Broccoli, Among Other Things

"Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." - Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

Broccoli was mentioned more than once in today's case regarding President Obama's health care law, each time putting the law in an unfavorable light. Twenty-six states in the Union have brought their case to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning ObamaCare. Al Mohler said it best this morning on his webcast that this might be the most important Supreme Court case in a generation. I mentioned the court case to a coworker today, who seemed beyond disinterested, to which I asked him if he knew the impact - either way - of the court's decision.

If the law is upheld we will first notice a decrease in the size of our wallets. Paychecks will be lower because all of our health insurance is going up. Everyone know this. The 30+ million people who will suddenly be covered under ObamaCare are not receiving coverage from private insurers out of the goodness of their hearts. No-siree-Bob. You and I will be picking up the tab on these millions of new subscribers.

Liberty is the real underlying issue that Democrats won't touch with a ten foot pole. If ObamaCare is upheld, our personal freedom and liberty to make these decisions for ourselves will be stripped away. We will be required to buy insurance for ourselves, regardless of whether we want it or not. Then the question becomes: is there anything the government can't tell us to buy? This is the precise argument made by Justice Scalia: if the government can compel us to buy private insurance, what's stopping them from compelling us to buy broccoli? 

Justice Kennedy: "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

and

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true, say, for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So, there's a market there. In some extent, we all participate in it. So, can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are? (Bold MINE).

Mr. Verrilli (defending the Obama gov't) was repeatedly interrupted by the various Supreme Court Justices, and I gotta hand it to the guy because it must have been difficult making a case with such interruptions. However, this was to be expected in this extreme example of a law which would be one of the greatest expansions of government and reductions of personal liberty.

The argument was made by Mr. Verrilli, and indirectly supported by other Democratic Justices, that what makes the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance) different from saying one must buy another private product is that everyone else pays the bill for the uninsured. Holes were shot throughout this argument by the Supreme Court with other examples:

Justice Alito: "All right. Suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said: You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?"

Mr. Verrilli responded by stating he believes it is "completely different" because "you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants."

Justice Alito: "I don't see the difference. You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care, almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point ... because if you don't have money, then the State is going to pay for it or some ... A family member is going to pay for it."

Is that not brilliant or what? Never in a hundred years would I have come up with such a spot-on example. In fact, it is almost too perfect. Both are forms of insurance; both are examples of expenses that might be passed on to others if provisions aren't taken in advance.

On a personal note, the sad reality surrounding this debate is that there are serious problems with our current health care system. In between jobs health insurance might be up in the air. It is expensive. Many fellow citizens ... good, upstanding citizens ... are without insurance for understandable reasons. We need to find a meaningful solution to this problem. But the solution is not to take away our freedom of choice, or by indirectly punishing those of us who have responsibly purchased insurance which will ultimately create a single-payer system. All the insurance companies know this is what will happen; it is inevitable.

Rivaling for first place as my favorite quote from this lengthy exchange is the following quote:

Justice Kennedy: "Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?"

Something about a Supreme Court Justice asking a lawyer to identify some limits of the government regarding the Commerce Clause just rubs me the right way. Try and picture this scene. I'm laughing it's so funny to me.

But honestly, this question is one of the key questions so far in the proceedings. Are there any limitations on government? Or can it make Americans buy anything? This is a fair question, and as much as Democrats don't want to go there they should wake up and smell the coffee. Open your eyes and notice that this isn't a little game of politics we're playing - this would affect every single American. It would take away more of our liberty and even more money by means of taxation!

I will close with this inspiring quote from Justice Scalia:

"The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what -- what else can it not do?" (Bold MINE).

Thanks for reading,
Rustypth

City on a Hill

Do you cuss? Do you get drunk? Do you think it's funny to entertain sexually explicit jokes? Do you easily blend in with American culture? Last question: do you claim to be a Christian?

Like the Cookie Monster points out: one of these things is not like the others. Cussing, drunkenness, sexual jokes, and today's culture do not jive with authentic Christianity. Yet I am seeing more and more people who call themselves Christians doing these things without shame. Now, I am a Christian and I am not perfect and am certainly guilty of doing some of these things at one time or another. But I make it a habit not to do them, and it seems many professing Christians have no problem with these sinful behaviors.

I don't know about you, but it is becoming a pet peeve of mine when I see Christians acting this way. Oddly enough, these folks don't typically hang around me very long because I tend to hold them to a Biblical standard of morality =). Why do I even care about the actions of others? Because the Bible spends a great deal of time talking about our behavior, and how we are to act in this life.

¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. ³ Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Ephesians 2 must be one of my favorite selections from Scripture. In these verses the Apostle Paul uses the past tense to describe how the genuine Christian used to be. Notice: "you were dead in your trespasses and sins," and "you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air," and "we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind." It is true that the Christian has been saved, once and for all, from the consequences of sin - verses 4-9 speak about this. But God's plan of salvation does not end there. Continuing to verse 10:

¹⁰ For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The Lord was kind and merciful towards His people in saving them from their sins because He loves them. But this is not the only reason He saved sinners from their sins. God's primary reason is for His own glory (Ephesians 1:6), so that in saving us we might be a testimony to His marvelous grace. This is done by good works. Do you remember what the Lord Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount:

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16, NASB).

Current statistics show that 1/4 of Americans consider themselves Evangelical Christians, which is the single largest percentage of any country in the world. Why then is the gospel not clearly known in our land? I would suggest to you it is because many of those professing to be Christians are not really Christians. For many people today Christianity is a social networking opportunity. Let's be honest: Christians are nice people to be around because they are accepting of all kinds of people. This is how it ought to be ... but with a clear and bold proclamation of the gospel calling people to turn from their wicked ways unto the only One who can save them from their sins and sinful lifestyle.

In my own personal experience, especially recently, I have met professing Christians who regularly do the aforementioned sins and have no shame whatsoever. It always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because instead of shining light for the world they increase the darkness. What angers me most of all about these kinds of people is that when they attach the name of Christ to these sinful behaviors it makes it difficult for those of us trying to set a godly example to further the testimony of the gospel.

What is our responsibility when we encounter these kinds of professing Christians? Should we say something? Should we offer correction? I believe the answer is a resounding yes! First, however, one ought to examine his own life to make sure he isn't guilty of the same thing. Second, we should approach the professing Christian in private and politely offer correction to our brother. Matthew 18 is the go-to passage for this.

How about when you do your due diligence to offer correction and it is refused? Thankfully, Matthew 18 also addresses this. You are to bring another brother with you to confront the individual. At that point if he still refuses to obey the Scriptures it could be that he is not a true Christian to begin with. The times I have corrected someone with Scripture and the response is vehement opposition I am left wondering about that person's salvation.

Ultimately it is God alone who knows the hearts and minds of people so I cannot make an infallible judgment about one's position before God. What Scripture does make clear is that we can determine whether someone is genuinely a Christian based on their works:

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16, NASB)

and

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10, NASB)

We cannot have an infallible or perfect knowledge of someone's salvation, but we can have a reasonable assurance one way or the other. So when you see someone comfortable in their sin, it is reasonable to assume they may not be truly born again. Prior to this, John makes the point that anyone who practices sin (as opposed to struggling against sin) is not truly a Christian (1 John 3:8-9). The Christian wants to live a godly life to please and honor God. He also loves his brother and should want to come along side to gently spur one another on towards love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Correcting our brother should never be about boasting rights, neither should it stem from an arrogant attitude of superiority. Don't you want your brother in the Lord to likewise be pleasing to God in all that he does?

I was telling my wife the other day that I believe as time goes on, and our nation steps further into ungodliness, we will see many of these false Christians openly abandon the faith altogether. In the meantime, we should always be ready to stand firm in our clear proclamation of the gospel that has saved us from the consequences and the lifestyle of sin. We are a city on a hill that the world needs to see.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

The Existence of God: Part 1 – The Nature of Evidence and Why Logic?

The above image (source found here) is a classic example of modern secular thinking. Christians are irrational, illogical and unreasonable. They are fools for believing in God and even more foolish for the belief that this Jesus person is the incarnation of God. Atheists, in recent years, have taken the gloves off. They are no longer engaging in polite discourse. Although religion as a whole is under attack, it is Christians who bear the brunt. To find the truth of this statement one simply need only to spend a few minutes on any popular website or public forum such as reddit or facebook. The vast majority of the atheist venom is directed specifically toward the bible, the God of the bible, Jesus and His followers. They have taken the disagreement to the level of mockery and complete intolerance for the Christian perspective. They say belief in God is a psychological crutch for simpletons, unable to handle reality. And why is the Christian so mock-worthy? According to them, evidence contradicts the bible. 

Atheists argue that the evidence against the biblical perspective on origins specifically - but other matters as well - is overwhelming. The universe and life both have “natural” origins; therefore existence itself is not a proof of God. They take this perspective even further. The claim is that science precludes the existence of God. You cannot use God as an explanation for anything in science. In other words, science can’t prove or disprove God and if it can’t be accounted for scientifically it does not exist. Although this line of thinking is full of baseless presuppositions, I’m not going to specifically address those issues at this time, but I will address them (Lord willing) in a future article that will examine the atheist world view in a more general sense. For now we will look at two of atheism’s most basic foundations.

The second biggest (we will get to the biggest in a moment) problem with atheism is its reliance on evidence. Evidence does not prove anything. Much like beauty, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, evidence must be interpreted, and one must have a framework or basis for how they choose to interpret evidence. This is called a world view. Two quick examples of why we cannot use evidence to prove anything. The atheist will point to starlight and say something like, 

“That starlight you see is billions of lightyears away, so it took billions of years to get here. The bible only allows for the universe to be thousands of years old, not billions. The bible is wrong.”

The Christian might respond,

“You assume too much. Perhaps light has not always traveled at its current rate. Perhaps there is some unknown past cosmic event, or property of the universe that we don’t yet know or understand that could account for such a phenomenon. In fact there are Christian physicists working on that problem right now.”

Then the Christian will say,

“Look at comets. Each time they pass by the sun they lose some of their material. Even by the most generous calculations comets can only last for thousands of years, not even close to millions or billions of years. We still see comets today orbiting the sun, so the universe is only thousands of years old. The bible is right.”

Now the atheist can say,

“Well this guy named Oort came up with the idea of the Oort cloud. It’s a cloud of billions of comets around the solar system, and every once in a while there is some kind of gravitational event that throws more comets our way.”

Now I should point out that there is absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of the Oort cloud other than the fact that we still have comets orbiting the sun, just like Christians do not yet have an explanation for distant starlight. You see both sides can argue over evidence all day long, but we will only endlessly come up with reasons why the other's evidence does not affect our world views. Everyone has a world view, and they interpret everything on the basis of that world view. So our task - as the human race in the search for truth - is quite simple, examine the different world views and find the one that makes the most logical sense. But that leads to one very important question, why logic?

Proponent of atheism Dr. Gordon Stein has said, “The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement which claims to be factual.” In other words, logic is the most fundamental rule by which we measure truth. You can’t prove anything without logic or reason. This is actually something Christians and atheists agree upon. The problem with this standard for truth is that it is in-and-of itself a claim of truth. So the atheist has to now prove by logic and reason, that it is by logic and reason that you prove everything. This is circular reasoning and begging the question, two logical fallacies that prove an argument to be false. The only option left for the atheist is to prove - by some method other than logic or reason - that it is by logic and reason that you prove everything. In which case, they destroy the argument on its own foundation. This is an inescapable trap and the biggest problem with atheism. The atheist perspective on its most basic foundation is totally irrational and self-refuting. The reason for this is that the atheist perspective cannot account for the existence of logic, so they have no logical reason for the use of logic and reason.  According to their own standards, science must be able to account for something for it to exist. But there is no “logic particle” or “planet logic” beaming logic (like radio waves) into the universe. But don’t Christians have the same problem? No they don’t, because their world view can account for logic and give a reason why it must be used. Logic is a reflection of God’s thinking. God is logical, and therefore logic is the standard by which we must think. To do otherwise violates God’s law and is therefore irrational. The same can be demonstrated with all non-physical properties of the universe such as morality and the laws of nature.

In closing there are four ways atheists try to get out of the logical trap their world view creates for them. The first is to try and say matter is logical therefore logic is a property of matter. There are two problems with this argument; the first is that matter changes and logic does not. If logic was based off of matter it would change. The second problem with this is that matter obeys the laws of logic and nature, laws do not obey matter therefore it cannot be the source. 

The second method of escape is to say the laws of logic are like the rules of grammar. They are not laws they are simply conventions among people. If that were true then logic would be different from culture to culture. For instance, in England it might make sense for me to contradict myself and say I am 100% a person and 100% not a person. 

The third escape is to say logic is created by chemical reactions in our brain. It is just how the human mind works. The first problem with this is that people are not always logical. That is why there are logical fallacies. If it was just how the human mind worked we would not have to be taught how to be logical. The second problem with this is that what happens in your brain is not what happens in mine. It is similar to the “matter source” and “conventions” arguments. Logic would then be changeable.

Finally they might try to say something along the lines of, “Just because you can prove something logically does not mean it actually exists.” This is referring, of course, to God. This is not really a method of escape, but rather an attack on the overall argument. What I say to this (and the three methods of escape in general) is that it is the atheist who is forced to deny and attack logic … not the Christian. It is not Christians who have to diminish logic or rational thought to try and uphold their world view. Christians can account for, or give a reason for, the use of logic. The atheist cannot. In fact in the rational world the atheist can’t prove anything because they have absolutely no basis for logic or any other kind of truth. They borrow from the Christian world view to try and fill in the gaps of their world view. The atheist world view is clearly inconsistent and irrational.

In part 2 (eta, soonish) we will broaden our view and tackle the atheist claim of neutrality, and the naturalist world view.

The Most Awful Place I've Been

Las Vegas and I met for the first time and after only one weekend I abruptly ended the relationship with a phone call. There was no salvaging what we had, because from the beginning she proved utterly sinful and ruthless to the bitter end.

Gambling is a sin, but because that [radical?] idea deserves its own entry, I won't venture into those waters quite yet. But yes, gambling is a sin, so before I even went to Vegas I made the decision not to gamble. What was I going to do there? I was planning to eat some good food, see some shows, museums and other attractions. What I actually saw was some of the most vile wickedness crammed into the few square miles of that forsaken city.

Hotels are really the upper echelons meant for housing gamblers for the massive casinos. The sheer amount of effort and creativity in designing the various casinos is brilliant, both inside and out. Bright lights enshrine every single slot machine, accompanied by enticing sounds for each and every play. Chairs are only to be found for those actually gambling, and if you lose money long enough free alcoholic beverages are brought to you. It is a sad sight to see people lose money, which is really what casinos are designed to do. Even more depressing is watching the elderly spend money in the vain hope that they might become instant winners.

The cherry on top for me was when a dancer got up on a platform and started dancing a few feet away. I was utterly disgusted and deeply offended at the sight of this girl wearing stripper's clothing. Her whole job was to cause men to lust after her long enough to stay and continue wasting money at the casinos. At this moment I had had enough and walked out of the casino. With tears in my eyes that I refused to let fall, I found my way to some steps outside and sat down. I still cannot believe that this girl's entire role in the casino is to sell herself to attract more customers. She is selling her dignity, and everyone in the casino is supporting her in ruining her life while she in turn helps ruin the lives of others.

When I sat down on the steps I looked across the street only to find an ad on a large truck with nearly naked girls with the slogan: "Get hot girls now" and included a phone number. I looked down at the ground and found more nudity scattered on fliers littering the sidewalk advertising for strip clubs and escorts/prostitutes. There was nowhere for my eyes to wander: not inside the hotels, outside and even at the ground! To add to the perversity, every 50 feet or so stands distributors of the aforementioned fliers ready to add to everyone's misery.

Drunkards were in every hotel and in public. They fell over, puked in public, and many looked over-tired and in bad shape. It was not uncommon for vacationing women to dress as scandalously as possible - I wondered if there was a competition to be the least dressed?

My conclusion: this is no place for the Christian. I naively traveled there thinking that I would be able to avoid much of what "Sin City" had to offer. I should have known better. Certainly, it is possible to have a better experience than I had if one avoids the casinos altogether, and is extremely purposeful in going to shows and other forms of appropriate attractions. But at some point you will have to travel around the city or be in public, so it will be difficult to avoid much of what I've described. I told Emily I will never go back unless it is for missionary work to spread the gospel. How sad it is that Americans go to Vegas for a weekend to get away and have a good time. Now that I have seen what Sin City is all about with my own eyes, I will actually feel bad when I hear of people going to Vegas.

One of my elders preached a sermon years ago from Psalm 12 that has always remained with me, and it is a good expression of how I feel post-Vegas:

¹ Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be,
For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.
² They speak falsehood to one another;
With flattering lips and with a double heart they speak.
³ May the LORD cut off all flattering lips,
The tongue that speaks great things;
⁴ Who have said, “With our tongue we will prevail;
Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?”
⁵ “Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.”

 ⁶ The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
⁷ You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.
⁸ The wicked strut about on every side
When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.

(Psalm 12, NASB)

Forward-Thinking

What?! How long? Only a measly 9 months left to go. No, no, we're not having another kid ... yet. I'm talking about the national election, and I admit that I'm overjoyed and worried at the same time. Overjoyed at the thought of our union transitioning from one administration to another - if you take my meaning - and simtaneously worried because I don't have enough faith in people to make the right decision. After all, we voted for our current President once, whose to say we won't do it again?

On the one hand, Barack Obama won't have an easy campaign because he can't run on his record. His policies have made him one of the most liberal presidents in United States history, the most noteworthy being his mandating nationalized healthcare. On the other hand, there's the American people, which means anything can happen. Ever since I started paying attention to politics and the national scene I've heard the same message every election: "This is the most important election of your lifetime!" What's worse is that I *think* I agree with this. Bush/Gore ... Bush/Kerry ... Obama/McFail-RINO (I mean, McCain).

This go-round it feels more urgent. What's at stake is more important to me than the ever-present threat of international terrorism. Our current President stands for everything I am opposed to as a Christian man. He generally believes that government can fix any problem and has a right to interfere in all aspects of our lives. Healthcare has been nationalized, which will add to the deficit. While he gives lip-service to marriage, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth by promoting same-sex "marriage" and homosexual super-rights. The cherry on top for me has been the recent attempt to side-step the First Amendment by making us pay for abortion pills via ObamaCare.

To say that I am "outraged" would only be a part of how I feel, but perhaps "worried" would be a better term altogether. I am worried that the government will try to force me to pay for someone else to have an abortion, to murder someone's unborn child. God did a marvelous act of grace in giving to us our nation's founding fathers who had the vision to create our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is the only deterrent that will [hopefully] stop this kind of utter madness. Freedom of Religion means I have the right to practice my religion, and cannot be forced to go against my religious convictions.

But all the Democrats claim they hear from Republicans is: "You want to stop women from having access to all forms of birth-control?!" Anyone else a little annoyed that this is all they can focus on? No one is saying women shouldn't use birth control - although some of us are saying abortion, which is a disguised name for "murder," should be illegal. The real issue is that those of us who believe abortion is murder should not be forced to pay for someone else to commit murder. It really is that simple. Yet it continues to amaze me at how deaf they are to our concerns.

Emily and I prayed tonight that the Lord might grant to our culture repentance from the ungodly direction we're running down. We are running towards utter ruin, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic; it's the truth. Only the living God can do such a work in American society. I pray for the sake of my wife and daughter, my friends, my coworkers, and my acquaintances that God radically shifts American culture back towards godliness.

Forward-thinking is something I've noticed people are lacking today, and not just financial planning. People are so caught up in themselves, after all ... everyone believes he/she is the most important person in the universe. Personal happiness trumps duty, responsibility and morality ... every time. But now, as a father, I fully understand the need to think forward. I want my daughter to grow up in a society she can be proud of - not one that continues to increase in decadence, depravity and sinfulness. I want so bad for her to be safe as a [hopefully] Christian woman who has the freedom to openly serve Christ in this world. The thought of her having to face government persecution because of her [potential future] Christian life breaks my heart.

Now, I'm saying this as a Christian father concerned for his daughter, and for the future of the nation that I love. Roman authorities were the church's first experience which offered centuries of persecution. By God's free grace we don't have similar experiences to that of Roman persecution, but it is my prayer we never get to that point. Al Mohler said in his webcast this week that religious freedom should never be taken for granted. It is not inherently guaranteed in this world, and we should stand firm for our right to practice our Christian faith - and not just at church, but in the public square as well.

Whatever the Lord sees fit to have happen, we know we are required to submit to the governing authorities that rule over us (Romans 13) and trust in the promise that whatever happens to the Christian has been ordained by God as the best thing for him. It is because of God's promise that I may rest easy because my daughter's future has been predetermined by God, as well as the nation's. "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28, NASB).

We Have Experienced An Act of God

How do you let someone know you have something important to tell them? Do you try to preface what you are about to say, or do you jump right into it? As a Christian, husband and a father, I find myself in this very predicament. I have something important to tell you, my reading audience; but I want to be sure to have your full attention because what I have to say today means a lot to me. 

There are sermons, and there are sermons that stick with you. This past Lord’s Day morning, one of our elders preached a sermon that had a profound impact on me and my wife. James preached from Matthew 19:1-6,

When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Having heard Dr. White preach on this text a few times already, I thought I was prepared for what I was about to hear. Little did I know that this would turn out to be my favorite sermon. 
 
James sought to answer the question of why Christians believe marriage is what it is. Early on he directly addressed those ages 12-25, during which my wife and I smiled at each other because we can no longer be included in that age-group =). He spoke to this age-group because according to some polls 70% of their generation believes same-sex marriage is an acceptable form of marriage. Is it any wonder that many are saying it is inevitable that all 50 states will soon legalize same-sex marriage? You know something … unless our youngest generation has a change of heart I would have to agree with that statement. 
 
I don’t want to discount God’s ability to change the culture, or to change the spiritual condition of an entire generation. Without the Lord’s intervention it appears these things are bound to happen. James was not trying to be an alarmist; after all, this is the discussion happening now in our society. 
 
Our culture demands that we embrace the idea that all opinions are equal. But for the Christian this is impossible because we know not all opinions are equal. Oh sure, everyone has a right to his own perspective, but the Christian cannot accept that there is more than one correct view of marriage. God has spoken clearly in His Word about what marriage is, and we need to be ready and willing to give a defense when the opportunity arises. Matthew 19 is a remarkable selection from Scripture because Jesus is asked a ridiculous question and responds with a beautiful defense of what marriage is. 
 
This gem of a question is what prompts the entire discussion: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” Isn’t that lovely? Can we get divorced for any reason at all? Christ’s brilliant response directs the questioner back to the source of truth: the Scriptures. Might I suggest that this should be our approach as well. When we encounter non-Christians on the subject of marriage we should be quick to go to the Scriptures. 
 
Jesus then cites from Genesis 1 and 2, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This was a part of God’s creative design for human beings. He created gender, and it was good. 
 
A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife in marriage. It is worth mentioning, a man does not leave his father and father, or mother and mother. He leaves his father and mother, indicating the truth that from one generation to another marriage remains the same. 
 
Today, the amount of gender confusion is disturbing! We hear stories of parents allowing their young children to undergo sex-change operations because they believe their physical gender is not their true identity. The two genders are equal in value but not equal in identity. Male is not the equivalent of the female gender – but you best be careful because saying this in our society will reward you with accusations of hate speech. How sad it is that our culture fails to recognize men and women are different – equal but not the same. 
 
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Who is it that becomes one flesh in marriage? One man and one woman. This is a divine institution … the first divine institution, in fact. But what we are hearing today is the cry that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they wish! Do they really mean that? Can and should marriage mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, or does it have an inherent meaning derived from the Creator? 
 
Absurd as it sounds, there are men who would marry multiple women, women who would marry multiple men, same-sex marriages, human beings marrying animals, adults marrying children, incestuous marriages, and other variations that I am unable to imagine. Should our approach be, “Well, if that’s how they want to do marriage, that’s fine”? The Christian cannot have this attitude. God is the Creator of human beings, of gender, and of marriage. 
 
Any change from God’s design relating to gender identity or marriage can only bring about disastrous results. We saw what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah … can we expect anything different for America if we continue down this path? 
 
By the goodness of our God we have a breathtaking message to share with this lost and dying world. The Christian who is married has such an opportunity to explain the message of Christ because we have experienced an act of God. As a man who is married to a godly and beautiful woman, I can personally attest to how wonderful it is to experience Christian marriage. Both the man and the woman have differing impacts upon the other, but both are complementary toward one another. I have experienced the tempering affects of a woman upon me – how I spend my time, my outlook on life, making me less selfish, and the desire to be a better man. 
 
This kind of relationship cannot be accomplished with two members of the same sex. Well … why? Because it is like having a relationship with a mirror. A mirror-image of yourself is not a complementary relationship. Can’t a same-sex couple love each other, and shouldn’t they be able to marry? God is the Creator and sustainer of life, so He alone has the right to define what love is and how it is to be expressed. He clearly says in the Bible that men and women were created to marry, and not 2 of the same gender. 
 
Should Christians live and let live, and keep their mouths shut? Consider this: how is it loving to see our friends, family and coworkers living a devastating homosexual lifestyle and not offer to show them the God-designed way to happiness and peace? 
 
James made one final point that I want to pass along: when our society sees Christian couples married for 20 … 30 … 40 years, this is a wonderful testimony of Jesus Christ. It is a living, breathing demonstration of God’s goodness in marriage and ultimately of the saving power of the gospel. My prayer for myself and my wife (grammar alert?) is that we might have marriages as long-lasting as each of our parents, who have set this godly example. 
 
Christians today have opportunities to share the gospel, as we have throughout the ages – today, these opportunities might stem from conversations about the goodness of God in marriage. Always be ready.