This billboard on Route 22 in Hillside, N.J.

This recent billboard has many people upset in New Jersey, but many more are planned in California and Florida.  The sponsors of this message say the following in defense of their message supporting the right to suicide.

We offer guidance and the most current information known for self-deliverance when the person is ready to choose… I think it is outrageous for somebody to tell me how I can end my life,” he said. “Who appointed them in charge of my life? I think it’s kind of sad that people make this assumption that there’s not really much they can do about it. If somebody wants to end their life, there’s too many cases where, rather than doing it in a way that we advise, they shoot themselves or jump off a building.

I have written on this before in the context of atheist groups like this one who promote amputation of healthy body parts.

“My Body My Choice” is the mantra that justifies the abortion of helpless babies, euthanasia of the terminally ill, surgery to reinforce trans-gendered migration, and now the amputation of perfectly healthy body parts. How far will society go before it turns back to God; the only one who can heal such illness?

In the conclusion to my post, “Life Without God is Suicide” I assert the following.

Anyone who refuses to accept Jesus as Savior chooses for himself a slow and painful death. Not everyone on this path will perform the same act of violence, but any Man who lives without God lives a life of daily suicide; a slave to his own morbid passions that draw him ever deeper into living-death.

Today I would add another thought.  I think many young Christians who have given into the American political agenda of the Left have no real answer for this message of self-abuse and suicide.  They have already conceded the point that abortion is just one woman’s “political” choice and the church has no moral or ethical basis for speaking against that decision.  As the foundation of God’s image created in humanity is eroded, I expect more signs like this to crop up and more people will begin to live out their worldview of nihilistic self-destruction.  I also expect fewer Christians will understand how to offer Life to people caught in this dark pit of suicide.

If there is ever a time to preach the Gospel and bring real hope and change (not the political kind so many Christian have bought into), now is that time.

…a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another.

But is Michaelson right?  Is this really the meaning and context for the Hebrew word “toevah”  I suggest he is wrong for a variety of reasons.  In making my point, I only need to analyze this one simple sentance.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice.

1. Michaelson Can’t Count

This is just a real basic point, but the term “toevah” occurs 117 times in the Hebrew Bible, not 103.  This, in and of itself, is a minor point, but gives me pause in trusting Michaelson’s ability to deal with more difficult issues.  For the record, the following diagrams show the frequency and occurrences of toevah (click the image to see it larger).

okay, so now on to the real problems with Michaelson’s article.

2.  Michaelson Creates a False Dichotomy

It has long been the contention of Homsexual advocates that while the Bible condemns the cultic forms of homosexuality (ie homosexuality in worship to false gods), it never condemns the “loving act” of sex between two men or two women.  Michaelson writes:

In five instances, Ezekiel mentions toevah together with both idolatry and zimah or znut, “whoredom” (Ez. 16:22, 16:36, 16:58, 23:26, 43:8), strongly suggesting that the nature of sexual toevah is not mere lewdness, and certainly not loving intimate expression, but sexuality in a cultic context

Michaelson is not the first to make these self-serving interpretations.

John J. McNeill³², James Nelson³³ and Peter Coleman³⁴ argue that the specific instructions given in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which are part of the Holiness Code, must be understood in the context of cultic defilement. This is supported by biblical commentaries on Leviticus by Martin Noth³⁵ and Norman Snaith³⁶, and by Marvin Pope’s article on “Homosexuality” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.³⁷ The use of the Hebrew word ‘abomination’ [to ‘ebah] in this context clearly relates this to Canaanite idolatry and to the rituals–sexual or otherwise–practiced in it.³⁸ Israel’s prostitution and sexual practices characteristic of Canaanite fertility worship. Such sexual rituals expressed the view that sexuality was a mysterious sacred power, related to the power of the deity that was worshiped. This is why Canaanite worship frequently involved overt sexual acts. Israel was required to reject all such pagan practices both to affirm the transcendence of God and to distinguish Him from all creaturely powers.

The conclusion that is drawn from this is that with the change of the social horizon, such injunctions are no longer valid. Or if they are, the reason for their continuing applicability must be found elsewhere than their inclusion in the Levitical Holiness Code.

Trinity College and Seminary. Global Journal Volume 1, Trinity College and Seminary, 1999; 2006.

The problem here is that this interpretation makes no sense. If God is only condemning cultic-behavior, and not the act itself, then how do we understand this passage?

““You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ” (Leviticus 18:19–25, ESV)

It is true that often the religious (cultic) nature of these acts is lost on the modern mind.

Modern readers of the ot doubtless miss occasionally the import of Canaanite idolatry. The worship of a Canaanite god or goddess was no minor blemish in Israel’s history. Besides having a devastatingly debasing effect on the practitioner, the acts of worship, which included male and female cultic prostitutes in hetero- and homosexual liaisons, were fundamentally opposed to the worship of the living God, and were, in fact, acts of treason against his suzerainty. R. K. Harrison, after describing the gross and savage worship system of the Canaanites, concludes that “its sordid and debased nature stand in marked contrast to the high ethical ideals of Israel. The absolute lack of moral character in the Canaanite deities made such corrupt practices as ritual prostitution, child sacrifice, and licentious worship the normal expression of religious devotion and fervor. In consequence there could be no compromise between the morality of the God of Israel and the debased sensuality of Canaanite religion”

Harris, R. Laird, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

However, this does not mean these actions are abomination only in cultic context.  if God is only condemning as “taboo” the cultic practice of these actions, then does Michaelson also find acceptable for Christians to practice non-religious forms of child sacrifice when it is not done to Molech?  If it is okay for two Christian men to have sex when it is “loving”, is it also acceptable for a Christian woman to have sex with an animal if it is a “loving act” of shared intimacy?  This passage must be interpreted as a whole and taking one part out of context to serve ones sexual passions does not represent a Christian approach to applying Scripture.

Michaelson’s invocation of the “cultic clause” is simply foolishness in light of how these passages are revealed to us by YHWH.  There is no “right” way to worship God when we abuse our sexuality; that is the message of what God decrees as toevah.

3. Michaelson Fails to Take Seriously the Decrees of God

Ultimately the problem is that Michaelson, and homosexual advocates who are looking for any excuse to justify their sin, simply don’t take seriously the commands of God.  Michaelson asks, “is toevah a cultural taboo or abomination?”.  I think this passage from Ezekiel makes it clear, YHWH takes toevah very seriously and it is not just a cultural taboo.

““Thus says the Lord God: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. And she has rebelled against my rules by doing wickedness more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries all around her; for they have rejected my rules and have not walked in my statutes. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all around you, and have not walked in my statutes or obeyed my rules, and have not even acted according to the rules of the nations that are all around you, therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, even I, am against you. And I will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again. Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds. Therefore, as I live, declares the Lord God, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will withdraw. My eye will not spare, and I will have no pity. A third part of you shall die of pestilence and be consumed with famine in your midst; a third part shall fall by the sword all around you; and a third part I will scatter to all the winds and will unsheathe the sword after them. “Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the Lord—that I have spoken in my jealousy—when I spend my fury upon them. ” (Ezekiel 5:5–13, ESV)

Application

I will let the Scripture speak directly to Michaelson, and anyone who shares his view, on the meaning of toevah.

“A desire fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but to turn away from evil is an abomination to fools. ” (Proverbs 13:19, ESV)

 

“Those of crooked heart are an abomination to the Lord, but those of blameless ways are his delight. ” (Proverbs 11:20, ESV)

 

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. ” (Proverbs 6:16–19, ESV)

 

“The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but he loves him who pursues righteousness. ” (Proverbs 15:9, ESV)

 

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Why should a fool have money in his hand to buy wisdom when he has no sense? ” (Proverbs 17:15–16, ESV)

 

“Whoever plans to do evil will be called a schemer. The devising of folly is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to mankind. If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work? ” (Proverbs 24:8–12, ESV)

 

“An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked. ” (Proverbs 29:27, ESV)

Homosexuality is abomination. The Christian Right says so all the time, and non-religious LGBT activists say it too, to relegate religion to humanity’s dustheap. After all, isn’t that what it says in the Bible?

No—and progressive religionists should not use the word. It’s a mistranslation and a misconception, doing harm to LGBT people and religious people alike.

After his brief survey of how the Hebrew is used in a few select passages (no footnotes or authoritative sources are cited) Michaelson concludes:

Personally, I like “taboo” as a replacement. It conveys the culturally relative nature of toevah, has some connotation of foreignness, and rightly aligns the taboo against homosexuality with taboos against, for example, eating unkosher food. It also has a vaguely archaic feel, which it should. Admittedly, “taboo” began as tabu, and specifically refers to a particular concept in Pacific indigenous religion; it is a bit inexact to import it to Judaism and Christianity. Yet the word has, by now, entered the common parlance, and in that general sense, it matches toevah fairly well. (Alternatively, we could stick with the Hebrew term, the foreignness of which heightens the foreignness of the biblical concerns about homosexuality.) One thing remains clear, though: what’s really abominable here is the word “abomination” itself.

The substance of Michaelson’s argument is this:

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Elsewhere, Deuteronomy 7:25-26 commands:

[Y]ou shall burn the statues of their gods in fire. Do not desire the silver and gold on them and take it onto yourself, else you be snared by it, for it is a toevah to YHVH your God. And you shall not bring toevah to your home

Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah, and Deut. 20:18 says that avoiding toevah justifies the genocide of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. So, toevah is serious, but it is serious as a particular class of cultic offense: a transgression of national boundary. It is certainly not “abomination.”

The blog invited comment, so I wrote the following:

Hi, I have a question. The way I read your article, you are suggesting that homosexuality was nothing more than a cultural taboo. In our time, we should no longer consider it taboo any more than the food restrictions on Israel. Am I reading you right?

If that is the case, my question centers around this list you produced of verses that use the term you translate as “taboo”.

“Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah”

So do you also accept child sacrifice as a culturally acceptable practice for Christians since it is merely “taboo” and not an abomination?

Thanks

PS
This is my first time on your blog, so if I am missing some key context to your post, please let me know. Thanks.

More than a week has passed and neither RD Magazine nor Michaelson has chosen to post my question or respond to it.  Despite Michaelson’s stated credentials (he claims to be completing his Ph.D. in Jewish Thought at Hebrew University) he has made many substantive errors and critical omissions in his analysis.  I will address these in a future post, but for now I am interested in some input.  Please read his entire post and tell me…

1. What is your overall impression of his article?
2. Do you find his arguements about the “mistranslation” of “abomination” persuasive?  Why or why not?

Post your comments here or if you are too shy, you can always email me.

According to a recent court decision , Kentucky clergy fearful of armed robbers stealing the collection money can now carry concealed guns in church. Ministers and priests of rural churches lobbied state lawmakers to allow them to carry concealed guns after the clergy was left out of a 1996 law allowing concealed weapons in Kentucky. The amendment recently passed in the House by 76-9 and is due to be signed into law by Gov. Paul Patton April 15.

As I read this story, I could hardly believe what I was reading. I find it hard to imagine that Paul would instruct the early church to defend their wealth by killing people. I was always under the impression that our job was to spread the gospel of salvation, not kill the people who need to hear it.

If carrying a gun is required to be an effective pastor, then I am sadly unprepared. They never taught me this in seminary? Is this really what being a pastor is all about? I don’t even own a gun!!

Talk show hosts are already poking fun at the image this creates. Even Jay Lenno can see the inherent contradiction in this policy, why can’t those who are supposed to be lead by God’s spirit???

Let us consider some of the consequences if this becomes church policy:

I wonder if this will help create a new market for clergy-wear? Maybe pastors will carry specially anointed holsters with little crosses on them that say,

“God forgives, Pastors pack heat!”

“For God so loved the World, he gave us guns.”"

I wonder if there will be a special blessing which pastors can offer the thief as he pumps lead into him? Some possible blessings might be,

“God created us to have fellowship, now its time to meet your maker!”

“Faith comes by hearing, but its too late for you”

- With this new law, l have no doubt there will have to be special warning signs on the entrance to the Church? Here are a few suggestions that these churches might want to consider,

“God can’t protect us all, that is why we have Smith & Wesson!”

“We preach the gospel according to Colt 45″

-The above is not just fodder for the joke machines, but hopefully spurs us to think of the message we teach by the actions we take. We as the Body of Christ must ask ourselves what kind of theology produces a pastor that needs the power of the pistol over the power of the Gospel.

Do we no longer believe that God is able to protect us against the wrath of the world? When God said we preach a gospel of peace, maybe He did not take into account what our world would be like today? Certainly this is a radically defective view of God and his sovereignty. Has God brought the sinner to the church for salvation or damnation?

As Americans we certainly have a right to bear arms, but maybe if pastors and congregations would spend more time on their knees, they would not have to spend so much time on the firing range?

San Diego Skyline & New Home

God, bless our family!

Day One Stop in Salem Oregon

Farewell Washington.. you gave us 13 years of beauty.  We will miss you!

Almost a decade ago I found myself on the phone with a man whose office was a hospital bed.

I had never met him before, but I had heard that he was dying of complications from pulmonary fibrosis and cancer. From what I understood, he was in a hospital bed under his doctor’s supervision, with oxygen tubes in his nose. Unlike some men around 80 with similar declining health and a restrictive lung disease, he didn’t stop talking or let his shortness of breath silence him. He was taking the time and effort to make sure he personally spoke with me, to secure my word in order to see his vision through to the end.

Most of you reading this have spent far more time ministering to and visiting with the sick than I have, and I have been moved by many stories of those under your care and in your own families finishing strong. So what makes this situation so remarkable? Personal attention to something that could have been so easily delegated.

This particular man had representatives in almost 200 countries, 25,000+ full-time employees, and more than 225,000 trained volunteers for his organization. So why was he the one on the phone? Why wasn’t I talking to his staff? What could be so special that he had to personally take the time, and endure the physical discomfort to ensure this got done himself?

The Bible

With passion in his voice, he told me it didn’t matter what it cost, or how much trouble it caused him, his staff, his organizers, his “household name” celebrity speakers, or the satellite broadcast—as long as the Bible got the special attention it deserved.

He was convinced that the greatest need for the next generation of pastors was to return to the Bible, to read it, learn it, study it, and be true to it. He knew that without a strong love for and study of the Bible, there could be no firm foundation for their preaching or ministry. The Bible was special to him, and he wanted it to be special to everyone. He recognized that the Bible’s depths could be plumbed more efficiently and in a more familiar form, to the next generation, with technology. He wanted to make sure that every pastor and teacher knew about Logos Bible Software and would be encouraged to get it and use it.

His event was being broadcast all around the world by satellite. It had been planned down to the second for months, and he told his staff to find the best time where the most people would see it, and rearrange whoever they had to, in order to get us on stage to show the world the Bible and how to get better access to it.

When the day of the event arrived, there were over 5,000 pastors in attendance on location, and countless more by satellite. Every speaker on stage was a household name, except one guy—the one showing people how to use the latest and greatest technology to get the most out of the Bible. Now that’s special.

Due to the personal encouragement from this passionate man, and the power of the Word to cause us to hunger and thirst after its wisdom and treasures, hundreds of pastors began their journey of better Bible study that very day.

About a year later, this man with such a special place in his heart for the Bible, left this earth and went home to enjoy His creator, meanwhile his beloved Bible stands forever. We will never know how many countless lives were changed by encounters with God’s Word, preached from the pulpits of the pastors who revolutionized their Bible study that day. We will never know how many of those pastors’ ministries were turned around by a new encounter with God’s Word in a deeper way than ever before. We will never know how many people came to Christ through the ministry of the Word that was made new afresh that day.

I love telling this story whenever I have the privilege of speaking with the individuals in positions of power to make a difference in this world, by introducing more people to Logos Bible Software and its ability to help people get deeper into the Word. I struggle, because the Bible doesn’t need me, the Bible doesn’t need this story and the Bible doesn’t needour technology or anyone else’s. The Bible is enough, the Bible is special. I struggle, because I want to honor the passion for the Bible this man had without exploiting the facts. Yes, we think our tool is great, but we’d be just as thrilled if every conference spent their time encouraging people to get into the Word and never even mentioned us. The Bible is enough.

I tell the story to encourage you to be a part of the thrill of introducing or re-introducing people to God’s Word. At Logos, we are blessed to be able to focus on nothing but God’s Word and providing better access to it.

Join us in our joy!

The next time you are in a position of power to introduce a pastor’s breakfast, church assembly, Bible conference, small group, missions conference, denominational gathering, or any other type of event where there are gathered men and women who know the Bible is special, invite us to come encourage them and help them go farther in Bible study than they ever thought possible.

Take a look at the video below and get a small taste of what we do each week all around the world. We have presented before small groups of tens and stadiums of ten thousands. When you are ready to say the Bible is special, and want to be a part of our joy, give us a call at 800-875-6467 and ask to speak with a Ministry Development Representative.

P.S. If you want to join us and help introduce more people to the Bible and encourage them to go deeper into the Word, and someone says “If we let them on stage, we’ll have to let everyone on stage!” just remind them they won’t have to. When they ask “why not?” tell them it’s because “the Bible is special!”

The problem is that “freedom” has shifted the focus of our Faith celebration away from grace.

Francis Schaeffer traces the roots of this philosophical shift during the late 18th and 19th centuries… a critical time in the founding of our nation.

After the Renaissance-Reformation period the next crucial stage was reached at the time of Rousseau (1712-78) and of Kant (1724-1804), although there were of course many others in the intervening period who could well be studied.

By the time we come to Kant and Rousseau, the sense of the autonomous is fully developed. So we find now that the problem was formulated differently. This shift in the wording of the formulation shows, by itself, the development of the problem. Whereas previously men had spoken of nature and grace, by the eighteenth century there was no idea of grace — the word did not fit any longer. Rationalism was now well-developed and entrenched, and there was no concept of revelation in any area. Consequently the problem was now defined, not in terms of “nature and grace,” but of “nature and freedom”

This is a titanic change, expressing a secularized situation. Nature has totally devoured grace, and what is left in its place “upstairs” is the word “freedom.”…

In the above diagram, freedom and nature are both now autonomous. The individual’s freedom is seen not only as freedom without the need of redemption, but as absolute freedom.

The fight to retain freedom is carried on by Rousseau to an extreme. He and those who follow him express in their literature and art a casting aside of civilization as that which is restraining man’s freedom. This is the birth of the Bohemian ideal. These thinkers feel the pressure “downstairs” of man as a machine. Naturalistic science becomes a very heavy weight — an enemy. Freedom is beginning to be lost. So these men, who are not really modem men as yet — and so have not accepted the fact that they are only machines — begin to hate science. They long for freedom even if the freedom makes no sense, and thus autonomous freedom and the autonomous machine stand facing each other.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer : A Christian Worldview. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1996).

This concept of absolute Freedom for the individual (and nation) shaped America’s Founders and sowed the seeds for the American Revolution. The desire for unbridled  Freedom undergirds our modern American culture and, in the Church at large, has replaced any meaningful belief in the superseding power of Divine-grace. Few churches offer ‘more than cake’ when it comes to teaching the fundamental difference between America’s version of Freedom and YHWH’s Grace.  We have allowed the culture to idealize Freedom and instead of offering God’s alternative of Grace, the Church has simply chosen to offer a spiritualized freedom (Freedom + jesus).

The masses long for Freedom, yet economic chaos and global war have proven politicians to be false prophets of a false hope.  The church is in decline because She has compromised grace and offers nothing more significant than Jesus eating apple pie and saluting the Red White and Blue.  The Church has unwittingly fostered the rise of freedom and demise of grace.

This 4th of July, my prayer is that we, the people of God, set aside our dalliance with Freedom and return to our love of Grace.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 7:21.

As we prepare to move from a small town outside of Seattle, WA to a much larger city near San Diego, CA, I am thinking a lot about my mission and calling to the Church.  Louis Berkhof in his essay titled “The Church And Social Problems” addresses two key points that are shaping my own thoughts about the future.

First, the Church Must be The Agent of God’s Love

…it is the duty of the Church to exemplify her teachings in this respect in her own social life. Example is stronger than precept. Social injustice, social sins, social misery may find no fertile soil, no congenial atmosphere in her midst. A spirit of true brotherhood must prevail. Her erring and wayward should be guided with loving hand to the Cross of Christ and guarded against evil influences. The spirit of Cain should be banished. Her rich should find their chiefest joy in ministering to the poor, thus fulfilling the law of Christ: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, in order that they may once hear the blessed word of our Lord: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” And in that way her poor will become ever increasingly conscious that their Father in heaven provides for them, and their lowly dwellings will resound with the songs of grateful hearts. O what a different world this would already be, if all the members of the Church of Christ lived conscientiously according to the precepts of their heavenly Lord!

L Berkhof, B. D., The Church and Social Problems (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 19.

Second, The Church Must Engage the People in Our Cities

…the Church should not neglect to bring the gospel to the submerged masses in the downtown districts of our great cities. The missionary activity of the Church has taken on magnificent proportions in these days, and we certainly have reasons to be thankful for it; but let us not close our eyes to the fact that the Church is shamefully negligent at home. Men who know, men who labored in foreign fields and have also visited some of the tenement districts of our large cities, tell us that conditions in some parts of our cities are worse than those found in gentile lands. What a terrible indictment against our boasted civilization; but also, what a fearful charge against the Church; what an imperative call to duty! It is part of the Church’s task to go out into the highways and hedges, into the streets and the lanes of the city to bring in the poor and the maimed and the halt and the blind.

L Berkhof, B. D., The Church and Social Problems (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 19.

We are losing the cultural battle and far too many Christians think the solution is political.  Even more seem to think the solution is starting social programs.  But Politics and Programs will not transform humanity.  As Berkhof says, “The greatest liberating force in the world is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Without the Gospel at our Core, the Church will become just another alternative in the morass of culture.