When You Complain Loud Enough

When you complain loud enough you get attention, which is the lesson I learned after reading Science Magazine's August 15th issue. They took a bold step (bold by the world's standards) by including and responding to a complaint about the cover from a July issue. I still remember the cover which featured 3 scantily-clad women. I even remember complaining to a friend about how shocking it was for Science Magazine to use this as their cover photo. It was unclassy, and downright inappropriate. But I missed the point. It wasn't half-naked women; it was transgendered individuals - which is no more appropriate.

The article's message was essentially about the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Jakarta. What became controversial was the decision to use a picture of transgendered sex workers as having a high concentration of the sexually-transmitted disease (STD).

... [Insert much needed wondering HERE] ...

Ummm, yea. You might be wondering what's controversial about using a picture of transgender prostitutes as a group of people with higher HIV/AIDS contraction rates.

Well, one group was not very happy about the picture: the N.O.G.L.S.T.P., or National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals. Rochelle Diamond, the Chair of their Board of Directors, wrote Science Magazine to "register our indignation," and it is all down hill from there. She continues,

The cover, a misguided attempt to pique interest in reading the special section on HIV/AIDS, has provoked many readers, including many members of our organization, to express their dismay at Science's lack of decorum and lack of sensitivity to a much maligned and misunderstood community.

What was the "misguided attempt" that "provoked many readers"? They used a picture of transgendered people - who are prostitutes - to represent the outbreak of HIV/AIDS in the region. Was Science Magazine unfair in choosing this group as an example of those with higher rates of HIV/AIDS? In the odd event that you're confused, I'll give you the correct answer: no, it isn't unfair. Transgender people have sex with more people than straight people; and prostitutes do too - is it sad that I even need to say this out loud?

But the Chairperson continues,

With one inappropriate picture, you have managed to stereotype all transgender women as sex workers and vectors of disease, as well as hyper-sexualize women of color in general.

What's amazing to me is that Ms. Diamond thinks that the cover photo did everything she said it did. There is no rational connection between this picture and communicating that ALL transgender persons have this STD AND are prostitutes. But she doesn't stop there. Someway and somehow she makes a connection with "women of color" as being "hyper-sexualize[d]." Seriously? Seriously?! What is she actually outraged about? First, she's outraged because transgender prostitutes are shown as a more common example of this STD's carriers, but then she's mad that non-white women are being misrepresented? Which group is being misrepresented by the picture, from her view? Did she miss the fact that these aren't women? They are transgender individuals! It's almost comical. It's as if she wants to be mad about as many things as she can, and cram them into a single critical letter.

We press on,

To avoid the kind of hurtful misunderstanding and atmosphere of disrespect that has been generated by this dehumanizing and insensitive decision, NOGLSTP leadership would have been happy to facilitate discussion between science and engineering leaders in the trans community and the editorial staff of Science regarding appropriate content as it relates to transgender sex workers and the struggles they face, of which HIV infection is but one.

This letter was carefully crafted to do one thing, and one thing only: to stop rational thinking. This was not an attempt to promote a meaningful dialogue. Buzz words give their agenda away loud and clear: "hurtful misunderstanding," "atmosphere of disrespect," "dehumanizing," and "insensitive decision." All of these terms were strung together because in today's politically correct society, no one wants to be accused of these things. I mean, who would? The problem is: Science Magazine rightly understood that transgender prostitutes are at a significantly higher risk of contracting AIDS than straight heterosexual couples. That's a fact; a documented fact. Saying this isn't hateful, it isn't disrespectful, it isn't dehumanizing, and it isn't insensitive. Apparently, all of the turmoil that Science Magazine brought about could have been avoided had they consulted members of the N.O.G.L.S.T.P.

Ms. Diamond concludes her article with these words:

This incident should be used as a teachable moment to correct the prejudices of those who are insufficiently familiar with LGBTQ communities and their concerns. ... The LGBTQ communities, including in particular the trans community in this instance, deserve more respect than you have offered. The ethic of science demands that we regard all minds and people equally. Prejudice has no place in our endeavors.

Gotta love the "teachable moment" phrase =). She implies that if people better understand the LGBTQ community they would, by necessity, have a positive view of alternative lifestyles. However, this is not a necessary conclusion, and one that the Christian cannot embrace for the Scripture won't allow us to.

Her discussion of equality and prejudice sounds wonderful. Really, it does. But she doesn't mean it. I seriously doubt she believes the "minds and people" who are opposed to same-sex marriage deserve to have their definition of marriage to be the legal standard. I'm also willing to bet that she isn't favoring the rights of pedophiles or incestuous couples. Yet, she gets a pass to speak about equality, and against prejudice. You know ... *some* prejudice is a good thing. I don't mean the kind of prejudice that is hateful, or looks down on others as though they are less valuable. But I am prejudiced against pedophiles. I believe children ought to be protected from adults who have sexual desires for minors. I am also prejudiced against a grandmother marrying her grandson! Or her granddaughter! Yes, I am prejudiced against some things ... and so is Ms. Diamond - at least, I assume and hope so.

"Prejudice" doesn't have to be an inherently dirty word. Really, the term means to draw a boundary: "any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable."

"Equality" is another term that is far too often tossed out there. No one in the LGBTQ movement wants equality for everyone. They want certain people to have new-found rights to redefine marriage. But they don't want everyone to have these rights. This so-called "equality" isn't genuine.

I won't cite Science Magazine's response, but needless to say they utterly capitulated. They were blindsided by the freight train of poorly constructed pseudo-arguments put forth by the Chairperson of the N.O.G.L.S.T.P. They just didn't see it coming. I don't think anyone did. I certainly didn't! But it is increasingly apparent that many members of the LGBTQ movement are sitting around waiting to be offended, and are more than willing to create a stir whenever anything related to their cause isn't painted in the best possible light. Well you know what, the average lifespan these alternative lifestyles produce is drastically less, and they do contract STD's at a much higher rate. Those aren't facts to be happy about, but they are unfortunate facts of reality.

By now, I've gotten used to being bombarded with stories about LGBTQ in the media, especially about homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." What caught me by surprise was that this time, it somehow forced its way into the scientific arena, an area that I previously assumed had little to do with these subjects. Boy was I wrong. Better run for the hills if you picture transgender prostitutes as representative of STD's!

I know, I know. This isn't a topic that creates warm and fuzzy feelings. But as Christians, this isn't something we can avoid. We simply cannot hide in our churches and pretend our world isn't undergoing a radical cultural and moral shift. We have a duty to the gospel to face the reality that the Great Awakening is in the past, and unless the sovereign Lord performs a great work in our land we will continue on the same path of destruction. Yes, I do believe God can grant our nation repentance. He has that power. I pray for that to happen.

But until (and if) that happens, the people of God must be faithful witnesses of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He rose from the dead, and therefore we have nothing to fear! The worst someone can do to us is strip us of worldly comforts. And the only power they have over us is what we give to them. Our Lord said this: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28, NASB).

As Simple as Possible

"Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler." -- Albert Einstein

I ran across this quote from a book I finished last week, which took me WAY too long to work through: The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space. Time. And the Texture of Reality by theoretical physicist Brian Greene. You may or may not have noticed that I updated my reading list along the side of the blog, and one of the books I'm currently reading is his earlier book The Elegant Universe, which is certainly the book that brought him his fame.

The book is really a build up to the most prominent "Theory of Everything" (ToE) called Superstring Theory (String Theory, for short). Of course, he spent some time talking about Classical Physics, and then the theories from the 20th century: Einstein's theories of relativity (Special and General), and Quantum Mechanics. Generally speaking (pun?), Special and General Relativity are theories about the macroscopic universe ... big things; things larger than the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Alternately, Quantum Mechanics has to do with the atomic and sub-atomic realms ... the world of the very small. These two theories are at odds with one another, and yet both are successful in their respective areas.

Since the mid-19th century, physicists have been able to demonstrate that many of the forces in the universe are actually different sides of the same coin. For example, Faraday demonstrated that electricity and magnetism were different expressions of the electro-magnetic force. Maxwell then took this brilliant idea and expressed them in mathematical formulas, which are among the most famous equations today and known as Maxwell's Equations.

Light, being an electro-magnetic wave moves at the speed of light, which is the speed limit of the universe. Einstein then posed the question: relative to what does light move at approximately 300,000 km/s? Here's what I mean ... let's suppose that a ship was moving at 1/2 of the speed of light and shone a bright flashlight pointing in front of it. Wouldn't the ship's speed add to the inherent speed of light? And therefore, wouldn't the speed of the light coming out from the ship be 1.5 light speed (also the speed capability of the Millenium Falcon)? Surprisingly, and very much at odds with our natural inclinations, Einstein determined that light will always travel at 300,000 km/s relative to everything ... even objects in motion. If we were to measure the speed of the light coming out from the spaceship, we would measure it at the speed of light, and no faster.

Kind of odd, isn't it? The first time I had this question put to me, I honestly thought the answer was going to be that light coming off of objects in motion would add the object's additional speed to the inherent speed of light. That's the beauty of Einstein's theories of relativity: they prove that light is constant for all perspectives and one's state of motion. If you were traveling at 99% of the speed of light and shone a light beam in front of you, you would measure it going at the constant speed of light.

One of the by-products of Einstein's theories is that there was a trade-off in saying that light's speed is constant for all perspectives and all states of relative motion, and what was given up was the idea of space and time as fixed constants. He argued that space and time could warp and bend depending on one's motion, or because of intense gravity. Furthermore, space and time were discovered to be intimately related and were given the name "Space-time" by Einstein. [As a quick side-note, you might be wondering about what space is. If you take all the matter out of space, is it really empty space? Einstein would say no, space is definitely a something. Space can bend, warp, twist, and it is also permeated by the Higgs Field (you might remember the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012), which is believed to give all matter its determined mass. Again, very counter-intuitive!]

Special and General Relativity have worked incredibly well for all things that we can see: things on Earth, in our solar system, and galaxies stemming to the edge of the visible universe. Where Einstein's theories break down is when we come down to the quantum (atomic) level. For the world of the tiny, Quantum Mechanics is the prevailing theory that is able to explain, with remarkable precision, predictions about the nature of fundamental particles. The troubling thing about Quantum Mechanics is that it is confusing. Though you might be able to easily grasp the basic concepts of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics are more challenging.

One of the most important aspects of Quantum Mechanics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that basically states that we cannot know both a particle's position AND velocity. The more we know of one, the less we know of the other. Then there's the fact that all matter has particle and wave aspects to them. And of course, the lack of certainty wouldn't be complete without the recognition that we can't know the precise location of a particle until we observe it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Quantum Mechanics is not about providing certainty. Rather, it seeks to provide probability. Oh yes ... there are some pretty complex formulas and theories to explain these things, such as Schrodinger's Probability Wave Function. One of the conclusions made by Quantum Mechanics is that a particle will function as a wave until we observe it, and then we can discover it's position, and in doing so will sacrifice information about it's velocity.

The big difference between the realm of particles with the macroscopic world in which we see, is that the quantum world behaves so differently. Theorists call this "Quantum Weirdness," which just brings a smile to my face. Confused? Not convinced? You are not alone. In fact, Richard Feynman, one of the most famous Quantum Physicists, made this famous statement: 

 

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." 

 

With regards to the concept of not knowing the location of a particle until you observe it, Einstein said this: 

 

"I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Now onto the good stuff. Superstring Theory is an attempt to unify these two theories to explain all four of the forces in the universe, and objects of any size. This is an impressive goal, one that Einstein spent the last decades of his life pursuing, though he was completely unsuccessful. String Theory has made real progress and is the best contender to create a unified field theory, a so-called Theory of Everything. A ToE doesn't claim to explain literally everything about every field of science or study, but only to unify the known forces in the universe.

String Theory says that just as atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles, there are even more fundamental elements that make up everything: strings. They theorize that what makes a string a sub-atomic particle is its vibration, just like a violin string can play different notes, so can the fundamental building blocks of matter. These strings also help explain another unique aspect of this theory: that there are 10 or 11 dimensions. Where are these extra dimensions? They are very very small, and seemingly invisible with today's instruments. Instead of the three spacial dimensions, and one time dimension, String Theory claims there are 6 or 7 additional spatial dimensions. Most importantly, String Theory removes the difficulties between Relativity and Quantum Physics.

A lot has yet to be proven. For instance, these alleged strings are significantly smaller than our instruments can measure, and perhaps will ever be able to measure. However, someday we might be able to indirectly prove the existence of strings, similar to how they've proven the existence of black holes. This would also help to explain these unseen spatial dimensions. In formulating a unified field theory, they hope to be able to more accurately explain what happens inside of a black hole, or what happened at the beginning of creation (obviously there are some areas I'd disagree on because of the truth of Christianity).

It is an exciting time for the field of science, because even if we aren't able to craft a workable unified field theory ... a Theory of Everything ... at least we can rule out some possibilities. My hope is that we are able to make major headway in conjuring up some workable theory, but either way, it's the journey that excites me and keeps me interested. If Superstring Theory proves to be correct, then it would demonstrate in another beautiful way in which the Lord of all Creation structured the entirety of His universe, using a symphony of strings, each vibrating at His command.

Thanks for reading,
Bainton 

Waiting for a Knock on the Door

The strangest thing happened the other night. A little after seven o'clock I get this phone call from an unknown number, but with the same area code. I decide to take my chances and answer my phone.

Me: "Hello?"

Unknown: "Hi, umm, yes ... can I speak with Rusty [insert my name]?"

Me: "May I ask who's calling?"

Unknown: Someone in the background feeding the caller an answer ... "We're the missionaries with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Me: "Oh, okay. I honestly thought you were a solicitor calling this late at night. What's up?"

Missionary: Again being fed an answer ... "We would like to talk with you about the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Me: "That sounds great. How about tomorrow at one o'clock?"

Missionary: The background missionary feeding a final response ... "Great! What's your address? ... we'll see you then!"

Me: "Looking forward to it!"

I've had some random run-ins with LDS missionaries, but never quite like this. I'll be honest: I was really looking forward to the following day. It had been a couple years since I spoke with Mormons, so I needed to brush up on a few things. I primarily read through the King Follet Discourse - a key sermon by Joseph Smith - and some Biblical texts pertaining to the Trinity.

The next morning, I began arranging my day to accommodate their arrival. Just before 1:00pm I sat down on the living room couch, and re-read some passages before they arrived. The only problem is, they never showed. I actually waited until 1:40pm before officially giving up. And they never did show, or even call. I was a bit disappointed.

My best guess for what happened is that they took the time to look up who I was, and determined that someone with my first and last name, in Gilbert, has had dozens of encounters with Mormon missionaries. In other words, I'm on the so-called "black list" of persons not to talk to. I've been told by more than one pair of LDS missionaries, in my own home, that I'm "not worth their time, because there are many who are ready and willing to convert." In other words, they take proselytizing very much like sales: if someone isn't ready now, move on to the next person. My problem with this approach is that it is entirely unbiblical.

I completely agree that if someone is behaving unreasonably, and proves to be a factious individual, that person would fit the bill for someone you're wasting your time on. We don't want to cast pearls before swine, surely. But in my experience, respectfully and meaningfully disagreeing with Latter-day Saints is all it takes to get branded an "anti-Mormon" and "contentious" individual. The cultic mindset is demonstrated in their unwillingness to read or even to listen to the other side. Of course, they will meet with you all day if you keel over and blindly embrace their message. Be wary though of the moment you ask biblically-based questions that seem to disagree with their views. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the conversation will abruptly end.

After the realization hit me that they were not showing up, I wasn't angry. I felt bad for them. After all, I once was like them: lost and deceived by sin. I'm again reminded of how beautiful the gospel is ... the real gospel that saves sinners. I'm so thankful that the triune Lord of majesty had mercy on a sinner like me, though I was completely unworthy. I can have nothing but compassion for the Latter-day Saints because they are lost sinners, part of a cultic system, where they are actively encouraged to not interact with opposing viewpoints. The saving gospel has the opposite message: know the enemies of the gospel so that you can reach them with the gospel. That's why I have taken the time to study their scriptures and beliefs: to speak their language and to be able to communicate the truths of Christianity to them. 

 

I pray that the God of Peace would have mercy on those two gentlemen, whom I may never meet; that He might save them through the power of the gospel. In the meantime, I'm happy to be a willing instrument to proclaim the good news about Jesus Christ.

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “ How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” (Romans 10:14-15, NASB).

Thanks for the journey,

Rusty

From Grumbling to Thankfulness

Are you a good person? No, really - do you think you are a good person? Every now and again I fall into the trap of believing that I am a good person, or at least that I'm not THAT bad. I mean, come on, compared to THAT guy over there, I look pretty good. Someone might ask: "Alright, smarty pants. How do you define 'good'?" That's the question, isn't it? Does being a good person mean: good compared to others? Or is there some inherent quality that makes someone good?

Questions; questions that need answering.

Isn't it true that one of humanity's greatest faults is our tendency to have a higher view of ourselves than we ought to? I was recently talking with a non-Christian friend about the story of Job and how impressed I was at his attitude towards God in the face of such destruction. Through no fault of his own, the Devil ruined every aspect of Job's life, by taking his family, his wealth, his health ... everything. But through it all, not once did Job curse God. On the contrary, his response is too incredible to not quote: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21, NASB). My friend responded: "I don't think I would or could respond like that." And you know what? I think it is the natural response of humanity to not respond like Job. We wouldn't ... and we couldn't respond like him.

The world tells us that we are the product of random evolutionary processes, being descended from animals. They conclude from this that we are basically good, or at least morally neutral. The idea of being evil is right out of the question. It is easy to understand how they can conclude that God would be unjust in His dealings with Job. After all, what did Job do to deserve this? 

That question, and that line of reasoning, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of a proper view of God and man. There is no other explanation for it. I say this not to point fingers or to judge - in fact, I have pity on my friends who have this perspective.

I've entered the book of Numbers in my Bible study (a book with an unfortunately uninteresting title). What amazes me is how the Israelites continue to grumble and complain against the Lord over and over again. Think with me for a moment. The true and the living God remembered His promise to Abraham and delivered this tribal group from bondage to the Egyptians after 400 years. This deliverance wasn't done nonchalantly, either. Yahweh came to Egypt with miracles not seen before nor since! After ruining Egypt, the Egyptians were begging Moses to take his people out from among them. He then parted the Red Sea to deliver the Israelites from Pharaoh's desire for vengeance! Again, no small event!

God Almighty has delivered His people from bondage and promised to make them into a great nation, because of the promises He made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He appeared as a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night to direct them as they traveled. Then the Lord gives them commands to live by, and Moses meets with the Lord on Mount Sinai to receive these new commands. While Moses was away, the people abandoned the Lord with incredible speed and wicked creativity. They came to Aaron (Moses' brother) and asked him to create an idol for them to worship. Aaron agrees, and gathers their gold and makes them a golden calf. Here is the later interaction between Moses and Aaron:

"21 Then Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you, that you have brought such great sin upon them?” 22 Aaron said, “Do not let the anger of my lord burn; you know the people yourself, that they are prone to evil. 23 For they said to me, ‘Make a god for us who will go before us; for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. ’ 24 I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold, let them tear it off. ’ So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.”" (NASB).

A couple things stood out to me while reading this. First, Aaron's ready acknowledgement that the people are "prone to evil." What a perfect description of humanity in its present fallen state! We are conceived as sinful creatures, sin every day, and invent new ways of doing evil. Second, Aaron's laughable explanation for how this golden idol came into being: "[They gave me the gold], and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf." Uh huh. This honestly reminds me of Adam's reply to God in the garden: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12, NASB). In both accounts, excuses are made all in an attempt to pass off responsibility. They aren't taking their sin seriously.

Reading through Exodus and Numbers are instructive examples of what not to do. Israel rebels and complains ---> and God, being just, must punish sin ---> atonement is made ---> and God has mercy on the people. Over and over and over again. Korah's rebellion is an example that comes to mind. Korah, Dathan and Abiram, along with 250 leaders of the congregation gathered against Moses. These "men of renown" were jealous of Moses' position and threatened he and his brother, Aaron. By the Lord's power, the earth opened up and swallowed Korah alive, along with his household and possessions. Fire consumed the other 250 leaders.

The people nearby were naturally scared and ran for their lives. That doesn't surprise me. What does is the behavior of the entire congregation on the following day: "But on the next day all the congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron, saying, "You are the ones who have caused the death of the Lord's people."" (Numbers, 16:41, NASB). The Lord's wrath was demonstrated in the form of a plague until Moses made atonement for them.

Now, you would think that in light of the many miracles and deliverances of the Lord, the people wouldn't behave like this. They regularly saw his sheer power, and knew what He required of them, but they continued to rebel against His commandments. Even when they saw Korah's household get swallowed whole, and other leaders burned alive with fire, they had the audacity to complain the very next day. I mean, holy cow! (No pun intended). But if we know our Bibles, we know that even if you or I were in the same situation, apart from the grace of God, we would behave in the exact same way.

I find it easy to sit back and chuckle at the foolishness of those Israelites, haughtily thinking to myself that if I saw the regular power of Yahweh that I would offer better obedience. And I would be wrong. In and of ourselves, we utterly lack the ability to do what is pleasing to God, even when His power is clearly seen.

Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus ... the rich man was in a place of torment, but begged Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his family so that they will repent. Here is Abraham's response: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31, NASB). How could this possibly be? It seems logical to believe that a dead man coming back to life, and then warning you to repent, would have an affect! But this is not the case. Man cannot repent by his own power (John 6:44); but rather, this must be granted (2 Timothy 2:25).

There is some obvious application from the Israelites' repeated failures. We should take to heart the commands of God, and believe that He really does care about how we live. Our lives should be a passionate reflection of the Lord's holiness. When we don't understand why God has brought a set of circumstances upon us, we should be careful not to complain against Him - even privately in our hearts! Instead of being a bunch of complainers, we should radiate with thankfulness for what God has done for us. The Israelites had much to be thankful for: out of all the nations, they alone, were chosen to be in a special covenant relationship with the true and the living God. They were promised a bountiful land to inherit, and also were given a sacrificial system to point them towards the coming Messiah.

How much more thankful ought we to be since Christ has already come! God the Son emptied Himself by taking on human flesh, to glorify Himself by delivering His elect people from sin! Above all people, we have the most reason to be overflowing with joy and thanksgiving. This will aid our witness for the gospel, but also will be pleasing to our God. I will close with these beautiful words from the Apostle Paul:

"14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. 17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all. 18 You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me." (Philippians 2:14-18, NASB).

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

The Holiness Code

When most people are deciding on a book of the Bible to study, Leviticus rarely makes the top of anyone's list. In fact, the Old Testament as a whole is considered by many Christians to be irrelevant to Christian life. Oh sure, there are some interesting stories, useful as illustrations for Sunday School: Moses and the burning bush, or David and Goliath. But that's where its usefulness ends - we have the New Testament now; a new and better covenant. After all, didn't Jesus come to fulfill the Old Covenant Law?

I must admit that I'm guilty of thinking like this for a long long time. But why is this incorrect? For starters, the Apostle Paul had this to say about Scripture: 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB).

Have you ever considered that at the time Paul wrote this, he was primarily speaking about the Old Testament Scriptures? I absolutely agree that this envelopes both testaments of Scripture - "All Scripture" - but it is primarily the Old Testament that Paul has in mind. What was it that Timothy should continue to learn (vs. 14) from? From which "sacred writings" (vs. 15) was the Apostle referring to? Answer: the Old Testament Scriptures!

Or how about another passage where the Sadducees try to trap Jesus with this ridiculous example: a train of brothers who die, one after the other, each marrying the first brother's wife. The Pharisees then asked the Lord whose wife she will be in the resurrection? Jesus' response is stunning:

"But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:29-31, NASB).

The Lord's criticism focuses on the Pharisees' lack of understanding of the Scriptures, and hence, the power of God! He goes on to say one of the most amazing things I've ever read in the New Testament: "have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" Christ equates the reading of Scripture ... reading the Old Testament Scriptures ... to that of God speaking to them! What's more, He held them accountable to what was written in the Scriptures!

There is so much that could be said about this passage, but I will have to limit myself for the sake of remaining on topic. What is so often taken for granted is the high view of Scripture held by our Lord! He believes it contains the very words of God, and is the sufficient standard by which we are to live our lives.

I recently finished reading through Leviticus, and was confronted with many things that were a bit ... uncomfortable for someone in our modern, Western culture. God describes the multitude of ways in which He expects to be worshiped, down to the very details of how animals are to be slaughtered and offered as a sacrifice, and what to do with the various parts. Honestly, I find some sections rather grotesque for someone who hasn't grown up on a farm. But reading through this marvelous book of Scripture, you get the sense that Yahweh cares deeply about how He is worshiped, and how His creatures are to live. The true and the living God not only prescribes life for society, but also for individuals by giving universal moral standards.

As you might have cleverly guessed from the title, I spent a lot of time studying the Holiness Code found in Leviticus 18-20. What a rich and beautiful text this is!  It is overflowing with moral clarity, and speaks to issues that all human beings intimately know to be true. I believe that only the God-breathed Scriptures could provide such insight! This section discusses things like: incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, child sacrifice, and mediums and spiritists.  Admittedly, these are not pleasant topics to dwell on, but oh-so important in describing our humanity and what is required of us.

Now, I consider it both a blessing and a curse that when I am reading or listening to someone, I am analyzing what is being said from both sides of an issue. When I read the Holiness Code, in the back of my mind I can hear what the unbeliever might say to try to disprove the Bible. Someone might argue: "What you're saying sounds good and moral, but you aren't being consistent, are you? If you were, you would believe that Leviticus 19:19 is equally applicable for today! And since no one believes wearing mixed fabrics is immoral, how can you honestly say the other listed behaviors are immoral?" Here is the verse just mentioned:

"19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." (NASB)

This isn't new to me; it's an argument I've heard before. But responding to this, and doing so in a God-honoring way that treats the Scripture with accuracy, proved to be a challenge this week. I thought about it. And I thought about it some more. I re-read this section, and discussed it with some friends. How might we respond to this objection? How would you respond to this objection?

I would start by pointing out that the Bible should be taken as a whole, and not cut up into little, isolated chunks. As Christians, we believe all 66 books in the Bible have the same divinely inspired source: the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they have a consistent message. Right away, the Biblically literate believer knows that some commands given to the nation of Israel were abrogated (set aside) due to their fulfillment in Christ, namely, the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant Law.

"Aha! So God's moral laws change! And so does God..." our unbelieving objector might say. The problem with this perspective is that it doesn't allow God the freedom to give certain moral requirements for a specific amount of time, and for a specific purpose. This is precisely why we believe the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law existed: to differentiate the Jews from among the nations, and to function as a shadowy picture of the things to come. Contrary to what the Dispensationalists believe, the Law was not given to provide a works-based salvation, if only they kept God's commandments (as if that were even possible). Rather, they were to point them towards the necessity of a perfect Savior, which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Digging into the text a little bit, both chapters 18 and 20 have statements that make these texts universal. For example:

"‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people." (Leviticus 18:24-29, NASB).

Chapter 20 has another statement similar to this.

The moral requirements discussed throughout chapter 18 are seen to be universal because the Lord is holding the nations accountable for what He is proclaiming here. Even before Leviticus was written, they were guilty of breaking these commands, and it is because of these sins that they would be cast out from the land Israel was to inherit. This means these universal moral requirements were in effect prior to the Pentateuch being written! Is it fair that they be held accountable for a revelation they did not possess in writing? The Apostle Paul taught that God's moral laws are written on the hearts of every man and woman (Romans 2:12-16).

Now let's look at chapter 19, this chapter that is sandwiched by two chapters containing so many universal commands. Why is it placed in-between these two chapters? It seems so ... out of place. Wouldn't it have been better to organize it after all of the universally required laws? That's when it hit me: I was falling into the trap of anachronism by forcing a modern, Western organizational standard onto the text that was completely foreign to the Jewish mindset of the day. What do I mean? I mean that the concept of organizing and categorizing topics, in an encyclopedic format, is a rather modern idea. What's more, to the Jews, all of these laws were moral for them: whether it was about homosexuality, or mixing different kinds of seeds in your field! To stray from God's universal or ceremonial requirements was sinful to them.

But ... but why are they strung together? The short answer is: I don't know, but I believe the Holy Spirit of God has a reason for it. What is clear to me is that there is a strong distinction between the moral laws that all people everywhere are held accountable to, and the ceremonial laws meant to distinguish the Jews and point them towards the then coming Messiah. Surely, when the psalmist wrote, "O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day" (Psalm 119:97, NASB), he understood the clear difference between commands such as honoring your father and mother, and wearing various fabrics. Even considering the additional comments he makes about loving the law later in Psalm 119, he directly mentions moral requirements (vss. 113, 163, 165).

Why did I spend my week agonizing over this section of Scripture? Why do I care about an unbeliever's objection to the inspired Scriptures? I care for two reasons. The first is that I want to have a proper understanding of what God has to say to me. Because if I have a view of Scripture, equal to that of Christ's, then I must believe that both Old and New Testaments exist so that I may be fully equipped to live my Christian life. The second, is so that I can offer a clear defense of my faith when the unbeliever raises questions like what we see above. Real people have asked (and are asking) these questions. I have been asked about this before, and I believe it is only a matter of time until I hear them again.

Given the conversation in our culture, how long do you think it will be until you are asked about the Holiness Code? Wouldn't it be better to have a prepared answer that clearly explains what you believe, and why? The godly model of the Apostles indicates that we ought to be prepared. Peter lays it out clearly for us when he wrote:

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (1 Peter 3:15, NASB).

Amen to that! May the Lord grant to His people the desire to prepare to be faithful witnesses of the one and only way of salvation.