Lesser Discussed Sins Series - 02 - Lewdness

In our last article, we discussed the fact that Christians cannot possibly address every single activity that is sin every time that they are dealing with one particular sin; furthermore, the fact that they cannot address every sin every time is not a stamp of approval on the sins not covered.  On the other hand, it is clear that Christians do need to spend more time on the sins that tend not to be discussed in depth as often so as to not allow them to slip through the cracks; there are many people in the world and even within the church who may be participating in sin unknowingly and would fix this issue if they had the proper instruction. 

As mentioned in the previous introductory article of this series, there are numerous passages that contain an abbreviated list of what “not to do”; in other words, they contain a list of sins and, in Galatians 5:21, the Apostle Paul includes “and the like” to ensure that we understand that there are sins not specifically mentioned in Scripture.  In this article, we will examine the sin of lewdness (Galatians 5:19 NKJV), which is translated as lasciviousness in the KJV.  While Christians do not often spend a great deal of time on this specific sin, what applications can we make about it? What is lewdness/lasciviousness? How do they tie into our lives as Christians and how do they overlap other sins?

According to Strong’s, the transliterated word is “Aselgeia”, which is defined as “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence”.[1]  Additionally, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines lasciviousness as being “filled with or showing sexual desire” and “lewd, lustful”.[2]  Likewise, lewd is defined as “sexual in an offensive or rude way”, “sexually unchaste or licentious”, and “obscene, vulgar”.[3]  Lust is defined as a “strong feeling of sexual desire”, “a strong desire for something”, and an “intense or unbridled sexual desire”.[4]  From these definitions, it is clear that this sin can overlap with and accentuate other sins such as immodesty, fornication, and adultery.  How can it have such an impact?

Each spring and summer, a plethora of articles are written by faithful brethren on the topic of modesty and this is a wonderful thing.  Immodesty is a significant problem in our society and, sadly, within God’s church.  However, discussions concerning modesty too often come down to arguments over exact length of pants, skirts, and whether or not a Christian can wear a bathing suit.  How might lewdness and lasciviousness impact these types of discussions? The definition of Aselgeia includes “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence”, which means that the sin included in Galatians 5:19 is applicable to two groups of people: 1.) Individuals who are being lewd in their own dress and actions, and 2.) Individuals who are lustful towards others.  Often when immodesty is discussed, the person arguing for loose guidelines on modesty will state that they aren’t forcing others to look at them; if others are lustful, how is that their problem? The answer is found in the definition of Aselgeia! This word incorporates both the person acting in a lewd/lascivious manner and the person who is lustful of that person. 

Perhaps we should consider it in this manner; Jesus said that a “good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.  For every tree is known by its fruit.  For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush” (Luke 6:43-44).  If the fruit of our own immodesty is that others are lead to lust, then is this good fruit? Likewise, consider again the words of Jesus when He says that “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42).  If the way we act, the way we talk, or the way we dress causes others to stumble, we have become the lewd one and we have facilitated the lewdness of others.  Should we be shameless, as the definition of Aselgeia includes? As the Lord said through Jeremiah the prophet, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush” (Jeremiah 6:15). 

This examination is not comprehensive, but explores some of the significant applications to be made concerning lewdness/lasciviousness.  What we should recognize is that rarely, if ever, is one sin independent of another; that is to say, when one sin is committed, there is frequently any combination of sins committed with the first.  If we are knowingly lewd, then we show a lack of love for our fellow Christians, God, and we are likely rebellious.  Our goal, as Christians, is to draw closer to God and to our fellow Christians so that we can reach Heaven.  The central message of 1 Corinthians 13 is that if we truly have the love for one another that Christ had for us, then we monitor our own actions and that we work to help one another; we can have all the knowledge in the world and we can go through many of the other motions of being a Christian, but if we lack love for one another, then everything else is moot.  As Paul wrote, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).  Why is love the greatest? Because it guides us to follow the commands of God and to look out for the best of other Christians! Going back to our previous example, is stating that if someone else looks at our immodestly clad bodies is their problem and not our own, is that showing the proper love? Or is it showing the shameless embedded in lasciviousness?

Let us strive for the love that Christ had for us; as is written in 1 John 3:16, “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us.  And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”  Which is more important to us? Lewd talk, behavior, and dress, or our souls and the souls of our brethren? Let us follow the words written in Hebrews 12:1, “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us…”

---

[1] “Aselgeia – New Testament Greek Lexicon – King James Version.”  Bible Study Tools.  Accessed August 01, 2016.  http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/aselgeia.html.  Files from the public domain.

[2] “Lascivious.”  Merriam-Webster.com.  Accessed August 01, 2016.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lascivious.

[3] “Lewd.”  Merriam-Webster.com.  Accessed August 01, 2016.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lewd.

[4] “Lust.”  Merriam-Webster.com.  Accessed August 01, 2016.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lewd. 

Lesser Discussed Sins Series - 01 - Introduction

Recently, an article was passed around social media that discussed sins that Christians readily “accept”.  There were a few activities identified as sin within the article that were unsustainable from the Scriptures, but the overall article brought to mind the fact that there are some transgressions that Christians spend less time talking about than others.  Does less time spent on this sin or that sin necessarily mean that Christians “accept” them? Why do we spend less time on some sins than we do on others? Perhaps the answer is that Christians tend to discuss what is most applicable to the culture and time in which they reside.  Does this mean that the lesser discussed sins are not present? Or does it mean that the “mainstream” sins tend to take up more of our efforts? For instance, a brief review of social media and major news outlets will establish that homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion demand a significant amount of a Christian’s time and effort to address.  These sins need to be addressed because they are so prevalent in our own society.  When a Christian addresses any given sin, especially those considered to be “hot button” issues, the following argument is frequently used: “But you didn’t address sins x, y, and z!” Must a Christian address every single sin every time they deal with a specific sin? If the Christian does not address every sin, does that mean that they accept the sins not mentioned? What does the Bible teach us on this concept?

In Matthew 19:16-22, Jesus answered a question addressed to Him by a young man, but how long did He dwell on the sins that were not pertinent to that specific individual? For instance, Jesus condemns adultery as sin, but was that young man involved in adultery? The context indicates that he was not adulterous.  What good would it have done for Jesus to dwell on that specific sin in that circumstance? Instead, Jesus made a specific application to the individual He was instructing; knowing that the young man placed great store in his physical possessions, Jesus addressed materialism.  Did Jesus accept adultery because He chose not to dwell on it in this circumstance?

Likewise, Christians today tend to deal with sins that are currently prevalent.  Should we be pointed in addressing the sins that are specific to an individual’s life? Jesus certainly was in our example.  If there is a particular sin that currently impacts society as a whole, should we spend time addressing it? In the Old Testament, there are numerous prophets, judges, rulers, and kings of Israel that dealt with sins that impacted the whole nation.  For example, idolatry frequently plagued the people of God; how many prophets avidly fought against idolatry? How many judges and rulers of Israel? Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and many other devout men and women of God openly opposed idolatry.  Should we not do the same as Christians?

While Jesus did not dwell on the sin of adultery in our example from Matthew 19, that does not mean that He did not teach on it in more depth under more applicable circumstances.  In fact, in the earlier portions of Matthew 19, Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce and He spent time answering the question.  Some sins may be more prevalent within our society and considered “high profile” in some aspects, but Christians do need to be careful to spend time identifying and addressing sins that might not be so mainstream.  There are many tender hearts in both the world and the church that may be involved in sin without realizing it.  A story was once told about a young couple that was involved in fornication without knowing that they were.  Why did they not realize it? They had been preached to and taught that “fornication” is a sin, so how could they not know it? They knew that “fornication” is a sin, but they had no idea what “fornication” meant! Part of our duty as Christians is to understand what sin is, have the appropriate reaction to sin, and to help one another understand sin so that it might be corrected. 

Within the Scriptures, there are numerous passages that include a somewhat limited list of “what not to do”, but a comprehensive list of sins does not exist.  Examining the Scriptures shows that even the inspired writers did not address every single sin every time they wrote instructions for the first-century Christians.  Often, we turn and use passages that deal with prevalent sins such as homosexuality, but do not take enough time to go into depth the remaining sins in the list.  Does this mean that we accept these other sins? Or does it mean that we need to spend more time in study? Included in such lists are the following sins: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envies, murder, drunkenness, revelries, homosexuality, sodomy, thieves, covetousness, extortion, filthiness, whoever loves and practices a lie, and “the like” (Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-6, and Revelation 22:12-16).  For a conscientious Christian, there is much guidance to be found within these passages and those similar to them. 

How should a Christian view sin? We tend to have a natural revulsion to some sins in the aforementioned list, but should there be a difference? Peter, in his discussion of Christians returning to the world, stated that sin is like a dog that returns to his own vomit and a washed sow returning to wallow in the mire (2 Peter 2:18-22).  Does that disgust you? Is it revolting to picture a dog eating its own vomit? Is mire merely mud? Jude wrote that Christians need to save others “with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 23).  There needs to be revulsion to all sin, not just one or two sins.  In Romans 8:6-8, the Apostle Paul wrote that to “be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.  So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”  Christians must have the correct perspective of sin; it is not cute, it is not acceptable, and it needs to be addressed.  While we do not accept sin simply because we do not often address them by name, we do need to be careful not to allow some sins to slip through the cracks unnoticed. 

The purpose of this article has been to lay the foundation for the future study of some “lesser discussed” sins and how those sins impact our lives.  While we will not go through and discuss every single sin listed even in this article, we will select a few and try to do an in-depth study of those sins and possible applications we can make.  Often, non-believers will state that if an activity is not specifically mentioned in the Bible that it must not be a sin; hopefully we will be able to address such argumentation and show that we are given enough information to be able to accurately determine right from wrong even if a sin is not specifically mentioned.  

The Need for Urgency

Mark 13:33 (NKJV)

We often have a sense of urgency when it comes to various aspects of this physical life; we urgently warn of the dangers of political figures running for office, poor political policies, poor economic decisions, and we are even urgent in ensuring that our bills are paid on time.  Did I get that school assignment completed? Did I respond to all my emails? While each of these things may be important to this life, are they all that important in the next life? Are we as urgent in our service of God as we are in the physical, mundane things of this life? When we identify a command of God, do we feel a sense of urgency to complete that task? When we look at individuals in the Bible, do we see urgency and immediacy in their actions?

Our society does not place any importance on matters of spirituality; school comes first, work comes first, and even vacations and entertainment comes first.  As Christians, obeying and pleasing God needs to be first not only in word, but in actions as well.  We need to instill the importance of pleasing God in ourselves, in our families, and in our friendships.  When do we seek to please God? When do we seek to obey His commands? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? 

The commands of God are not always easy, nor do we always fully understand the reasons of God.  Does it have to be easy? Do we have to fully understand? God, testing the faith of Abraham, commanded the following: "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (Genesis 22:2).  Did Abraham understand fully what God intended to do? Did he understand that God would stop his hand at the last minute and spare Isaac? Did Abraham delay in his obedience of this difficult command? In Genesis 22:3, we are told that "Abraham rose early in the morning" and set about completing the task God had given him to do; he didn't delay, make excuses, or decide that because he didn't fully understand God's reasoning that he didn't have to complete it.  The Hebrew writer stated that Abraham had concluded "that God was able to raise him [Isaac] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense" (Hebrews 11:19).  Abraham placed his faith in the promise of God and it did not matter whether or not the reasoning of God was understandable from a human's standpoint.  Do we have the faith of Abraham?

Consider also the example of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 13:1-11.  Within this passage, we are informed multiple times that Jeremiah did exactly as God had instructed him to do.  In 13:1-2, Jeremiah was told to acquire a linen sash and to put it around his waist, so Jeremiah did it.  Next, Jeremiah was instructed to take the sash, travel hundreds of miles, and hid it in a rock along the Euphrates river...which Jeremiah does (Jeremiah 13:4-5).  After many days, God told Jeremiah to return to the Euphrates River and retrieve the sash, which was ruined by that point (Jeremiah 13:6-7).  While God explained His reasoning in 13:8-11, the meaning of the sash and the two journeys over hundreds of miles were unclear to Jeremiah as he completed the tasks.  Did Jeremiah complain because he didn't understand? Did he complain because there were closer rivers to him that would have ruined the sash just as well as the Euphrates? Did he inform God as to how unreasonable His demands were? No, Jeremiah's attitude is summed up in the latter part of Jeremiah 13:5 where we read, "So I went and hit it by the Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me."  

There are numerous such examples of obedience within the pages of the God's word (read Hebrews 11).  Do we have the same sense of obedience and urgency in our own Christianity? Do we put off obedience until some more convenient time (Acts 24:22-27) or do we seek to be saved NOW? Think about the example of the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40; the Ethiopian, upon hearing what was required of him, said to Philip in Acts 8:36, "See, here is water.  What hinders me from being baptized?"

Throughout the New Testament, we are given the warning that we do not know the time in which Christ will return, therefore we must constantly be prepared.  We need a sense of urgency because we do not know! Mark  13:32-37 expresses this point for us; we do not know when and we do not want to be unprepared when the time does come.  Paul, quoting Ananias, said, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).  

Aren't We Supposed to Love One Another?

This morning, I opened up Facebook (first mistake) and saw that one of the "trending" subjects concerned how Trey Pearson courageously "came out" as being gay.  Being me, I chose to click on the story to see what people were saying (second mistake).  Because Pearson claims to be a "Christian rock singer", people were misconstruing what the Bible teaches on the subject of "love".  Aren't we as Christians supposed to love one another? Interestingly enough, many like to cite passages concerning "love" (even though they lack an understanding of Biblical love), but they do not cite the passages that deal with propriety in human sexuality.  According to many of the posts I read, God will clearly condemn an individual for not being "loving" enough, but won't condemn an individual for participating in something clearly defined as being sin.  

Can we be condemned for not loving one another? John seems to indicate such in 1 John 3:10-15 (NKJV):

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.  For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother.  And why id he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous.  Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you.  We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.  He who does not love his brother abides in death.  Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Are we to love one another? Absolutely! The question is not about whether we should or should not love individuals in sin (whether within the church or without), but rather about what our love for one another drives us to do in regards to sin.  Does "loving one another" mean that we accept an individual in sin as they are? Does it mean that we ignore the sin in their life? 

Many today purport that "love" means to accept a person as they are, flaws included.  For instance, Christians should accept Trey Pearson (since we started the article with his declaration) as he is and not require him to repent.  In fact, we shouldn't identify his sexual preference as sin or point out that repentance is an option for him since you "can't choose your sexuality" (which is ironic since the same society that informs us that you cannot choose your sexuality is now telling us that you can choose your gender).  Does the Bible teach this principle? What does the Bible teach on the subject of love?

It is impossible to cover everything the Bible teaches on the subject of love within one article or sermon, so that is certainly beyond the scope of this brief piece.  However, one basic principle of establishing Divine Authority is that a conclusion formed from one passage is not sound if it contradicts other principles found in the Bible.  Therefore, if our conclusion is that "love" means that we accept everyone in their sin as they are and without repentance, then our understanding of love is wrong.  Christ and the Apostles taught both love and repentance; in fact, they taught that if we actually love one another, then we WILL teach repentance.

One of the most utilized passages concerning love is 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.  Many Christians and even non-Christians have the majority of this passage printed in fancy calligraphy and framed on their walls.  There is no doubt that this is a wonderful passage and that it teaches us much about God's definition of love! Unfortunately, much of the context surrounding and leading up to 1 Corinthians 13 is too often overlooked, and therefore some of the depth and meaning of the passage is lost.  While this is a beautifully written passage, there is a wonderful depth that we really shouldn't overlook!

Throughout the book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul dealt with some unfortunate shortcomings of the brethren; because Paul was so intimately tied to the congregation in Corinth, he spent a great deal of time helping them overcome their problems.  It is important to note that Paul did not accept them as they were, but that he dealt with those problems.  If "love" means to accept someone "as-is" as many try to use 1 Corinthians 13 to establish, then why was Paul dealing with their problems at all? In actuality, Paul is dealing with many of the problems that the Corinthians had as he defined love! Studying through 1 Corinthians makes it clear to the reader that one of the biggest problems in that congregation was a lack of brotherly love, which came from selfishness.  

Consider that Paul wrote that "love does not envy" (13:4), and the Corinthians were envious of others for their spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12).  He also wrote that "love does not parade itself, is not puffed up" (13:4), but the Corinthians were parading their so-called love and were puffed up in their tolerance of their brother in sin (1 Corinthians 5). Paul also states that love "does not behave rudely, does not seek its own" (13:5), but the Corinthians were behaving rudely and seeking their own desires in the manner by which they were taking the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

What about love "does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (13:6)? While there are many applications of this principle to be found within 1 Corinthians, there are two in particular that we will make here.  First, Paul's correction of the problems in Corinth, and second, the correction of the brother in sin in 1 Corinthians 5.  While Paul could have bragged about his tolerance of the attitude of the Corinthian brethren in regards to this brother in sin, Paul rebukes them and instructs them in truth.  The Corinthians were rejoicing in the iniquity of this brother in sin and were puffed up in their "love" (tolerance) of him, but what was the truth? The truth is that that brother would be lost if he did not repent.  If "love" according to God's definition means to accept people as they are, then why did Paul require the Corinthians to deal with the brother in sin and why was the brother in sin required to repent? Again, if our understanding of a passage or a concept within the Bible contradicts other principles taught, then it is our perspective that must be changed.  

Like Paul, our love for one another should lead us to proclaim that necessity of repentance to those we love.  Do we really love someone if we do not teach them of impending doom? Perhaps we should make a "real-world" application to illustrate the point: if you see your child or friend about to burn themselves on something hot, should you just accept them as they are? Because "love" means letting them do whatever they want and just accepting their decision, right? Of course we would stop them! If we would stop them when it comes to burning themselves, why would our love for them not cause us to do everything we possibly can to stop them from sinning? 

Do we believe in God? Do we believe in heaven? Do we really believe in Satan? Do we really believe in hell? We certainly believe that a hot stove will burn our child if they touch it, ad that leads us to stop them...if we really believe in hell, shouldn't that knowledge lead us to action? 

Christ was compassionate, absolutely.  Did that compassion cause Him to sit back and allow sin to go unaddressed? In Matthew 9, Jesus has spent a great deal of time healing the sick in addition to preaching the gospel of the kingdom.  However, we are told that when He was "moved with compassion" was when He noted the spiritual destitution of the multitudes; while compassion moved Jesus to do all of the things in Matthew 9, He was most concerned about the spiritual welfare of the people (Matthew 9:35-38).  Jesus said "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few.  Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest" (9:37-38).  Was He talking about physical needs or spiritual? Christ's compassion and love caused Him to preach repentance and obedience to God's word.

What will your compassion and love cause you to do?

Getting Rid of God

Fig. 1.1

What is the cause of all the trouble in the world? Some purport that "religion" causes all trouble and that without religion everyone would get along perfectly.  Is this true? Does all "trouble" come from religion? Would the world be peaceful without God? 

The other day, I came across this image in a discussion concerning religion.  There are, of course, multiple ways to take it: 1.) While there is a Bible in the image, it could mean all religion and that Christianity merely epitomizes those religions, or 2.) Christianity is the only religion that needs to be done away with.  Are these new ideas? Is there any validity to such arguments? While the Bible actually presents us with numerous examples in which similar sentiments were express (through words or actions), let us first examine whether this makes sense given what we know about the world.

In a world full of dispute, it is obvious that claiming that getting rid of religion will bring peace is an absurdly illogical argument.  Are arguments concerning Global Warming based on religion? Gun control? Issues of race? Oil? Drugs? If all religion were done away with tomorrow, would these issues (some of which have caused the deaths of many people) magically disappear? What about violent international disputes over economic systems? How peaceful have nations without religion been in the past? 

Relatively recently, the lead singer of a band posted a photo of his full-size truck on his own Facebook page.  If, as some claim, religion causes all the strife in the world, then this one post should have had no negative impact, but that simply wasn't true.  "Fans" of this singer began commenting on the photo in the most vile manners possible (on both sides of the issue); there was name calling, cussing, swearing, and many other unspeakable things presented in the "discussion".  Remember, this was over a man's truck. He wasn't discussing religion, nor was he making a political statement...he was only showing a picture of his truck.  How would getting rid of religion cure such rantings and ravings? 

Unfortunately, many generations in America have fallen prey to the misconception that they are smarter and more "enlightened" than any generation that has preceded them.  The Bible is "outdated" and "antiquated", which is generally established by false claims that the Apostle Paul was a chauvinist (or similar argumentation).  Religion, many claim, is the manifestation of a weak, undeveloped mind.  Enlightened minds do not need a "dusty old book" to tell them what is right and what is wrong, and the enlightened mind is able to accept differing viewpoints (except, of course, viewpoints predicated upon religious principles).  No one, in the entire history of the world, has been so enlightened as our current society; remember, of course, that many who make such claims believe the world to be millions, billions, or trillions of years old, so this is a rather large claim to make. 

Mankind is able to determine morality separate and apart from God; we do not need God to inform us as to what is right and wrong...or at least some make such a claim.  Can we logically conclude what is and what is not right by ourselves? Can our system of laws determine such for us? Let us take a moment to examine such a claim using America as a case-study:

It is illegal for someone of "consenting age" to have sexual relations with someone not of "consenting age".  Depending upon state, "consenting age" is 18, while other states are 16. A female who is 12, 13, 14, or 15 (and, of course, younger than 12) is not deemed cognitive enough to make the decision to have sexual intercourse.  However, that same child can, in many states, have an abortion without involving her parents or the father  in any way.  Now, a child as young as 2 or 3 can choose their "gender preference".  Let us follow the logic: a 2 year old can choose their gender, a 15 year old girl can choose to murder  her child, but neither can make the cognitive decision to have sex.

Yes, it is clear that mankind can establish morality apart from God and that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world.  Sadly, many will defend the "agenda" no matter what the cost; in other words, they would argue that the only thing out of sorts in the paragraph above is that children aren't deemed cognitive enough to have consensual sex.  

The problems in the world are not caused by religion, nor are they caused by the existence of morality (as given by God).  Rather, they are caused by mankind and the wickedness participated in by mankind.  While each generation purports to be the most "enlightened" ever, they spew the same wickedness of the generations that came before them.  Remember that King Ahab claimed that it was Elijah that had caused all the trouble in Israel: "Is that you, O troubler of Israel?" Was it Elijah who troubled Israel? Or had he simply made the Israelites feel guilty in their disobedience? Elijah responded to Ahab by saying that he had "not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed the Baals" (1 Kings 18:17-18).  

Shouts of bigotry and intolerance are directed at those who stand up for God and for His word and they are meant to intimidate.  They are agenda driven and they are argued from emotion rather than from an objective viewpoint.  Man is not "enlightened" apart from God.  Man cannot find the correct path without God.  Too many Christians are falling prey to the empty rhetoric of this world and are accepting sin as being fine with God.  Forget what the world purports as being "right"; the world cannot discern right from wrong without God! 

"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23).

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12). 

Heart Rather Than Politics

So far, I've tried to refrain from entering into political discussions too much on Facebook (at least regarding the presidential campaign). As a whole, my individual perspective isn't going to alter who is going to be president (as proven by the last two presidential elections...).  That being said, the following does pertain at least in part to politics.

However, here is something we, as Christians, ought to think about: how did Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders become the top runners for the most powerful position in the world?

Generally speaking, the "leader" reflects the people; while there are cases throughout history where the opposite was true ( Josiah - 2 Kings 21-23; 2 Chronicles 33-35), it more often than not is true.

First up, we have Donald Trump. Why is he even being considered? He's loud, he's obnoxious, he's rude, he's a bully, and he goes whichever way the wind blows. Now, look at our society: we're great at screaming down those who disagree with us rather than having rational discussions, we call people "stupid" if they don't agree with us, we rarely listen to actual arguments and instead attack the person, we bully people by telling them that if they don't agree with us then they are "hating" us or others, and we rarely, if ever, spend time thinking through an argument when it is so much easier to go with whatever sounds good at the moment (Proverbs 18:17). But hey, he's rich, so he'll be great for our economy...but let's not look too closely at his shady business deals.

Second, we have Hillary Clinton. She is a known liar, likely a murderer, known advocate of abortion, and yet she is still the front-runner in the Democratic party. She clearly lacks integrity, but we are a society in which integrity doesn't matter because we "do what we want". This is 'Merica. Just capture the West Virginia vote...we've elected incarcerated criminals to office.

Third, we have Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably the most "likable" of the three, but does that qualify him for the position? His socialist "principles" fit with everything fought against in World War II and the political "Cold War", and yet we have a generation coming out in droves to support him. Why? Because we have generations of spoiled people in this nation who have no clue how they got the freedom to be spoiled. They're told by society that reality doesn't matter when their individual feelings are "hurt" and that reality is whatever they "identify" as. Society teaches them them that they are entitled rather than teaching hard work. Promise them free stuff, and they will vote for you. This generation has been given a trophy every time that they've sneezed in life and told how much of a genius they are. Sanders clearly does not understand economics, and neither do his supporters.

Where does this leave us? Do politics matter to Christians? While our eternal home and our goal is to be heaven, we do still have to live in this world (1 Cor. 5). If we are given the freedom to voice our concerns openly about the detrimental impacts such front-runners can have on the spiritual well-being of our society, then ought we to use it? Unfortunately, I've followed numerous discussions among Christians this go-around and many, in their efforts to support their chosen candidate, have shown the same short-comings their candidate does: bully tactics, mocking, entitlement, and lack of integrity.

The problem(s) in America isn't politically related, it is heart related. How can we expect to alter a person's politics without first altering their hearts? There are many things, like the economy, that do not matter in the grand scheme of things; Christians can easily disagree with one another one what the best economic system is and it doesn't impact either of their abilities to reach heaven. However, if we teach that we are entitled to have things for which we have not worked, is that appropriate? Is that compassionate (2 Thess. 3:10)? If we advocate monetary gain by shady methods, is that appropriate (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10)? Greed and covetousness can apply in a capitalist society, and it certainly applies to socialist societies (no matter what the rhetoric states). They are wrong under both systems.

The example of Josiah (already mentioned), and in the example of his grandfather in the preceding chapters of each respective book, shows that a society can be "legislated" into obedience without their hearts having been changed (as evidenced by the book of Jeremiah). No matter who the president is, our job as Christians remains the same: change the hearts of the people.

This is not a post that is meant to discourage Christians from voting for legislation that will, even temporarily, halt immoral things from happening in our country. However, for us to be able to combat such immoral issues in our society, we have to avoid being drawn in by the empty rhetoric spewed by an ungodly society, and we have to strive to change their hearts. Changing hearts will NEVER be accomplished by "accepting" people in sin AS THEY ARE (a very unscriptural "principle"...again, 1 Corinthians 5).

We cannot complain about our presidential candidates when they simply reflect our society perfectly.

"The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?" (Jeremiah 5:31)

Peace, Peace...When There is No Peace

While at the Exton Study, Chad Lynn (Huntington church of Christ) asked me to summarize my material on the book of "Jeremiah" (which we are currently studying in our Wednesday evening Bible class here in Montana). My joking response was: "Repent or die." While this was a quip, it is essentially true; God's message to Judah was that their wickedness had reached new levels of degeneration and their departure from God was obvious.

Throughout "Jeremiah", there is evidence that the people of Judah were attempting to keep the law (ex. - offering sacrifices to God) while pursuing their own desires (ex. - offering human sacrifices to idols [2 Chron. 33:6]). How should we apply the principles expressed throughout "Jeremiah" to our lives today?

There are (at least) two ways that we can read through "Jeremiah", and both are applicable. One method is to pull out the principles and apply them to the world at large, which means that when Jeremiah discusses the murder of children (Jeremiah 32:35), we can apply that to abortion in our own culture. This is a fair comparison, and both show a lack of natural affection in each respective society.

However, we must ask to whom the prophecies of Jeremiah were directed; while the prophecies did impact cultures other than the Israelites, they were primarily FOR the Israelites in Judah. The Israelites, according to the Law of Moses (given by God), were the chosen people of God (Deuteronomy 7:6); likewise, Christians are the chosen people of God under the new kingdom (1 Peter 2). Therefore, perhaps we should make application of the principles within Jeremiah to ourselves, which is infinitely more difficult to do (which is the second method of looking at "Jeremiah").

In the last few days, there have been numerous posts concerning the transgender bathroom debate that have elicited responses from both sides. It is to be expected that those of the world will advocate such "progressiveness" since there is no objective truth that guides their lives, but the real concern comes when purported Christians (some that are even "preachers" or "preacher's wives") argue that these things are "real" now and therefore we, as Christians, must accept them without comment or objection. Such comments show more faith in the "science" of men who claim that these perversions are "natural" or are somehow "genetic" than it does in the Scriptures.

How do these two topics tie together? In the book of Jeremiah, there were numerous false prophets and rulers that advocated a false peace, thereby deceiving the people by giving them a false sense of salvation. In our society, very similar things happen; we have "evangelists" who claim that God's grace covers all sin and that He requires no obedience. We also have many who claim that sin is natural, and therefore we should not oppose it. If we have the natural disposition towards sin, then it must be natural, and therefore acceptable.

Jeremiah 6:13-15 states, "Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, everyone is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even to the priest, everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt of My people [FALSE HOPE] slightly, saying, 'Peace, peace!' when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! they were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,' says the Lord."

It is sad when there are many Christians who support the world's view of "tolerance" rather than objecting to sin as it is (note: there is a difference between objecting to sin and mistreating a person, although the world, for sinful gain, does not acknowledge this difference). Christians too often declare "Peace, peace!" in order to placate the feelings of those in sin. Is this fair to the person in sin? Is it an acceptable stance before God above? Our job as Christians is to live acceptably before God and to declare the truth of HIS will, not our own subjective opinion. If we declare "Peace, peace!" when there is no such peace, does that alter the eternal outcome of those living in sin? No, but it WILL impact our own salvation. In "Jeremiah", the false prophets continually placated the people, but did they alter the outcome? Did they save the people by simply declaring peace?

As Christians, we need to cease accepting sin and allowing the humanistic/"scientific" views of the world alter what the truth of the Bible clearly states. While the world constantly argues that sins such as homosexuality and transgenderism are a genetic predisposition and therefore are not wrong (amazingly enough, they do not accept that a pedophile is genetically predisposed), we need to view sin as God sees sin. When the people of Judah had forsaken Him, God said: "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns - broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jeremiah 2:13). Do we dare forsake God for that which has no profit? Consider Jeremiah 2:8, "The priests did not say, 'Where is the Lord?' and those who handle the law did not know Me; the rulers also transgressed against Me; the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit."

If we place our faith in the "progressive" "reasonings" of men, then we believe in that which has no profit. God, through Jeremiah, stated to the people of Judah: "Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit" (Jeremiah 7:8). If we support sin, degrade those who oppose it, and yet call ourselves Christians, then we are certainly backsliding as those in Judah had done. In Jeremiah 2:19, God told the people of Judah this: "'Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you. Know therefore and see that it is an evil and bitter thing that you have forsaken the Lord your God, and the fear of Me is not in you,' Says the Lord God of hosts."

Further references:

2 Peter 2:18-22

Romans 1 & 2

Jude

1 Corinthians 6:9-11