Month: March 2018

Book Plunge: Finding The Will Of God, A Pagan Notion?

What do I think of Bruce Waltke’s book published by Eerdmans? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’ve long been questionable of the idea we have today of finding the will of God. I largely consider it part of the me-centered idea of Christianity. In seminary, I remember my roommate and I hearing some missionaries talk about going overseas and having people ask them questions after their lessons along the lines of “How can I hear the voice of God?” No one ever seems to question if this is a normative practice or not.

I was curious to see what Bruce Waltke would have to say about these ideas and especially any ways the pagans tried to do such things. While Waltke does have some good points in his book, it sometimes looked like the idea of a pagan notion was an add-on to get readers. There is a little book about the things pagans did to find the will of the gods, but most of the material is how Christians should make wise decisions.

There is nothing wrong with this, but I would like to have seen more. Still, Waltke does go to the right places. He takes us to Scripture and points out that we need to apply wisdom to our decisions. I find it amazing that so many people think God would give us a timeless book such as Proverbs to encourage us to make wise decisions, but then He would turn around and say, “But hey, forget all of that in the new covenant. I am going to make your decisions for you.”

Waltke is also right that too many Christians have a notion of God hiding something from them and they have to work to discover it. The very premise behind this is that God has an individual will for the life of each and every Christian. Then after that is that this will is something that we are supposed to find out. Then after that comes that if we use certain techniques we will find out what that will is. All of this is highly questionable.

I would have liked to have seen something more also on our emphasis on feelings today as determining the will of God. I recall several church services that had pastors telling me to give as a I felt led when the offering plate went around. Nothing from 2 Corinthians 8-9 is ever said about how God loves a cheerful giver. If anything, many times when the plate is passed around, many of us don’t feel like giving anything. Maybe that’s why so many people don’t and think that they can in the end justify their bad decision by doing what I call “Punting to the Holy Spirit.”

If you’ve never read something like this, Waltke’s book is good, but I think honestly a far greater treatment can be found in a work such as Decision Making and the Will of God. I do still think that this is an area Christians need to really discuss. The modern paradigm seriously needs to be called into question.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 3/17/2018: Rhonda Stoppe

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It takes two to tango in marriage and sometimes, women who marry Prince Charming find out he’s not really all that charming after awhile and is just a royal pain. It’s easy to look and think that all the problem lies with him. Also, it could be that the problem isn’t with him, but you know, you have to change something with yourself in order to be loved.

This isn’t to say that the husband is necessarily a saint. Sometimes, complaints can be true, but what can women do to improve their marriages? What are women doing to undermine their marriages? Are there some lies that a woman is believing about her husband that are undermining her marriage?

Rhonda Stoppe says there are. She’s my guest to talk about her book If My Husband Would Change, I’d Be Happy And Other Myths Wives Believe. Rhonda writes to women to help them see past the lies that they are believing and how defeating these lies can help them live free in their marriages and in Christ. The book also has a note from her husband who is a pastor at the end of each chapter.

So who is she?

According to her bio:

Rhonda Stoppe is the NO REGRETS WOMAN. Rhonda is an evangelist who meets women at the point of their desperation and shows them the way to Christ. I could have listened to Rhonda talk all night is what audiences say at her No Regrets Woman Conference where she helps women break free from the regrets that hold them back––beginning with a genuine relationship with Christ.

For more about Rhonda’s women’s evangelistic conferences watch this promo video

As a pastors’ wife, author, favorite radio guest and speaker with more than 30 years experience Rhonda’s delightfully authentic teaching, grounded in sound doctrine, helps women discover significance and become more influential than they ever dreamed possible. To learn more about Rhonda’s messages and to book her for your next women’s event visit her at:NoRegretsWoman.com

Rhonda’s books (Harvest House Publishers):

-Moms Raising Sons to Be Men

–If My Husband Would Change I’d Be Happy & Myths Wives Believe

–Real Life Romance

–The Marriage Mentor (to release 2018)

Rhonda and I will be talking about marriage and what women need to know about marriage. This is not to say those of us who are men have it all together, but we need to see material geared towards wives and towards husbands as well. Rhonda comes at this as one who has made some of the mistakes and who has a passion for marriages as well as a passion for evangelism.

I hope you’ll be looking forward to the next episode of the Deeper Waters Podcast. I am always striving to bring forward the best material that I can and marriage material is always important to me. Please also continue going on iTunes if you can and leaving behind a positive review of the Deeper Waters Podcast. I love to see them!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

 

Atheists: Please Get The Argument Right

What happens when you misrepresent an argument? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I had an atheist get in touch with a ministry I work for and the conversation was cordial enough. Anyway, he recommended I come to his blog and subscribe and give my thoughts since they wanted to see intelligent theists. I subscribed and yesterday responded to something about blind faith including the Richard Dawkins idea that faith is believing something without evidence.

In the comments section, somehow it came to the cosmological argument, which I had not advanced, and the pointing out of how silly it was. After all, it’s silly to say that everything that exists has a cause. Why is it that God is the exception? The blog owner and another atheist said this and a third showed up to celebrate what a great response it was.

Yes. Absolutely wonderful.

Except, you know, that’s not what the argument is.

I know of no serious defender of the cosmological argument who is a scholar of the field and/or teaches at an institution of higher learning who advances this argument. None of them say “Everything has a cause.” The argument traditionally given is “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”

To say something like this would be like me going to a group I was giving an apologetics lecture to and saying, “Do you want to know how stupid evolution is? Let me give you an example. Evolutionists believe that a fish crawled out of the sea and turned into a puppy dog and that puppy dog gave birth to a lion who gave birth to a human being. Isn’t that stupid?”

It definitely is. The problem is that evolutionists do not present arguments like this. This is not the way evolution is formulated. Keep in mind that this does not mean evolution is true nor does it mean that evolution is false. The atheists misrepresented the Kalam, but that does not mean that the Kalam is an airtight argument that works. The Kalam must still stand on its own two feet.

What it does mean is when dealing with any argument, one must deal with the argument as it is and not as one would like to have it. Do the latter and you can dispatch with any argument. Just turn it into something completely ridiculous and refute that and your work is done.

It’s also quite ironic to have atheists talking about blind faith and yet believing simply whatever is read in a book or on a web site by an atheist without looking to see if the argument is right. Were any theistic philosophers consulted to see if they used this argument? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

This has been going after atheists, but keep in mind this is entirely unacceptable for Christians. We are people who do want to take down our opponents’ arguments and we should, but let’s make sure we are taking down their arguments. There is no victory in making a fake argument and it’s dishonest and an insult to the cause of Christ.

And to atheist readers of this, if you have done this, stop it. Deal with the real argument. When I see the fake argument put forward, I just conclude that you’re an atheist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

No. Suicide is not a joke.

Is killing yourself something to laugh over? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Recently on a Facebook group I’m a part of, an atheist responded to a post a Christian made and at the end said, “Kill yourself. Now.” I’m not saying I agree with the point the Christian made. I could be diametrically opposed. Just because a Christian says something doesn’t mean that I agree. I definitely disagree with the behavior in response.

You see, just last night, a friend got in touch with me wanting us to pray for him and his wife. His stepdad had killed himself that morning. I am married to a woman who has tried three times. Do you know what suicide does to someone? Cyanide and Happiness can have some tasteless comics, but one they had was definitely right.

There are people who when they experience it spend the rest of their lives wondering about it. Could I have done something differently? How did I miss this? Why did they do it exactly? It leaves a wound that is never truly healed this side of eternity.

What makes it worse is this person who made this said that they knew about what suicide does because they once worked a suicide hotline. Well, congratulations! So did Ted Bundy. This actually makes it worse. This means taht you know the damage that suicide does and yet you make a remark about it like that. It’s almost like a police officer saying “Hey. Did you hear the one about the school shooting? It’s a real knee-slapper!”

Suicide hurts people, and too often now we are using this great evil and treating it lightly telling people we don’t even know to kill themselves. Something about internet chats is that you don’t know who is on the other end of the computer. Not only that, you don’t know who all else is watching. Who might go and take what you say seriously? Do they have a problem if they do that? Yes. Does it make it right for you to say it? No.

People die in tragedies and of natural causes and such, but suicide is different. No other kind of death really leaves behind a wound like suicide. If you are someone who makes this kind of joke, you are being morally reprehensible. You do not need to joke about this kind of thing. It is understandable that we joke about hard subjects and such, but telling someone to kill themselves is no laughing matter.

If you see someone doing this, please do not let it slide. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. If you are wrestling with suicide, please understand that it is never the right option. It truly doesn’t end the pain. It just passes it on to everyone else. There is help available. Call a professional and get the help that you need. Also, be willing to reach out to the suicide hotline. You are loved by someone out there, especially God Himself.

Life is sacred. Never ever tell someone to end theirs.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Zealot

What do I think of Reza Aslan’s book published by Random House? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My wife is an anime fan and when we go to the mall, she always wants to stop at the anime store there and see what they have. During a recent visit there, we somehow got started talking with the guy working there and the topic of religion came up. He asked me if I had read Reza Aslan’s Zealot and if so, what were my thoughts on it. I told him that what I had heard wasn’t good, but I would be willing to read it myself.

So I went to the library web site and ordered it. Aslan’s book has a generally good enough writing style to it. A difficulty is all the referencing is in notes in the back instead of properly footnoting or even endnoting what is found. I do want to make some statements about some matters early on in the book.

Aslan starts with his personal testimony (It’s like some people never get the fundamentalism knocked out of them!) and how he became a Christian before abandoning it. On xix he says “The bedrock of evangelical Christianity, at least as it was taught to me, is the unconditional belief that every word of the Bible is God breathed and true, literal, and inerrant.”

I wish I knew who it was who was teaching this stuff to him. The bedrock of evangelical Christianity should be the death, burial, and resurrection of the God-man, the Messiah Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals do place a premium on Inerrancy and too many do so on literalism as well. This is largely an American phenomenon as well.

He also says on the next page that if you have a well-attested, researched, and authoritative argument for a position, someone on the other side has one just as well done critiquing yours. Of course, people on all sides do research well, but this would end up in an epistemological relativism if it was really believed. If this is the case, why should I believe Aslan instead of his opponent?

But I need to get into the meat of the work. For a surprise, much of it was well-researched, although there are a few blunders and such. It’s certainly not on the level of the zaniness of Jesus mythicism. I went through for awhile wondering what all the fuss is about.

Aslan is certainly off on Jesus being a zealot since that movement as he recognizes did not come till later. If all he meant was that Jesus was zealous for God, then He certainly was a zealot and may all Christians be. Unfortunately, Aslan takes one side of God, the side of the Conquest specifically, and then says this is the God Jesus worshipped, completely ignoring other passages in the Old Testament on love and grace.

Aslan’s book as I said starts off fine enough, but the further you go, the more strange it becomes. Aslan never offers an explanation for the rise of the Christian church or tries to explain the resurrection. In many cases, he acts like a naturalist in explaining the text, especially when it comes to miracles. Somehow people have this idea that reasonable people can’t believe in miracles. It is a wonder why this is. They do not contradict science or logic. They actually presuppose both as you must have a working order to recognize the exception.

The main stuff I want to hit on is really in the center of the book. Aslan writes about the Kingdom of God and how it was revolutionary. Indeed it was, but it was not a kingdom that would come by the will of men or by political might. As an orthodox Preterist, I believe the Kingdom of God has been established. Jesus did it by His death and resurrection. I am writing this right now in a location thousands of miles from where Jesus lived and in another language and 2,000 years later. I’d say his message spread well as did His kingdom.

Aslan does not see this as eschatology seems to play no major role in his work. It could be he has a hang-up on the literalism he spoke of earlier and reads passages like Matthew 24 in a literalistic sense instead of seeing them along the lines of Old Testament prophecies that were not to be seen as literal.

This problem shows up again when he gives references to Jesus saying He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Sure, but this is not a literal sword. Jesus knew what His kingdom would do. Jesus was the dividing line. You are either for Him or against Him. That would tear one’s very household apart. The sword is a metaphor.

On 121, Jesus also says the idea of love your neighbor applied only to a fellow Jew. Aslan leaves off interaction with the parable of the Good Samaritan where Jesus specifically addresses the question of who one’s neighbor is and goes with someone completely reprehensible to His fellow Jews. This was so much the case that in the end when Jesus asks who it was who was the neighbor, the lawyer says “The one who showed mercy.” He cannot bring Himself to say, “The Samaritan.”

Aslan also says on 122 that if one thinks Jesus is the begotten Son of God, His being Jewish is immaterial. WOW! Really? I think Jesus is that and His being a Jew is essential. That’s the only way He can be the promised Messiah and in the lineage of David. Jesus has to fulfill the promises of the Old Testament to truly be the revelation of God.

This also explains Aslan’s puzzle that the Kingdom never came in 135. The Kingdom Jesus preached is not what Aslan thinks it was since he is hung up on the literalism. Interestingly, Aslan gives no Scripture references in describing the Kingdom on this page.

Aslan writes about how the Gospel writers wanted to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus moving further and further away from the Romans, yet on 156 he’s quite clear the Romans killed Jesus and this was clear to Luke. Luke also doesn’t present Pilate as a saint in Luke 13.

Some ask why Pilate would seem to be so weak and light on Jesus when he had a reputation for being a cruel leader. Cruel sure, but that doesn’t mean he held execution parties whenever the Jews wanted someone executed. Pilate knew it was just the Jews being jealous and was thinking, “Yeah. Not going to be your person to do your bidding.”

Furthermore, there is debate on when Jesus was crucified, but it could have been around the time of Sejanus who had been executed for treason. He and Pilate had had a close relationship. Pilate could have been walking on thin ice and didn’t want to upset Rome by causing any more riots.

Aslan also makes much out of the trial of Jesus being totally out of sync with how Jewish trials were to be done. At this, most every conservative scholar wants to say, “Duh!” That’s the point. The Jewish courts were breaking laws left and right to get rid of Jesus. Something like this isn’t news if you’ve been reading scholarship.

At 166, I have to wonder if Aslan meant Daniel 9:26 instead of 7:26. On this page, he also says Peter uses Acts 2 to say it’s about Jesus when it’s really about David. Aslan ignores that in the very passage of Acts 2, Peter says it could NOT be talking about David since David was still in his tomb.

On 168-9, Aslan looks at Stephen’s vision of God and says he no longer sees the Messiah, but a God being coming in judgment. Aslan never seems to consider to ask if there was any reason Jesus would be standing instead of sitting which He was supposed to do. Perhaps there is a simple one. That simple one is Stephen is before the Sanhedrin to be judged by them, but when He sees Jesus standing, the standing is because Jesus is pronouncing judgment. The Sanhedrin is putting Stephen on trial, but Jesus has put them on trial and found them wanting for killing the first Christian martyr.

Aslan tries to deal some with the resurrection on 174 saying that obviously a man dying a gruesome death and rising again 3 days later defies all logic, reason, and sense. It does? In what way? The only way is if you rule out ipso facto miracles, but this has not been done. All that has happened is the question has been begged for naturalism. Aslan does admit that people were convinced they had seen the risen Jesus, but He gives no explanation for this.

It’s also clear that Aslan really has it in for Paul and wants nothing to do with him. Aslan doesn’t look at how the church fathers treated Paul and it is bizarre to think that Paul would be able to distort Christianity so badly and yet the people who wrote the Gospels seemed to give messages that according to Aslan would contradict Paul. One wonders what is going on here.

Aslan’s book can be interesting reading, but it is not a theory that has caught on well and for good reason. Aslan has Jesus as a zealot, but then the zealots weren’t really around, and has just begun with what he wanted to find. He also still has a fundamentalism in him found in his introduction that shapes his approach. Scholars long ago abandoned the idea that Jesus was a zealot. Aslan has not brought back the idea enough to have it be considered by scholars again.

A fuller review can be found by my friend David Marshall here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Lessons From Shiro

What can we learn from the little guy in our lives? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Last night we went to our church small group which meets at the house of a pair of vets. Allie sat in a chair with a footstool and one of their cats was just lying on it next to Allie’s Bible. From time to time, some jokes would be made about that, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Growing up, our family pretty much always had a cat. Dogs are okay to me, but I’m the rare guy that’s more in favor of cats. I suppose it’s because cats are less forward and just mind their own business. Allie is more of a dog person who has never been into cats.

Until we found one while looking for a new apartment that wormed its way into her heart. This cat had been abandoned by his previous owners and was just living off of whatever he could find. The tenants were starting to complain and when we came one day, we realized they were going to take him to the pound. We told them we’d take him and we did. He has been ours ever since.

Allie chose the name Shiro for him. Shiro is the Japanese word for white. (It’s a real mystery why she thinks that’s a fitting name isn’t it?) Shiro is a great addition to our family. We can often get a little bit of joy just seeing him throughout the day and everything he does is either silly or pathetic to us, but it doesn’t change our love for him.

Recently we even spoke to a doctor who had recommended a dog for Allie. Allie said we couldn’t because we have a cat who doesn’t like other animals. The doctor said to just get rid of the cat then to which both of us immediately shouted back, “NO!”

Yep. That suggestion was never made again.

I have also told Allie many times before that Shiro can teach us a lot about theology. Of course, there are differences in the relationship between owners and their pets and between God and man, but there are similarities. Let’s look at this.

Of course, cats can do some things for their owners. Growing up, we got our first cat because we lived in a mobile home and we had a problem with mice. Every other cat after that has been good with getting mice, but that hasn’t been the reason. For Allie and I, when we lived in Tennessee, Shiro did manage to take care of a couple of mice for us. We remember one morning waking up at around 5:30 to a “ROWR!” sound. I somehow knew immediately Shiro had killed a mouse and one could picture the gaming voice just saying “Fatality!”

There is also the comfort factor. Many times Allie can especially get a burst of cheer out of seeing Shiro and when she’s depressed, he can help her out greatly. None of that is being denied.

Yet still, we don’t normally get a pet out of need. More often, it’s just because we like them and want to show some affection to them. In the same way, we do not exist because God needs us in any way. We could say that maybe sometimes we bring Him joy, but there is no reason to think that we bring more joy than the Trinity already has in the divine fellowship.

As I sit here also, it’s almost 9 A.M. with my writing. Shiro has a food machine that goes off and feeds him every 12 hours and the first time is at 9. Shiro is sitting in here whining, which he often does relentlessly, begging to be fed. Allie and I always get amazed. We do not leave him to starve. He always gets his food. Still, every morning and evening, it is as if he forgets and thinks he has to remind us, to which he has never had any success. The lesson is never learned.

In the same way, how many times has God provided for us? Romans says He won’t hold back since He already gave us His own Son. You would think we would learn, but no. Just as soon as we have another bit of suffering come in our lives, we’re whining again as if God has never done anything in the past.

The sad thing for us is, we have the rationality to know better.

Maybe we’re the pathetic ones.

There’s also the point that some cats like to be cuddled. Shiro is not one of them. When we pick him up, he whines. It doesn’t stop us, but he’s not a big fan of it. We often say if only he realized we’re not a threat and we just want to show our love for Him.

We often think the love of God is something comfortable. It’s not always. Sometimes it’s painful. Love doesn’t always mean something that feels good. Sometimes love can seem intrusive to us. Sometimes love can stretch us in ways e don’t want. Anyone who thinks having a loving God is all sunshine and roses doesn’t have a clue. God will not always take us where we want to go.

So why do we have Shiro? Love. That’s all it is. We wanted someone in our household who would bring an extra little bit of joy to us. Shiro isn’t a theologian, but he sure has taught a lot about theology. Those who are parents of biological or adopted children I think can understand this even more.

We’re thankful for this little guy in our lives. If you would like to know more about him, we care about him so much we actually made a Facebook page for him. We’re thankful for the special kitty in our lives and we hope you will be thankful for the special ones in your life, pets or not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 3/10/2018: Corey Miller

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Imagine driving around your town checking out area churches one day. You go through and you see all kinds. There’s Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Messianic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Nazarene, etc. You go through your town noticing all these many churches.

You also notice another church. It refers to itself as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is the Mormon church. Well that’s just another denomination isn’t it? Right? It’s just like all the others. It’s still a church and the differences between it and the other churches would be minor. Right?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

On my next episode, I am going to be discussing Mormonism and doing so covering a book that talks about why four different people who are now scholars left Mormonism. Was it just changing denominations? Is it anything like a Methodist becoming a Baptist or a Protestant becoming a Catholic? Could it actually be something more?

One of the main editors of this book will be joining me. It is possible his co-editor Lynn Wilder, who has been on before, could be joining us as well. My guest is one who left Mormonism and went on to study Christianity seriously. He studied it so seriously he is now president and CEO of a Christian apologetics organization. That organization is Ratio Christi which many of you who do college work know about and that person is Corey Miller and the book is Leaving Mormonism.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Corey Miller, PhD, is president and CEO of Ratio Christi: Campus Apologetics Alliance (www.ratiochristi.org). He currently teaches philosophy and comparative religions at Indiana University-Kokomo, and has taught at Purdue U, Multnomah University, and Ecola Bible College. He possesses graduate degrees in biblical studies (Multnomah Biblical Seminary), philosophy of religion and ethics (Biola/Talbot School of Theology), and philosophy (Purdue U), as well as a doctorate in philosophical theology from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He is co-editor of Is Faith in God Reasonable? Debates in Philosophy, Science, and Rhetoric (Routledge, 2014) and co-author of Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed their Minds (Ratio Christi/Kregel, 2017)

So why would Corey and other scholars leave Mormonism? What’s wrong with it? Would it be seen as the same as leaving another denomination? What do Mormons really believe and should a Christian be concerned about going to a Mormon church? What is it that a Christian should say when they encounter someone who is a Mormon or has them come and knock on their door?

Also, on another note, I want you all to know that we have been praying for help with the sound. My former sound guy did a great job, but he had to move on. It is not a problem of bad blood between us. We are still friends and he was very generous to us. Fortunately, I had someone message me out of the blue yesterday volunteering if I ever needed audio help so that position has been filled. Of course, I still encourage you to be listening and please leave a positive review on iTunes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

No Twitchy. I Am Not Celebrating

Would I celebrate a redefinition of marriage because it’s two conservatives? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of you know that politically, I’m a conservative. I would say on that spectrum, I’m somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Normally, Twitchy has been a favorite site to go to to see some of the hilarity that can take place on Twitter. Yesterday was not one of those days. While Allie had an appointment, I was sitting in a waiting room and I get an update. Conservatives celebrate the marriage of two gay conservative men. (And it’s lovely!)

This has to be a parody. Right? I mean, there has to be some joke I’m missing.

No. There wasn’t.

The whole idea was a narrative had been busted. Here were two homosexuals who were conservatives marrying and fellow conservatives were celebrating. See! Conservatives don’t really oppose the redefinition of marriage! We’re celebrating homosexuals marrying!

That’s just ludicrous really. It would be like saying I oppose two atheists getting married, but I will celebrate when two Christians get married. I celebrate marriage the way it is and the way that every culture has seen it since the dawn of history. I do not celebrate an artificial creation of the state.

You see, if you’re a conservative, one of the things you want is limited government. Government is put there largely to help keep evil in check, but if it extends its power too much, it can become the evil. Should we really think that we have the power to redefine marriage to make it be whatever we want it to be?

I mean, there are people who say it’s fine because there are two consenting adults, but if we can make this change, why not the others? Why does it have to be two? Why does it have to be adults? Why does it have to be consent? (And if we get rid of consent, does rape qualify as some kind of marriage?) Now as soon as you say that marriage requires X, then you are saying that marriage is something and that something cannot be changed.

What has happened here is that the state has made an artificial creation and called it marriage. What is the result? For one thing, it changes the rules for everyone else. It means that every other marriage relationship is on par with a union of two men or two women. These relationships give the same benefit to society that a man/woman marriage does, but they don’t. One obvious reason? These relationships can never naturally produce children. They will require heterosexual activity for that.

Furthermore, with this change, the government will be in charge of this and defending this. If the government says it is true and some people resist, then we are in essence enemies of the state. Someone who is wanting to follow their conscience and not serve a homosexual ceremony can be forced into bankruptcy because they could not bring themselves to do what they think is wrong. These people have been happy to serve them on any other occasion and glad to refer them to someone else. It’s already started in America. Why should I think it won’t get worse?

Will we get to a day where someone who says that homosexuality is a sin is brought before the government for a crime? We could even grant the person is wrong for the sake of the argument, but that is their freedom of speech and of religion at that point. Why should we sacrifice that?

I have no doubt that we will get to this day. I know of some liberals who say they want no “tolerance” for the right. It was a great virtue when they were not in the favor of the state, but now that they are getting there, it is becoming less and less of a virtue. We’re getting to the point where someone can be penalized because they didn’t use a gender the person identifies with for that day.

The cry raised up here is that this is a theocracy, but it’s not. It’s simply remaining in line with human tradition for a few thousand years and there is no new major information I know of that has led to any justification for a major change. It also does not mean going and criminalizing homosexual behavior.

So Twitchy, I am not celebrating. I do not want to see the state give more power and infringe upon the freedom of the majority of the people due to a decision to think we have the power to change a metaphysical reality. I will stick with celebrating marriage as it has been seen for thousands of years.

Someone alert me when Twitchy becomes conservative again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Book Plunge: Under The Sheets

What do I think of Kevin Leman’s book published by Revell? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Shortly before my marriage, I got the book Sheet Music by Kevin Leman that someone had recommended to my wife and me. When I meet someone who is getting married, I do recommend they talk to someone about sexual questions and read a good book on the topic because if your information comes from TV and the movies, you’re going to be misled. That having been said, being married doesn’t mean you understand everything entirely and there’s a different dynamic when you go to actually living together as husband and wife and having to learn to relate and sex is a big part of that.

Kevin Leman has written a book for the married couples. This one is in a different format. It’s in a form that’s quite humorous and easy to follow and the chapters are all relatively short. If you want to deal with one topic, just go to that topic.

For instance, is your husband a sex addict, or is he just a guy? Leman in this section also has something on if the wife is the higher drive person in the marriage. (And in the words of Mark Gungor, for you men in this kind of situation, let me speak on behalf of all other men when I say “We hate you.”) The sad reality though is some guys in marriage are addicts and choose to dominate their wives instead of actually loving them.

There are questions also about children and how to deal with temptation. What if it’s even to late and one has moved past the point of temptation? What if one of the persons has had an affair in the marriage or is in danger of having an affair?

Leman also can be quite blunt in a humorous way. If he thinks a guy is being an idiot, he says he would love to have five minutes alone with that guy and straighten him out. Like I said, Leman’s writing style makes the book very approachable and with 25 chapters, you’re bound to find something that you need in here.

Again, this book is also for those who are already married. If you are not yet married, save it and instead go with the book that I recommended. If you are married, this is something that can help men to understand women and women to understand men. We’re both very different and the area of sexuality is one where normally that difference comes up. This is beyond the obvious bodily difference. It’s also in the difference of how we feel about things and the way our bodies respond. One humorous aspect is that when we think about what a woman needs for sex. She needs to feel secure and safe and know she won’t be disturbed and have a deep and emotional connection.

A man needs a place.

Those differences are quite striking.

Leman’s book is a humorous and a serious look at a humorous and a serious topic. I found it to be very enlightening and informative reading. If you’re wanting to work on this area of your marriage, I highly recommend this one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Thoughts On The Greatest Showman

What did I get out of The Greatest Showman? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My wife and I had a Fandango gift card and so we went with another couple from our church to see this movie yesterday. There are no doubt some readers who are more familiar with the history of P.T. Barnum than I am. I cannot comment on if the history in the movie is accurate, so what I’m going to do is to just take the story as is. If we granted the story presented was accurate, what can we get from it? Also, as should be obvious, there are spoilers here. I will tell where spoilers end.

The story starts with Barnum growing up in a poor society and trying to impress a girl who has the rich snobby parents. He writes to her regularly while she’s at finishing school and then shows up at her door to marry her. Her father is sure that she’ll be back where there is money.

Barnum loves his wife, Charity, and their two little girls, but wants to be able to do more for them. He goes with the idea of starting a show where he has wax figures of dead and gruesome figures from the past, but his daughters suggest that he needs something living. Barnum starts by going to find a midget he had seen earlier in the film and from there, gets the oddest and most talented group he can, such as trapeze artists, a dog boy, a man covered in tattoos, the world’s tallest man, the world’s heaviest man, and the bearded lady.

Barnum’s show is a hit with many of the masses, but the critics of society do not like it. Also, there regularly show up people in the community who are angry about the glamorization of the freaks. Barnum’s whole point throughout is encouraging those who society has shamed to rise above. Let themselves be themselves and let people love them not because they are like everyone else, but because they are different.

Barnum gets himself a partner in Phillip Carlyle. After that, he’s invited with his troupe to go see the Queen of England. There, he runs into the star singer Jenny Lind. He offers to take her on tour in America with him, leaving his family and his entourage behind there. On the trip, Lind and he start getting close. Nothing happens until her last performance where she kisses him live on stage where the cameras see it.

Barnum returns where his troupe he gathered around him feels rejected by him and his wife is leaving him because she’s seen the pictures and says he doesn’t love her. He loves himself. There is a fight also between the protesters and Barnum’s troupe and the building where the shows are at burns down. Barnum has hit rock bottom.

It’s at this point he is reminded by that band of misfits that he found that they are why he started this and he remembers what is important. He is able to reunite to his wife and he and Carlyle agree to be partners. They don’t need a building. A tent will do. The show does indeed go on!

END SPOILERS

As my wife and I left, I told her I figured I would blog on this to which she replied there wasn’t anything religious in the film. I told her that that was quite mistaken. Everything is to some extent religious. Christianity has something to say about everything and despite what many skeptics might think, our world has been greatly shaped by Christianity. So what are some things I gleaned from this film?

We could ask what is a human first off. The characters Barnum had were all considered freaks by the protesters and shouldn’t be put on display. But why? We could all understand not wanting to put bad behavior on display, but that’s not what was going on. The people were being rejected because of who they were. They were different. They didn’t fit in.

As someone on the spectrum married to someone on the spectrum, this is something I definitely resonated with. Yet here, Christianity has something else to see. All human beings are valuable because they are in the image of God even if they’re a dog boy or a bearded lady. Everyone is someone who bears the image of God and was made to be loved by Him and by us.

Second, what does it mean to be successful? Barnum wanted more and more, and to an extent that’s understandable, but at times, he lost sight of his family. It as if he got so caught up in providing for his kids that he forgot about his kids. He wanted to provide what would make his wife happy forgetting that she loved him when he had nothing and he is what made her happy. There are many people that can be successes in ministry, but sadly their families are left damaged due to them neglecting their family. Ministry to God does not mean that you neglect your ministry to your family.

Third, we could then ask what is a family and what is friendship. Many of us know about friends that we have that we would consider them family. When I lived with a roommate for awhile, we went to a bookstore and I knew he wanted the apologetics study Bible. I went up to the counter asking if they had it in thinking I would surprise him if I found it for him and got told, “Oh. Your brother was up here already asking for it.”

Biological brother? Not at all, but there is a way that a friend can be closer than a brother. Many have also had families that were less than stellar and they turn to friends to be a surrogate family of sorts. Barnum’s friends managed to come together to form a unity based on their being the rejected misfits of the world. The acceptance they missed with others they found with each other.

This isn’t to say that a family is just any relationship you want. Still, we can have such great friendships that friends will seem like family. If you have a bad family, you can find comfort and support in the good people that you do allow in your life.

Also, I think this movie would not be possible without a Christian worldview that says that each person matters and that something should not be despised for being different. Chesterton said the same about Christianity making childhood something special and so we have Peter Pan. If Christianity is true, everyone has something they can give to the Kingdom.

If you’re wanting to know about how the acting was and such in this, I’m not the one to comment on that. It is a musical and I think the music is great. My wife and I are planning on getting the soundtrack soon. Definitely, this is a film I am glad I went to see and is quite memorable.

In Christ,
Nick Peters