how interesting that becomes. That is how a simple claim of skepticism is only a logical deduction away from disbelief in the existence of God at all or at least the God of Christianity. My only rational answer to such a question is to depend upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but then it still refers, that if I consider the Trinity to be tritheism (there are three gods or three separate beings), modalism (God is one person that appears in different roles), or any number of doctrines apart from the Trinity that God is three persons with one nature, then how can one know the God they believe is the one that is?

The dangers from ignorance of doctrine I think are far greater than knowing too much doctrine without faith. Placing importance on doctrine is what lead the Pharisees astray, and Christ had strong words to those that claimed religion but not faith. I also think of any number of documentaries I have watched on the History Channel to represent the scholastic historical views experts give concerning the existence of Jesus, the origin of Christianity, the understanding of Heaven or Hell, or any number of topics of that order. I have yet to see an expert that offered a view that completely coincided with the scriptural account. Faith is the most important part of our relationship with Christ. However, there is an undefined level of understanding that I see necessary in understanding who the God we pledge to follow is. Or maybe this is a deeper meaning of what Christ meant when he said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and believed”.

Epilogue: It was almost humorous for me to read this, at this point in my life I did not even conceive the possibility of going to a Bible college. Yet, all of the content of this was addressed in my Theology I course.  Dr. Thoennes does a much better job that this blog though.

My Turn: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution on Time

As I noted in War has been declared Time ran a cover story titled "God vs. Science". Keeping to my word, this is my two cents. Much to my delight it actually contained a short debate between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the foremost speakers in the evolutionist arena. The person representing the intelligent design was Francis Collins. I am not too familiar with any of his writings, but his street credit was being the head of the Human Genome Project, which completed mapping the human genome (DNA) in 2000. As a whole, I found the article an awesome opportunity to represent intelligent design at its finest but was left lacking and at some points greatly disappointed.

I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins primary claim to fame was his most recent book, The God Delusion. In addition to this piece, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris, contributors in Wired's cover story were also mentioned. The scary part about their writings, they apparently are very popular, being noted as God Delusion has been on NY Time's Best Selling list currently at no. 8. Aside from Darwin's Black Box, I cannot recall when an intelligent design piece had received so much attention.

I took the opportunity to compare and contrast the articles between Time and Wired (especially since they were released the same month). I was able to gather some of the strategy the atheists are using. For instance, in the Wired article the New Atheists clearly express that they believe the faith in any kind of religion to be evil (the idea was initially put forth by Dawkins); however, no such condemnation is even hinted to in his debate with Dr. Collins. The overall tone Dawkins approaches Dr. Collins with throughout the article is rather friendly and respectful, far from what he proclaims should be the logical response to people who believe in God. Two-faced? Perhaps, I think he is simply smart enough not to be honest about his true beliefs because he knows he would gain more enemies than support to make such a claim. I believe Dawkins is using the same tactics as the earliest "scientists" that initially pulled people away from creationism.

For the sake of modern history, let's start in 1795 with James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. He suggested the way things are now has been the way things have always been. Then in 1830 Sir Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in which he invents the geologic column. The geologic column, although never to be found anywhere on Earth suggested the age of the Earth to be more than 6000 years old as believed by most based on scripture. In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life (yes this is the real title in its entirety), he observes the variation within the Galapagos finches and then concludes all life to be related to one another. Then in the 1860's Earnst Haekel created charts of similar embryology (now known as homology) to suggest that all creatures during development look the same and thus there is no difference in their makeup with ours. Despite being found guilty for fraud and confessing the charts were false in 1875, his theory continues to be promulgated in biology books as fact.

Each person contributed a little more to the now present theory of evolution. It all had to start with doubting what was believed to be true and denying scripture. Although they are hailed as scientists, they did not prove anything. Hutton's ideas encouraged people to doubt the biblical timeline. Lyell's ideas encouraged people to doubt the age of the earth. Darwin's ideas encouraged people to deny creation. Once the foundations of who we are were unknown, man anxiously made himself god. The baby steps in logic brought people from belief to unbelief to denial. This is how Satan operates with any sin. It starts out being rather harmless and unbenunced to us or those around us and it builds. It continues to build until we are right where he wants us.

Back to the article, after the resume and recent success from the evolutionists to summarize who is speaking for "science", to introduce the hard lining intelligent designers TIME says this, "Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science". I certainly feel like my beliefs were given credit as legitimate science... Perhaps it was not meant that way, but the article speaks for itself. At this point in the article the reference to science is in terms of strides in medical treatment, such as brain scans and MRI's. Not a problem, I would be hard pressed to find a bible-believing Christian to proclaim medical treatment as sinful.

Upon introducing the contender for Intelligent Design, he is noted as a "foremost of those arguing common ground" in the midst of the Science vs. God debate. If Time was looking for a good debate that might actually show the sides, they should have picked someone else. Richard Dawkins is in no terms a moderate in his atheism; he is the complete front runner of the growing religion. Francis Collins by description and his explanation in belief is a middle of the road intelligent design proponent. That is, he does not deny they age of the universe currently set around 14 billion years old & he does not deny evolutionary theory. Although far more common in the intelligent design camp, it is a weaker position from the start. To have a real debate of interest would be between a creationist and Richard Dawkins; actually it would only be fair. Take the hardliner from each team and then debate, not the Goliath from the atheists and Jesse's middle son from the intelligent designers. The debate's outcome was decided before it could begin, only how badly intelligent design would be beaten was up for grabs.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

The first question, worded differently to each is essentially "can science prove God's existence if God does exist?" Dawkins claims that it can and that is the primary objective of science. Collins claims God is bigger than the natural world and thus science cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Dawkins wins in this situation, he takes the "a crusader for answers" approach, people want answers and he makes a promise to search for an answer. Collins went wrong by playing into the definition Dawkins presupposed by his answer. Science is limited to natural causes. The definition of empirical science is that which is observable and repeatable. Anything more than what is observable and repeatable is not pure science. It is religion and faith more than Christianity. By not defining what is meant by "science", Collins comes across as not having an answer and plays right into the "religion" side and Dawkins is firmly planted as "science's" spokesman. To go oppose "science is against reason" is logical suicide. Evolutionary theory requires far more faith in unknown variables. It places its faith in undiscovered laws and molecules rather than faith needed to believe the Bible is the real Word of God.

TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.

The next question being setup by a claim of a late anthropologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asked if religion and science could successfully coexist because science and religion are in two different areas of thought. Dawkins was right, that position was suggested "simply to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp." Dawkins continued claiming miracles completely defy science. Collins responded that there is no differentiation or separation between science and religion. While Collins might appear to take the higher road he does essentially skirt the issue. Once again if he defined science to the definition of what it is, his response would have been sufficient. My first thought to Dawkins claim that miracles contradict or defy science is "yea... that's what makes them miracles because there is no explanation science can offer". Miracles cannot exist if there is nothing more than natural causes, I dive deeper into this in When you believe in Miracles.

TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.

This is the ultimate death of intelligent design getting any points in the debate. Dawkins masterfully plays the "millions of years" card that can adequately explain the variation in the world today. Collins responds, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." Instead of suggesting irreducible complexity (working systems that could not have formed or been functional without all parts present), which is the entire point in Darwin's Black Box; that is essentially a response to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins did attempt to answer Dr. Behe; Dr Behe replied that such examples were not answers to the problems posed. There has been no further answer from science or atheists to address irreducibly complex systems. Worse, Collins by attempting to appease people who believe in evolution that Christian faith is compatible with evolutionary beliefs. If one wants to take scripture as the Word of God, I address that in Can Christians believe in Evolution? Collins undermines the Bible's authority and waters down the stance of creationists.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

It continues to get worse for the ID community. Collins suggests God activating evolution as a valid theory, this is like watching the goat being set out for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park... and the T-Rex in the debate devours the goat just the same. Dawkins calls out Collins that it doesn't make sense for a God to design a system that would take 14 billion years to get to a stage that we could start sinning and needing redemption. This is precisely why there cannot be a middle ground between evolution and the Genesis creation account. One of the two events happened. Sadly Collins attempts to defend his position that one cannot reason like God, while I do agree with that statement, in the context it was used it offers his theory no redemption.

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

Although Collins does give a good example, the gravitational constant being so precise that "if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur." Dawkins finally starts to suggest the naturalistic explanations through constants that narrow vastly improbable odds and multiple universes that Collins was able to pounce on because there is no scientific evidence for such ideas. In addition, Collins suggests Occam's razor, Occam's razor suggests the most simple and straightforward answer makes most sense.

At this point in the debate the two engage in some direct back and forth dialogue. Dawkins claims that the idea of God is just as improbable as chance. Collins responds that God does not need explanations, he is the explanation. Dawkins fires back attacking the answers God provides to be the duty of scientists to discover. Collins responds with the lacking of evidence with current ideas to counter fine tuning and then requests that people allow God as a possibility. They continue going back and forth until Dawkins belittles God by suggesting that God could be anything from God of Martians, inhabitants of Alpha Centuri or Yahweh.

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Here Collins gets a chance to offer creationists a little credit in the scientific arena. Instead Collins shoots down the Genesis account because "is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other". In this sentence Collins conceded that he believes the earth is billions of years and that he believes evolution to be true. To make it worse he cites St. Augustine's contentions that Genesis is difficult to understand if it is taken literally. The only problem with that suggestion is that science has advanced plenty far enough to explain what science in Augustine's day could not. Seeing the agreement and weakness in Collins scientific and religious stance Dawkins gets into friendly banter about the disagreement between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Dawkins goes as far as suggesting that creationists be dismissed altogether.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

Collins appropriately applies that God is not bound by nature so he could defy natural laws when he chooses. Collins goes further to explain his belief in science and faith can intertwine, especially in the investigation of miracles. Dawkins, knowing the possibility of miracles is the very embodiment of everything he is against, proclaims that to refer anything to a miracle is a cop-out and undermines as well as invalidates any possibility of scientific credibility. To quote him "Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility." According to Dawkins anyone who prescribes the possibility of anything beyond nature, they have lost all scientific credibility. Despite any appearance of respectfulness he had or even apparent friendliness he had towards Collins, his most blunt statement confirms that he has no scientific respect and Collins has no credibility as a scientist. A fine example of the Atheist’s tactics, discredit possible competition before they are allowed to come to the table to talk.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

Sensing that TIME does not share similar conclusions about moral behavior, Collins refers to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as current social studies seeking to explain good behavior amidst evolutionary origins. Collins successfully points out that since behavior applies to individuals, to be moral, selfless or altruistic, it is often not beneficial to behave in such a way thus, the concept of good must have come from something more which ought to be attributed to God. Dawkins attempts to explain the value people have for good behavior to be remnants of prehistoric life. Since the early civilizations lived in close proximity to extended families and it is natural to want to preserve genetics, "do-gooding" is based in the drive to help ourselves by helping those that share our genes around us. Dawkins uses this as an acceptable reason to explain human behavior by evolutionary benefit. What he didn't mention is that he also believes behavior such as rape, murder, theft, and other forms of immorality must have had some social benefit because the behavior continues to exist today. This is a prime example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place for Dawkins. On one hand, there is pain in world, aspects people will classify as evil. If evolution is the only cause available, because a person is nothing more than interacting chemicals reacting with one another, then for even the most disgusting behavior there must be an evolutionary benefit in order for it to still exist. Furthermore, according to Dawkins there is no such thing as good or evil, he admits there are good things that happen and evil things that happen but he does not attempt to define what is good or evil. Instead, he denies any existence of absolute good or evil.

TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?
TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

The final topic of the debate, stem cell research (STR) one of the hotter topic issues that is receiving most of the objections from the religious community. Collins explains that he understands why people are against STR and will value people's opinions. Dawkins compares a killing a human embryo to killing a cow. He also refers to why religious people object to STR, "the issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." What both people failed to do was explain what kind of stem cell research. There is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cord blood stem cell research (CBCR). For ESCR an embryo must created (fertilize the human egg with human sperm), then killed to harvest stem cells. For CBSCR blood from the umbilical cord is saved and stem cells are harvested from there. I object to ESCR for the same reasons I object to abortion, that is exactly what it is. I have no objections to CBSCR. The funny thing is, the most recent studies, CBSCR has had far better success than ESCR. The "scientific" community wants to pursue science in a manner that requires the killing of embryos, sounds more like the abortionist community to me...

Wow, this turned out to be really long. I decided against summarizing the conclusions, each person said their peace. Congratulations if you actually read this. As always your $.02 is always appreciated

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

As I was joyfully approaching the end of my current read when I got to thinking again. Something I noted in the midst of the 14 essays contained in the book was virtually all of the contributors never pronounced any stance on what they believed. They only stated they did not believe in evolution in its current state or under the present evidences of support. Myself being clearly defined as a young Earth creationist found that somewhat disconcerting. I find it necessary to explain some terms so we are speaking and reading the same language.

First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.

Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.

I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.

I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.

The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.

So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.

Re: Infamous Dr Laura Letter

In my years of forums and internet surfing I have seen this letter pop-up several times and have answered it in-depth on several occasions so this time it is being saved.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Unless you are Jewish, you don't need to give sacrifices to God in the form of previously living animals. Jesus was the last sacrifice to be given that cost blood. Romans 12 tells us how we can be living sacrifices if you would like to know how to sacrifice to God.

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Take into account also that Christ did not come for social revolution, which was within the culture of the time; and looking at the guidelines given, the Hebrews were to protect the slaves. Ephesians 5 also gives instructions on how masters and slaves should behave. In addition, Romans 13 explains how we should respect the governing bodies over us; that is until they attempt to interfere with God's laws. We are to follow the laws of the land after God's laws; I doubt the author of this letter was able to sell his daughter legally.

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Aside from that being one of the cleanliness laws that protected the people from diseases that they had not known about, it might also imply that the woman would be your wife. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one, I think if you can't tell when you're wife is on her cycle then you have no business being her husband. That or you two should be able to communicate well enough to disclose that kind of information.

d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Mexico, Canada and the United States all have laws regarding human servitude, after God's standards have been met, meet the governments. Sorry you can't own slaves either. For more explanation refer to the answer for question B.

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The group being addressed where all Jewish, they shared common faith. If you and your neighbor share the common faith that practices Orthodox Judaism in that form you might have a case. For anyone that does not share your faith we are not to enforce our punishments upon people that do not share our values. That is something faiths other than Christianity teach.

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Aside from that being a poorly written sentence the idea behind it is false. The Hebrew words translated as "abomination" are two different words expressing the difference in emphasis. There are numerous parts throughout scripture that describe homosexuality as a sin, I think Romans 1:18-2:1 explains it all the best. The restriction on shellfish is another on the cleanliness issues to protect the people from disease since they didn't happen to have a refrigerator nearby.

g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I don't think you need to worry about approaching the altar of the Lord in that form now. Christ was the new covenant and what he represented completely voids or expands upon all of these issues to what really matters.

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
It did not state that trimming your hair is an offense punishable by death. That appears to be a law to be set apart from the people that lived in the region. As far as today’s application, I am hard-pressed to see any relevance with our relationship with Christ and our uni-brows.

i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
That is about the skin from dead animal not cured leather. In addition that is also a cleanliness commandment. Apply this rule to the New Testament in relation to Christ being the new Covenant and you can play all the football you like, just don't make it your god.

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

J) SEE reference to the New Covenant. Also refer to part E

Final note: Whoever wrote this letter clearly had no intention to seek the truth of Scripture or attempted to obtain true questions. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture and the message, just do so with a true heart that is open to the truth. I am not sure what is more sad, the person that wrote this first, or the people that continually repost it because they too have never attempted to understand the Bible for even its historical, cultural, or social information. Don't let this hinder your trust in Scripture, anyone can look up obscure verses out of context, and they can just as easily be snuffed by reading the context and knowing Christ. This letter is clearly an attempt to add dissention and disbelief by questions which were never attempted to be understood.