Trying to make Christian morality palatable to those in moral rebellion against God is like trying to make civil law palpable to criminals. They will never like God’s laws no matter how reasonable we demonstrate those laws to be. Defiant children do not care that eating too much candy will make them throw up or give them diabetes. They simply want candy. Likewise, those who want their sexual sin, their abortion, and a myriad of other sins do not care about the wisdom in God’s laws. They want what they want, and they will ridicule and deride those who say otherwise. This is not to say that we should not attempt to explain the reason for and benefits of God’s law. It’s just to say that we shouldn’t be surprised when this fails to change their behavior.
November 20, 2015
March 3, 2015
Many Christians wonder whether God will forgive them for intentional sin – particularly premeditated and habitual sins. It’s easy to believe God will forgive us for accidental sins, but not for sins that we plan out in advance or choose to do over and over again.
So, will God forgive such sins? Before we answer that question we should be clear about what God thinks of these sins. He hates them because He hates all sin. Sin is contrary to His holy nature. Sin ruptures God’s relationship with us, and this grieves Him. He has given us the power to choose righteousness (Romans 6; 8:1-4), and yet we choose unrighteousness instead. (more…)
February 24, 2015
Now that Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington D.C. have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, more Christians are asking whether smoking marijuana is truly immoral. After all, it’s legal. Joe Carter has a thoughtful article on this issue that I found extremely helpful. He argues that smoking marijuana is immoral. Here is Carter’s argument in a nutshell (with some ad-lib on my part at certain points): (more…)
January 6, 2015
Holiness churches are concerned with preserving the God-given distinction between men and women, and rightly so. That’s why many holiness churches teach that women should wear skirts/dresses and grow their hair long while men should wear pants and cut their hair short. It is ironic, then, that a number of holiness churches do not allow their male members to grow facial hair or view it as unfavorable when facial hair is the only natural, publically visible, God-given distinction between the sexes. While men can grow their hair long and women can cut their hair short, and while men can dress effeminate and women can dress masculine, only men can grow facial hair. Raymond Crownover noted this inconsistency in his response to a paper presented at the first Urshan Graduate School of Theology symposium in May 2002, writing: (more…)
January 5, 2015
Men and women were created differently. The God-given distinction between the two genders should be not be blurred, but preserved and celebrated. That’s why I am opposed to men shaving their facial hair. Facial hair is the only natural, publically visible, God-given distinction between the sexes. While men can grow their hair long and women can cut their hair short, and while men can dress effeminate and women can dress masculine, only men can grow facial hair. It is the unique differentiator between men and women, and thus should be preserved.
Facial hair is part of God’s creative design. And since the ability to grow facial hair is unique to the male gender, it seems obvious that God provided facial hair to men as a distinguishing feature of their gender. If God did not want men to have facial hair, why would He have included it in our design? What makes us think that have the liberty to artificially remove this God-given gender distinction? For a man to shave his face is to say to the Creator, “You did not make me right. This hair on my face was a mistake.” When a man shaves his face, He is violating God’s creative intent and attempting to erase a unique stamp of his masculinity afforded to him by God. (more…)
January 8, 2014
There is a difference between a woman making herself attractive and making herself seductive. The former enhances her natural beauty to increase a man’s desire for her, whereas the latter enhances her sexual appeal and increases a man’s desire to use her to satisfy his sexual lusts. In other words, the former enhances her value as a person, whereas the latter devalues her to a mere object of lust.
Modesty cannot be legislated by prescribing certain forms of clothing, certain lengths, or a certain fit. Women must be responsible for their own modesty. With every outfit they put on they should be asking themselves, “Does this outfit enhance my natural beauty, or does it enhance my sex appeal to men? Will this cause men to objectify me, or value me as a woman?” If women asked these questions of themselves each morning, and if they asked it of other men, no church would have to have standards of modesty.