There are some zealots who believe that the KJV is the only inspired translation of God’s word. These folks are King James Only (KJO) advocates. They eschew modern translations as inferior and lacking. Amongst the most hardcore of the KJO crowd is the belief that  modern translations are the work of Satan himself and an outward proof of your lack of faith and salvation. Yes, the hardcore KJO crowd believes that if you use another translation you are not saved, thereby making use of the King James bible a legalistic work required for salvation. They also state that where there are any disagreements between manuscripts and the KJV, you side with the KJV. This is horrendous scholarship, since a bible translation comes from manuscripts, not the other way around, but KJO people must resort to such absurd lengths in attempts to validate their beliefs.

The KJO people have a laundry list of accusations against modern translations. I have read them and I have read the responses to them. I find the responses adequately address the complaints. Added to this are accusations by the non-KJO crowd that attack the KJO position. Perhaps the most notable is that the King James bible has undergone changes since its original publication in 1611. The KJO folks deny this (they have to or the very core of their position implodes) but it is patently true. Thus, since the crux of their doctrine is in error nothing that stems from that error is worth considering, and what stems from that are nothing more than frivolous and/or straw man arguments anyway.

When I encounter a King James Only advocate I refuse to debate the issue with them. My reason for this is because these people are as extreme about their cause as the Mullahs that control Iran are about Islam. That is not meant as an open affront to them, or a back-handed insult; they are zealots who are not only steeped to the bone in their beliefs, but both groups also take serious offense to any question of said beliefs. Some of the most vicious verbal assaults I have witnessed concerning religious debate have emanated from the King James only audience. Secondly, when I learn someone is KJO I recognize they are not able to rightly divide the word of God. This matter is an essential doctrine to them, and that fact proves to me that they are incapable of a true and full understanding of God’s word. If they were capable of this they wouldn’t hold to such a rigid, legalistic belief, which is reminiscent of those held by the scribes and Pharisees.

I am not a biblical scholar, but many who are also question the manuscripts from which the King James Version was translated. The translators used “modern” manuscripts (isn’t that ironic). The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus family of manuscripts, which is a small family (i.e. the majority of manuscripts are not in agreement with it). Other translations lean upon older manuscripts, which so happen to belong to the majority of texts. One example of this is found in 1 John 5:7=8. The King James read thusly:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This would be an obvious reference to the Trinity. The NASB, which is derived from the older set of majority texts, renders it this way:

For there are three that testify:the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Biblical scholarship recognizes that through the centuries some scribes might have added the exegesis of the times to the text. Such is claimed as the case in the quoted passage. While we may agree with a long-ago scribe that the Trinity exists, if the original manuscripts from which they made copies do not say something they should not have added to the text. This is why in the NASB some disputed portions of scripture are included, but [placed between brackets] to show that they are not found in earlier texts which compose the majority. Standard scholarship logically maintains that if later manuscripts, for which there are fewer copies, contain differing language than older, majority texts, the latter falls into question.

I already mentioned the language issue but there is actually more to it than finding it outdated and hard to understand. In fact, some words that held a common meaning in 1611 hold a different meaning today. One example is found in Matthew 19:14

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

In 1611 “suffer” was understood to mean permit, or allow. In today’s English the statement to “suffer little children” makes no sense. Today, “suffer” means to languish in pain. Thus, the NASB renders that verse as…

But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Another example is the term “pisseth against the wall”. Do a search of “pisseth” in the King James version and you will find at least 6 returned results (1 Samuel 25:22 for instance). So when you read in the King James a reference to “those that pisseth against the wall” you may wonder what it means. Today, the word “piss” is considered vulgar. If I were in attendance at a church that adheres to the King James only doctrine I’m quite sure I would be frowned upon if I announced that I had to “take a piss” in the restroom. However, that vulgar word is found in their bibles. The phrase meant men, since women do not urinate as men do. The NASB renders 1 Samuel 25:22 as…

“May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him.”

This we understand, and there is no question of vulgarity involved. Now then, my personal issues with the King James Version having been stated, I do not begrudge anyone for choosing to use that translation, so long as they aren’t KJO of course. I know of many older Christians who were raised with the KJV and have never owned another bible translation, which is why they use it. They are not KJO. With them I have no complaint.

Daniel Webster, a graduate from and now professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written an article on why he doesn’t believe the KJV is the best available translation. You can read it here if you wish. In it Webster addresses the scholarly issues with the KJV, as well as language issues and more. This has been an issue that has been on my mind for a couple of months, since we visited a church in another town that was conducting a conference. The one night when I attended I was put off by the comportment of the keynote speaker. After arriving home I noted that the literature my youngest son had been given in his youth class, which was part of the conference, had a proud KJO pronouncement. I went to the web site of that church and saw that it was KJO as well. A friend attends that church and this concern was brought to her. She asked about it and was told that their pastor used the KJV exclusively, but if attendees at the church wanted to use something else that was allowed. This is a classic example of speaking with a forked tongue, because the church’s web site states that any and all teaching of the church shall come from the KJV. They may not be so zealous as to ban other translations, and state users of them are unsaved, but that statement on their web site makes it clear they are a KJO church.

Adultery is the sin committed when one married person engages in sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. It is one of the Ten Commandments so we therefore know it’s a big deal to God. And should you be one of those who places importance upon the sin based upon where it falls on the list of the Ten Commandments, this one is listed right after the sin of murder and right before the sin of theft.

It is not, however, as simple as that. We should first consider why it is a sin. The first part of that answer is found very early on in the scriptures:

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. {Genesis 2:24}

The other reason is that the marriage covenant is not merely between the man and the woman; it also involves God. In every covenant God has made with man He has kept his end of the deal perfectly. He takes covenant agreements seriously and upholds them. He expects us to do likewise. When a man vows to love, honor and cherish his wife, and vice-versa, as long as both shall live they are making a covenant between  themselves and also with God. One could argue this is not the case with secular weddings performed outside of the church, however God is not a lawyer and because He ordained marriage (i.e. it is something He created, not man) He expects vows to be kept, be they made in a church or before the Mayor at City Hall. He is part of the process regardless of the specifics of the wedding ceremony.

In like manner, God expects us to be faithful to Him, as we are to be faithful to our spouse. The first of the Ten Commandments is to have no other God before Him, and God states that He becomes jealous when this happens. Elsewhere, the church is stated to be the bride of Christ, and Paul extolled us to engage in spousal relationships that mirror that of Christ and the church.

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. {Ephesians 5:22-27}

Of note here are that wives should be subject to their husbands in the way that the church is subject to Jesus Christ. The state of the American church might explain why adultery and divorce are so common in our society, but that’ s a whole other topic. The point is that wives should be a bride to their husbands in the fashion that the church is the bride of Christ. Likewise, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. These are, quite frankly, tall orders for we flawed humans. We will never truly reach those objectives, but we are instructed to endeavor to do so, and that’s the important point.

Also important is how it is stated that the church will be presented to her groom as “having no spot or wrinkle”. Now, we know the church is replete with spots and wrinkles, and it is only through the shed blood and power of Jesus that the church (and every individual that composes it) can be without spot or wrinkle. Husbands cannot make their wives so, nor wives their husbands, but the model we are to strive for is to be blameless; without spot or wrinkle.

Knowing these traits about God and His Son we can understand why adultery is a big deal to God and His Son. And, in fact, Jesus pointed out in Matthew 19:9 that “immorality” is the only reason permitted for a divorce. The immorality is clarified earlier in Matthew 5:32 as being adultery. Jesus even admitted this was a difficult truth for many. Why? My guess is because the easy way out of a marriage where the spouse commits adultery is divorce. Forgiveness is more difficult.

I know a man who was the victim of an adulterous spouse and who chose the more difficult route of forgiveness over divorce. He agreed to share his story.

I discovered my wife had been unfaithful when she left the computer, still signed in to her e-mail account. The message still on the screen was to another man and it was obvious that she was cheating on me with him. My initial reaction was shock. I stared at that message, almost unable to process what I was reading. But there was no denying what was in front of me. I searched through her inbox and sent messages and found other messages that made it obvious she was having an affair with this other man.

I confronted her when she got home, telling her she had left her e-mail open and I’d read the messages to and from this other man. At first she played dumb and said she had no idea what I was talking about. Enough time had passed that I’d gone from my initial shock to anger, and I exploded at her for denying what I knew to be true. I yelled, I screamed, I stood on the pedestal of the righteous who has been taken advantage of. She said nothing during my outburst. Finally, she admitted to it. I began asking questions, wanting to know specifics about this sordid business. Who was he? How long had this been going on? How many times had they slept together?

My wife told me she would not answer those questions. Her reason for it was because it wouldn’t help matters and would only hurt me more. I think she was afraid that if I knew who the guy was that I’d do something stupid, like go find him and put a bullet in his head. I don’t think I would have done that, but I can’t say I wouldn’t have at least wanted to find him and beat him to a pulp. The affair was cleared up, except for my wife admitting to what she had done and saying she had never meant to hurt me. That didn’t help at all, because in my mind if she’d never meant to hurt me she wouldn’t have done what she did. Her comments were also delivered robotically, with no emotion. I wasn’t buying that she felt any remorse.

At that point I had no idea what to do. My life was now complete chaos and my emotions were a swirling mess. Probably by Christian instinct I went to another room and after a minute of pacing around I fell to my knees. Shaking and now sobbing uncontrollably, I blurted out, “Lord, please help me! I don’t know what to do and this really hurts! Please, help me!!!” There was more to that prayer, but I did repeat the plea for help several times during it. I was a broken man and had nowhere else to go, so I went to the One who is always there. After praying I sat down and continued sobbing. My wife came into the room and asked if I wanted her to stay or go. I didn’t answer for a long time.

I finally looked at her and told her that I wanted her to do both. Part of me wanted her to go away and never come back but the rest of me still loved her and wanted her to stay. I could tell she was hurt at seeing me in that state, still sobbing while I spoke and in great pain. She left the room. I eventually composed myself and spent the rest of that day in a zombie-like state. The next morning was still awful, as was the day after that. In fact, I was in deep pain for quite some time. We’d been married for 8 years and this was the woman I believed to be the one intended for me.

It took weeks for the initial hurt to subside, and even then it didn’t just go away. They say time heals all wounds and that is true to an extent. When I’d discovered those e-mails I sent one to the other man, telling him that I was the husband and knew what they were doing. My wife eventually told me that the other man had replied to my message, intending it for me, cowardly claiming that he didn’t know she was married, that she was responsible for it all and so on (which my wife swore were lies). Knowing her I could eventually see that she felt awful for what she had done and was living with tremendous guilt because of it. After all, she was also a Christian. She had fallen away, but the guilt I knew she was living with told me that she still belonged to Christ. After some time had passed we had a long talk. I knew that she hurt from what she had done and my own pain had lessened enough for me to settle this mess. She told me how awful she felt for what she had done, how she was entirely wrong and that she would understand if I wanted a divorce.

I told her that I still loved her, despite her having caused me such incredible pain. And I had also come to grips with the fact that I hadn’t been a very good husband to her. She told me that was not important and that it was all her fault, but I knew better. I’d was dealing with some shame myself because I’d taken her for granted for awhile leading  up to that mess. I told her that I forgave her. She expressed relief at that and thanked me. We reconciled and remain married to this day.

It wasn’t easy. For a year or so after that I wasn’t able to completely trust her. If she went to the store and wasn’t back in what I felt was enough time to have completed her task I would call her cell phone, asking where she was. To her credit, my wife always told me where she was going every time she left the house, how long she expected to be gone and who she would be with (if the situation involved others). She told me I could come along if I wanted to. She would encourage me to call her cell phone or the land line where she would be if I wanted to check up on her. She never once questioned my lack of trust or got upset about it. In fact, she always said she understood and knew she would have to earn back my trust. She eventually did.

You know, I wouldn’t want to go through that again, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. Going through that was extremely painful and even years after the fact I don’t care to recall the memories of that time. But there was one thing about that time which I recall favorably, and that was when I fell to my knees and prayed for Jesus to help me. I didn’t form a prayer because I didn’t know what to say. I just said what was in my heart: Jesus, help me! And He did. Jesus was there for me at the lowest point in my life. It was like that famous “Footsteps” story, when the man saw only one set of footprints and Jesus told him that it was at that time He had carried the man. Jesus carried me. I know in my heart that when I need Jesus, He will be there and He will comfort me. I can’t say that I am glad I lived through my wife’s cheating, but the positive I take away from it is that Jesus is faithful to us. And it was because of Jesus that I was able to forgive my wife. We are still together, and happier than we were before that time, because of Jesus. I can only thank Him and offer Him praise!

After reading that story I’m left thinking. When we commit spiritual adultery against God, does it hurt Him as much as it hurt the man who shared his story? We know God is faithful to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9), but do we forget that it surely hurts Him to see us stray? I am also reminded of the story of the prophet Hosea and his wife, Gomer. God told Hosea to take Gomer as his wife, despite the fact that she was a prostitute. And despite the fact that Gomer continually cheated on him with other men, Hosea was told by God to forgive her time and time again, for every transgression. The story of Hosea and Gomer was meant to show us the relationship between God and man. Like Gomer, we continually stray, and yet He forgives us time after time.

What an amazing, wonderful, long suffering, grace-filled God we have! What a privilege it is to belong to Him!!

There are two moral positions to consider when it comes to so-called “Obamacare”; the universal, or nationalized (i.e. government controlled) health care law of the land. The first is the easy position, which is that there are people in this nation who do not have health insurance. To hold to a belief that such is their tough luck is not only decidedly un-Christian, it’s also immoral. After all, isn’t the moral position one of equality for all and not wanting people to either be unable to seek proper health care, or to be placed in a position of financial ruin if they do? Of course, it’s not as simple an argument as that, because some Americans have access to health insurance but choose to not obtain it. Those folks convolute the situation, but even if we ignore them we still find a substantial number of Americans who do not have health insurance due to legitimate reasons.

On the other side of the coin is the cost of insuring those who are without health insurance because of legitimate reasons. If the cost issue were nothing more than me losing an extra $10 from each paycheck it would be difficult for me to argue against it, given the morality equation involved. If, however, insuring those without imperils the nation at large we encounter the moral issue of whether it is right to help a few at the ultimate great expense of the many. And by “great expense” I mean something beyond personal financial consequence.There are arguments which call into question whether Obamacare will actually reduce overall costs and the national debt, which has already reached a frightening figure. You can question whether those arguments have legs but you cannot argue against factual history. John Stossel wrote a piece pointing out that Medicare and Social Security are not only unsustainable (something politicians from both sides of the aisle agree upon), but that they are also damaging to the nation.

Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security’s is $8 trillion. There’s no money to keep those promises.

Unfunded liabilities are exactly what they appear to be: monetary commitments without funding to provide for them. Not long ago Congress passed a “pay as you go” clause, which said that the government would only pay for what they had money on had to cover. Senator Jim Bunning used his power to block continued unemployment benefit payments in order to make a point. The point being that just after passing the “pay as you go” legislation Congress was making commitments to extend unemployment benefits without money on hand to cover the costs. Bunning intended to point out the hypocrisy of this behavior on the heels of legislation that claimed to denote fiscal responsibility. Bunning was vilified by the Democrats, the media and several of his Republican colleagues, and a deal was eventually struck wherein he relented and the benefits went forward. Despite his personal bombast and erratic behavior, Bunning had a valid point to make. Whether you agree with how he made it is moot. The point was that “pay as you go” was obviously fluff; a sham to forge an appearance of fiscal restraint that simply did not exist.

Bunning’s outburst (or pout, if you will) shed light upon the issue of unfunded liabilities. Our government has become fluent in this practice and it is fiscally irresponsible and dangerous. Could you or I operate our home finances in such a way? Sure, but not for long, and ultimately we would have to own up to it, much to our chagrin. And yet our government either doesn’t realize this or ignores it. Back to Stossel’s article:

That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There’s nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks, and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

Everyone saw this coming. You would think that when something as large, expensive and important as Medicare became insolvent our representatives would take notice and perform due diligence to correct it. Instead they engaged in demagoguery.

So instead of filling the government’s coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the “problem” is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn’t live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer’s Social Security and Medicare checks.

When I explore this alarming matter on my Fox Business New show tonight, Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, will point out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys—not to mention a new medical entitlement—the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy, or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we’ll have serious problems.

All three options are losing options. Burdensome taxes severely punish the populace and do nothing to ultimately raise money for the government (it wipes out entire classes of tax-paying citizens, particularly the middle class). We have already borrowed staggering amounts, which we are obligated to pay back. Or should I say, our children and their children are obligated to pay back. And inflating currency has never worked and is a foolish endeavor. Just look at African nations who have done so, only to see their inflation rates balloon tens of times and their currency end up being the butt of jokes. It wasn’t long ago that Mexico was in this boat and the exchange rate for one American dollar was something like 1,000 Pesos.

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: “We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity … the burden we ourselves ought to bear.” Well, we sure are dumping my generation’s debt onto posterity.

Realizing that Obamacare is essentially a second, even larger version of Medicaid we arrive at the ultimate question regarding health care: Is it moral to pass on to future generations the burden we are unwilling to bear ourselves? I get the feeling that many who are without health insurance wanted Obamacare to pass because it would mean they could obtain health insurance. However, when you consider the cost to our nation at large and specifically to future generations that position is not only short-sighted, it is also wholly selfish and immoral. And if you are a Christian who would damn others solely so that you can have health insurance now you are quite possibly beyond shame.

Can we provide health insurance to those who cannot legitimately obtain it without burying future generations? Probably. Do I believe our government is capable of it? No, I do not because the entire system is broken. Having said that, I hope in God’s name that I am wrong.

³⁶Then Gideon said to God, “If You will deliver Israel through me, as You have spoken,³⁷behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that You will deliver Israel through me, as You have spoken.”

³⁸And it was so. When he arose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece, he drained the dew from the fleece, a bowl full of water.

³⁹Then Gideon said to God, “Do not let Your anger burn against me that I may speak once more; please let me make a test once more with the fleece, let it now be dry only on the fleece, and let there be dew on all the ground.”

⁴⁰God did so that night; for it was dry only on the fleece, and dew was on all the ground.

¹Then Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) and all the people who were with him, rose early and camped beside the spring of Harod; and the camp of Midian was on the north side of them by the hill of Moreh in the valley.²The LORD said to Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, ‘My own power has delivered me.’

³“Now therefore come, proclaim in the hearing of the people, saying, ‘Whoever is afraid and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead.’” So 22,000 people returned, but 10,000 remained.

⁴Then the LORD said to Gideon, “The people are still too many; bring them down to the water and I will test them for you there. Therefore it shall be that he of whom I say to you, ‘This one shall go with you,’ he shall go with you; but everyone of whom I say to you, ‘This one shall not go with you,’ he shall not go.”

⁵So he brought the people down to the water. And the LORD said to Gideon, “You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue as a dog laps, as well as everyone who kneels to drink.”

⁶Now the number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was 300 men; but all the rest of the people kneeled to drink water.

⁷The LORD said to Gideon, “I will deliver you with the 300 men who lapped and will give the Midianites into your hands; so let all the other people go, each man to his home.”

⁸So the 300 men took the people’s provisions and their trumpets into their hands. And Gideon sent all the other men of Israel, each to his tent, but retained the 300 men; and the camp of Midian was below him in the valley.

⁹Now the same night it came about that the LORD said to him, “Arise, go down against the camp, for I have given it into your hands.

¹⁰“But if you are afraid to go down, go with Purah your servant down to the camp,

¹¹and you will hear what they say; and afterward your hands will be strengthened that you may go down against the camp.” So he went with Purah his servant down to the outposts of the army that was in the camp.

¹²Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the sons of the east were lying in the valley as numerous as locusts; and their camels were without number, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.

¹³When Gideon came, behold, a man was relating a dream to his friend. And he said, “Behold, I had a dream; a loaf of barley bread was tumbling into the camp of Midian, and it came to the tent and struck it so that it fell, and turned it upside down so that the tent lay flat.”

¹⁴His friend replied, “This is nothing less than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel; God has given Midian and all the camp into his hand.”

¹⁵When Gideon heard the account of the dream and its interpretation, he bowed in worship. He returned to the camp of Israel and said, “Arise, for the LORD has given the camp of Midian into your hands.”

¹⁶He divided the 300 men into three companies, and he put trumpets and empty pitchers into the hands of all of them, with torches inside the pitchers.

¹⁷He said to them, “Look at me and do likewise. And behold, when I come to the outskirts of the camp, do as I do.

¹⁸“When I and all who are with me blow the trumpet, then you also blow the trumpets all around the camp and say, ‘For the LORD and for Gideon.’”

¹⁹So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the outskirts of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch, when they had just posted the watch; and they blew the trumpets and smashed the pitchers that were in their hands.²⁰When the three companies blew the trumpets and broke the pitchers, they held the torches in their left hands and the trumpets in their right hands for blowing, and cried, “A sword for the LORD and for Gideon!”

²¹Each stood in his place around the camp; and all the army ran, crying out as they fled.

²²When they blew 300 trumpets, the LORD set the sword of one against another even throughout the whole army; and the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the edge of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath.

²³The men of Israel were summoned from Naphtali and Asher and all Manasseh, and they pursued Midian.

I have to confess that I’ve never found two heroes of the Bible especially heroic. The two are Gideon and Jephthah. The case of Jephthah is unrelated, and I don’t question him on his faith. Gideon, however, seems to be lacking faith. He was visited by an angel who told him that God was with him. This alone isn’t enough to cause Gideon to believe, so he asks for a sign. The sign is given, but this isn’t enough for Gideon to believe. He asks for a second sign, which is also given. Yet this isn’t enough for Gideon to place his faith in God.

As he assembled the army to fight the enemy God told Gideon that there were too many soldiers. After all, God told him, if you win people will say it was through your might. God wanted it to be clear that it was He who had won the battle, so He told Gideon to pare down the number of soldiers. This done, God told Gideon there were still too many, so their number was pared down again, to a mere 300. Gideon and the 300 set up camp, and before the morning fully comes God rouses Gideon and tells him to attack the enemy, because He has given them over to Gideon and his troops.

Here we come to an interesting turn in the story. God tells Gideon that if he’s too afraid to attack based on what God has just told him, he (Gideon) should take his servant into the Israelite camps. This Gideon does, making it plain he is still not able or willing to place his faith in God to do what He promised Gideon He would do. At this point Gideon looks as unwilling to take the fight to the enemy as General George McClellan. It is only once Gideon overhears those in the Israelite camp telling of a dream that meant victory against the enemy that he attacks. It took all of that for Gideon to finally ply the attack. Why? Why was Gideon so unwilling to trust God’s word? Let’s look at some of what Deffnibaugh wrote.

“The more, the better.” Here’s an expression I’ve heard many times in my life, and quite often it is true. If you can get more ears of corn for the same price at a particular grocery store, or double coupons on a particular day, that’s usually a good thing. But there are times when more may not be better. Making more money is not always a good thing, nor is having more people attend church, if these “gains” come at the expense of more important matters. If more people attend your church because the gospel is watered down, sin isn’t mentioned, and neither is hell, then more is less.

We are sometimes inclined to think that “more” is necessary to do the work of God: “If we had more money in the Missions budget, then we could save more souls.” “If we only had more people praying, our sister with cancer would not have died.” Such statements will need to be rethought in the light of our text, for I believe it clearly teaches that in God’s work, less may be more.

Despite being convinced that Jesus died for our sins, fully paid the debt, is truly alive and will come again we place our trust in our senses. Outside those major tenets of the gospel message we trust based on the finite world, not on faith. Jesus chastised His own apostles for lacking faith several times (and they were with Him daily). Thus, it’s a human failing at work here. We fail at faith…at least at the full complement of faith.

Who could blame our righteous God for rolling His eyes and saying, “I’ve had my fill of you. Begone to the condemnation you deserve!” Or, less tragically (from our perspective), simply remove His hands from our lives and let us flounder in our shortcomings; the blind leading the blind into a ditch. Yet God did not do that with Gideon!

God has given Gideon the command to attack the Midianites, along with the promise of victory. But God knows Gideon intimately. Now is the time when further assurance is needed. If you and I were honest, I suspect that none of us would have passed up this opportunity for divine confirmation. If Gideon is fearful, he should take his servant, Purah, and go down to the Midianite camp.

God most graciously makes the same provisions for us. His longsuffering is beyond our finite comprehension. Why does He put up with us? Because He is gracious!

Day by day we place our trust in our own hands, or in the hands of parents, other family, or friends. We place our trust in our government, or our church, or our pastor. Every one of those examples is human. Why do we do this? That’s not to say that our family, friends, pastor or brethren are not to be trusted, but there is a chasm of difference between trusting in humans to provide for me and bowing before our heavenly Father and humbly asking that He provide for our needs. In the former, there is much room for error. In the latter, there is perfection.

1. We are already deeply in debt, teetering on the verge of being crippled economically for a very long period of time (if we haven’t already reached the tipping point). These versions of health care “reform” are incredibly expensive. We simply cannot, under any circumstances, afford to add to our already enormous debt. And to vote on pending legislation before everyone with a vote has read it, before it can be debated and before the Congressional Budget Office has weighed in with cost analysis is irresponsible and harmful to our nation.
2. They can term it what they want but until certain issues are addressed it is not true reform. One of those issues is tort reform. The cost of insurance against malpractice suits is ridiculous for doctors. This gets passed along to someone in the end because doctors and hospitals are not going to absorb it (you needn’t have a degree in Business Administration to grasp that costs are passed on to the consumer). Trial lawyers are in bed with the Democratic Party and they don’t want this, so neither do the Democrats. Howard Dean, of all people, has admitted to that. Trial lawyers benefit from a litigious society; the reverse is not true. It is past due that this matter be addressed and some sanity be enacted. Also, buying off Congress members in exchange for their votes (i.e. the “Louisiana Purchase”) is nothing short of graft, bribery and should result in all parties involved being indicted for corruption.
3. The Obamacare plan won’t kick in fully until 2014. If it passes do you trust the government to keep their hands off of the money allocated to it until 2014? I don’t. And what if, for whatever reason(s), medical costs increase between now and 2014? In either case the plan will begin in the red. Further, even if the government did not touch the monies allocated for Obamacare and costs did not increase, I am entirely certain that the government will find a way to make this cost more than projected. Either the estimates will end up being off or they will simply screw it up, but it will end up being over budget. As proof I ask this question: Please provide me with one government program that has consistently stayed within its budget, and whose budget has not swelled yearly. No such government entity exists that I know of.
4. I fear that nationalized health care will result in 2-3 huge companies that are the only providers of private insurance. Smaller companies will be bought out or go out of business. Unless there are intelligent regulations put in place to deal with them, having such a small number of mega insurance companies providing 100% of the private insurance is bad for the consumer.
5. If costs for private insurance goes up, and it seems certain to, what is to stop employers from saying, “If we get rid of health insurance for our employees we will save a ton of money, and they can go on the public dole and still have insurance, so let’s get rid of it”? Frankly, if I’m in charge of the bottom line at a corporation, a university or a smaller business I would be foolish to not seriously consider this.
6. Speaking of small businesses, there will be a penalty for not providing insurance. Employers large enough to absorb it might find that the penalty is less than the cost of providing insurance. Small business, however, has no such option. If I own a coffee shop, or a landscaping business, and I simply cannot afford to provide my employees with health care, and the penalty for that is equally steep, I’m left with little choice but to go out of business. Our government, and Democrats in particular, are forever making it more and more difficult for small businesses to survive, let alone prosper. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy; slay them at your own peril.
7. Why do citizens in Canada and Great Britain, two nations with nationalized health care, come to the U.S. for certain procedures? Why do those nations have waiting lists for major procedures, like heart surgeries and joint replacements? Because some policy wonk who works for the government has deigned the pecking order of health care procedures, not medical professionals. The man who performs my eye exams at Wal-Mart told me that if during an exam he finds that I have a serious ocular health issue he can pick up the phone and have an appointment for me to see a specialist in 3 days, maximum. And if it were a life-threatening issue he could arrange for me to be in surgery in one or two days, tops. He told me that under a nationalized health care plan he would be forced to navigate procedural red tape that would only add to the time it took for me to be cared for. He’s a doctor, so I take him at his word.
8. I suspect that many who are in favor of Obamacare do not have insurance. To them I say: If the legislation is not good for the country please don’t support it. Why would you imperil our nation and our children’s future just to get health care coverage? Please do not punish everyone just because you do not have health care insurance!
9. Look, of those who are uninsured many (who knows the exact number) have it available to them but opt not to obtain it because of cost. If it would mean you could not pay your monthly rent or mortgage payment I understand. If, however, it would mean that you cannot live the lifestyle you wish to have (i.e. no Droid cell phone,  no cable Internet and no Dish TV) then you are being incredibly selfish, not to mention uncharitable. My wife and I scraped along for the first several years of our marriage, living paycheck to paycheck, hoping to eventually improve ourselves. We did ultimately do things like purchase a new car and a home, but only because we made sacrifices along the way. And when we were making sacrifices I wanted a cell phone, like everyone else I knew had. I wanted a home, like nearly everyone I knew had. I wanted a new car, like many people I knew had. I wanted for my wife to buy a new wardrobe, like some people I knew could. However, luxuries have to wait until you have established yourself financially. If that means having to live frugally for 10 years but having health insurance, so be it. Life isn’t always what we believe to be fair. Was the life of Jesus fair? No! So please do not feel that you are owed something that the rest of us worked for, just because our society deems it a right.
10. This is an extension of #9, but I am separating it for emphasis. I worked in my career field for 15 years before we bought a home! I worked in my career field for 17 years before we bought a new car! I worked in my career field for 19 years before we had a second computer in the home. I worked in my career field for 19 years before I bought a second new car (5 years after the first one we’d bought), which replaced the truck I’d been driving for 16 years!! If you expect to have everything my wife and I worked for in short order, without a salary that would allow for it, you will just have to wait like we did. Do not dare to insist that I make your life as comfortable as you desire it to be just so you can have free health care.

I suppose I ranted more the further I went, but I feel strongly about this matter. The incredibly sad thing about this is that capable minds, with input from people who have expertise in the field, could fashion true health care reform that offered insurance to those who truly cannot afford it without punishing those who have it and are gainfully employed. But that’s not how our government works, and so it appears we will end up with a monstrosity that only drags us further into the abyss as a nation.

Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him.When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching. {Mark 6:1-6 NASB}

In a mere six verses several things jump off the page here. Firstly, it was Jesus’ hometown. Usually when someone returns to their hometown bearing some manner of fame they are greeted warmly. It’s a source of pride for the hometown that one of their own has obtained some sort of notoriety. That was not the case here.

We also see that many were astonished at the teaching of Jesus. This was a common occurrence when Jesus taught, but in this case the people have a coupled reaction that Jesus did not encounter elsewhere: they resented it. Why? It’s as though they felt it impossible for any of their own to be capable of such things. Because they knew Jesus and His family they found it somehow annoying or unseemly that He would astound them by His teaching and demonstration of miracles.

Have you ever heard of someone you knew who had been saved and been surprised by it? “Him? The kid who used to get in fights at school and got arrested several times as a juvenile is a Christian now? Wow!” A surprised reaction is appropriate, but would you resent him for it in the same breath, simply because you were familiar with his background and/or his family? Yet this is just what happened to Jesus.

Upon seeing Him perform miracles and astound them with His teaching their reaction was to take offense to Jesus. The narrative goes on to say that Jesus “could do no miracles there” (though, it points out, He still did heal some who were ill before departing). This indicates so much more could have been done had the reaction of the people been different.

So why could Jesus do no miracles for them? Why did the people take offense at Him? The answer is in the text: “And He wondered at their unbelief.” Their unbelief was what prohibited them from receiving Jesus appropriately. They saw Him as the son of Joseph and Mary; the mere sibling of others. They asked how Jesus could have such wisdom and power. They were incapable of accepting that this Jesus they knew and had seen grow up would be chosen by and empowered by God to do such things. In fact, He was the Son of God and God the Son, which is far greater than a prophet. But these people couldn’t even accept that Jesus was a prophet.

What was the point of Jesus’ teaching and miracles? In part it was out of compassion for the people, but it was also meant to demonstrate who He was and that the Kingdom of God had come. But if hearts were so hardened that they could not be swayed by these demonstrations why bother? This is why Jesus could work no miracles for them. Yet, He still healed some who were sick before He left, which illustrates His compassion. Not all of Jesus’ miracles resulted in faith from the beneficiary, and that appears to have been the case here. The unbelief of this bunch was such that the Son of God wondered at it!

I see two applications here. The first is to not forsake the works of God that may seem improbable, or even offensive, to us. God does nothing offensive, and if we view what is obviously His work with offense then the problem lies within our heart. Secondly, as Christians we do not suffer from unbelief as these people did in that we have already come to believe in Jesus to be the Son of God, who died in atonement for our sins and who was raised and lives today in heaven. It is possible, however, for our faith to become stunted through a lack of continued belief. When we pray do we ask for only what we feel is reasonable, or do you boldly ask for something fantastic? I must admit to having been guilty of the former many times. God is capable of the fantastic, but if we never ask for it we aren’t likely to see it happen. That doesn’t mean He will respond with the fantastic every time He is asked to, which is why we ask that His will, not ours, be done. But if you don’t ask for it do not expect to see it.

There exists one known as the Authorized Militant. This is the King James Only advocate who believes that the King James version of the bible (aka “Authorized Version”) is the only true and proper word of God in English. The most intense of this bunch claims it to be the only true and proper word of God in any language, with some even claiming it supersedes ancient Greek texts that differ from it. The most zealous among them also will claim that if you use another translation of the bible you are not saved. In my experiences with this crowd I have found them to not only be militant, but at least somewhat unhinged, angry, judgmental and puffed up with righteous grandeur. They engage in a jihad against any and all bible translations other than the Authorized Version.

I have weighed the arguments of this bunch, as well as the responses to their arguments and the results are that I find the King James only crowd to be not only militant, but guilty of heresy. Now, for those who use the King James for sane reasons (i.e. they simply like it, or it’s all they’ve ever used and are thus comfortable with it) I have no complaint. That’s your choice. I don’t care for the King James because it uses an archaic form of English that we do not speak today (nor have we for centuries). Because of this, many of the words in the King James are either no longer commonly used or do not mean now what they meant in the 1600′s. However, that is merely my opinion, and if yours is different we can still co-exist peacefully. Unless you are a militant King James radical, in which case we have nothing to discuss.

There exists another militant whose indignation is aimed at outward appearance. This is an area where common sense and godly discernment should prevail, but that is not always the case. The Appearance Militant believes that there are certain rules that apply at all times and across the board. For instance, women should never wear skirts that show their knees (or anything above the knee). Or that they should not wear jewelry or makeup, or otherwise accessorize themselves. There is a line that can be crossed here to be sure, but applying inflexible rules results in legalism. There are two superb posts on the Pyromaniacs blog on this topic by Frank Turk and Dan Phillips.

The Appearance Militant usually does double duty as a Fun Militant too. The Fun Militant believes it wrong, perhaps even outright sin, to engage in certain behaviors. Consuming alcohol, watching movies (the film adaptation of “Left Behind” being an exception), listening to secular music, dancing, playing cards and more are the stepping stones to hell in the minds of this crowd. Again, common sense and godly discernment should prevail here. Drunkenness is wrong, Christians shouldn’t be watching movies rife with nudity or swearing, some secular music should be avoided and certain forms of dancing are lewd and gambling is not a proper use of your finances. But it is legalism to dismiss every one of these things as inherently sinful.

I truly enjoy beer. In fact, I brew my own from time to time and even consider myself something of a beer snob. But I know where to draw the line with beer. I also enjoy secular music, even (gasp!) rock and roll. And why not? Please explain to me why “Manic Depression” by Jimi Hendrix is leading me to hell? And family gatherings often include games of Canasta or Euchre. How is that sinful?

There are too the militants who concern themselves with language. I’m not speaking of so-called “Grammar Nazis” (something I have been termed by some because of my belief in literacy) but of those Christians who take offense at any word that outrages them. The bible warns that what emanates from the mouth shows the condition of the heart, and Jesus told us to not engage in coarse language. The Language Militant takes this to extremes. They would be outraged by me telling a person they were behaving “like an ass”. Why? Because “ass” is a swear word! They fail to grasp that in that context I would be comparing someone’s behavior to a donkey (or, dare I say it…a jackass), which is to say that they are behaving with exceeding stubbornness or irrational resistance. I won’t go further with the analysis of the Language Militant because it bores me. I will offer this: if you encounter a Language Militant who uses the King James bible, ask them to read Isaiah 36:12 out loud. I suppose that would be taunting them, which is not proper Christian behavior, but it would be humorous.

Ah, humor. It is something the religious militant lacks. Religious militants seldom smile, rarely laugh and view living their faith in Jesus Christ as a deadly serious endeavor. I would never suggest that our faith is to be taken lightly, but the Christian is certainly free to enjoy life. In fact, a joyous life in Christ is one of the best means of sharing the good news. We have all known at least one Christian who always seemed to be in a good mood, was forever smiling and generally enjoyable to be around. They are a great testimony to the Lord. We have also known at least one religious militant who is dour, does not smile and is not pleasant to be around. You might even see more of the latter than the former, which would be truly sad.

Solomon, more wise than any of us, wrote Ecclesiastes. In the final chapter of the book he wrote: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.” That’s sound preaching. So too is this…

For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.

Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works.

Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.

Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun. {Ecc. 9:4-9}

Life is too short to spend it smothered in the legalism of militants.

It is worth asking,: as a Christian, what involvement am I to have in politics, beyond voting? Frank Turk isn’t enamored with the idea of combining the two. He calls conservative Hugh Hewitt to task for trying to do so. Of Hewitt, Turk writes:

And he comes back because he thinks that the ends of the church are the same as the ends of conservatism. It’s because he sees the church as a moral improvement society — something which only teaches the world something it couldn’t learn on its own.

This is why Hugh Hewitt gets my goat: he sees the church as a means to a political end. I find his views in that respect reprehensible.

Also at Pyromaniacs, Phil Johnson answers a question about Christians and their churches staying of politics:

Are you saying that Christians should never seek these political remedies, or that they are currently spending more time than they should seeking these remedies?

I keep saying that my main point is about how the church corporately should be spending her time and resources, not about what an individual who is vocationally (or avocationally) involved in politics should do.

To be clear:

• I object to pastors who use their pulpits to organize voters rather than teach the Bible and proclaim the gospel.
• I object to evangelical organizations (including certain Christian broadcasters, evangelical radio stations, the National Association of Evangelicals, various 501c3′s, and even some churches) who raise money for “ministry” and then all they ever talk about are political issues and headline news, while rarely (if ever) mentioning the gospel.
• I object to the fact that when the average unbeliever today hears the word evangelical, he thinks of a voting bloc rather than anything spiritual.
• I object to the fact that most evangelicals are overwhelmingly on the same page politically, but their movement is doctrinally so diverse that they can’t even agree what the gospel is.
• I object to the fact that the average evangelical could not give a coherent, biblically sound summary of the gospel or a theologically accurate explanation of justification by faith—but they are more worried about an Obama presidency than they are about the disintegration of their own testimony.

Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, has an extensive study at his web site about Christians and government and, while I haven’t read it all, it seems to agree that it’s not a primary mission of ours to engage in politics.

As for me, I agree with what Turk and Johnson said. While I am a bit unique in that I consider myself to be a libertarian I don’t feel that my being more socially liberal than most conservative Christians is a big deal. For instance, and a large part of this is due to my career in law enforcement, I would not oppose the legalization of marijuana and/or prostitution across the land. {I wish, as a caveat, to point out that this should not be accomplished on the federal level, as it’s not the constitutional authority of the federal government to do such things, but I speak of a plurality of states doing so} Some would ask, rightly so, why a fundamental Christian would not fight against something so sinful as prostitution, and to a lesser degree the drug marijuana. Here is where I do not feel there is such a great divide between my faith and my personal politics as one might see on the surface.

I believe the chief aim of man is to glorify God, and the primary purpose by which we can do so is to share the gospel and preach the word. It is not our place to form PACs that intend to sway or force a particular political issue that happens to be a social issue for us as well. We (by that I mean conservative Christians) have expended a terrific amount of time, energy and money in fighting gay marriage. In my view we erred in so doing. Because of this, and similar endeavors, the public face of Christianity is that movement. Yes, I realize it also includes such charlatans as Benny Hinn and others who we who are orthodox don’t include in our fold, but let’s leave that issue aside for the time being. The particular issue of gay marriage evoked such a response from conservative Christians that we now “own” a share of the issue.

If Jesus returned today do you believe He would look at our efforts being there and say to us, “Well done, good and faithful servants”? I don’t believe He would. I believe He would, in fact, chastise us for going off message. You see, if we were doing our job of sharing the gospel and preaching the word the influence of the church in our society would be exponentially greater than it is. If our time, energy and money were in doing those things (let’s include charitable works in there too) the world might not agree with us, but they would have very little to complain about concerning us. Let me reverse the roles here and ask you, Christian, if you like it when that element of society that advocates gay marriage tries to get their way through governmental influence? No? Well they feel the same way when we oppose their views.

“But their views are immoral and ungodly” you will protest. Agreed. However, if we stayed on message (and following the commands of the One we claim to follow) our message would get out, and it would have influence. Not through political parties but socially and culturally. Politicians desire few things more than remaining in office, and if the societal culture is opposed to gay marriage precious few politicians are going to risk re-election by going against the majority. We have been trying to beat them in what was traditionally their arena, and the end result is that the world (who is inherently going to dislike us) sees you and me in the same way they see Fred Phelps*. And let’s face this truth: failing to believe that doing what we were told to do by our Lord would bring positive change is a lack of faith in Him.

Nowhere did Jesus ever teach that we are to take our morals into the political spectrum. With all this in mind, I do not think it’s wrong for a Christian to run for office, and I believe that as Christians we should support fellow Christians** with our votes. But as far as the church universal goes, we should remain out of politics and in the business of glorifying God and His Son and doing the work that wins souls. And that is most assuredly outside the Beltway.

* Fred Phelps is NOT a Christian. If his name ever comes up in conversation please point that out. The heart of a Christian is not filled with hate. Though we abhor sin, we love the sinner. Phelps and his brood of vipers hate it all, including the sinner, and they have even taken that beyond the bounds of Christian sensibilities, good taste and sanity. Protesting military funerals, for fallen soldiers who aren’t even gay, as a means of claiming that “God hates fags” and thus is punishing our country by smiting even straight soldiers is not only decidedly un-Christian, it’s decidedly unhinged and the ravings of lunatics.

** There are a lot of politicians who identify themselves as Christians, but their voting record and personal lives call that claim into question. The most glaring are those “Christian” politicians who are pro-abortion.